What is Iran up to?

A number of recent reports about Iran - including the replacement of Ali Larijani as its chief nuclear negotiator and that Gordon Brown had promised George Bush support for future air strikes - are being interpreted as signs that the march to military action is well underway.

The western media frequently points out how hard it is to decipher the Byzantine power struggles of Iranian politics. This is because the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has the real final say over Iranian policy, and he's not nearly as disposed to making public pronouncements as the likes of the less powerful president Ahmedinejad.

Larijani, although inevitably in possession of some deeply reactionary, nationalistic views, was at least seen by western diplomats as someone they could do business with, much more so than the clowns that are his successor, Saeed Jalili, and his president.

The Economist sounded an optimistic note last week:

The big question is the state of relations between the president and the Supreme Leader. Does their apparent disagreement, at least over the style of nuclear diplomacy, mean that Mr Khamenei is moving towards a more flexible negotiating position—and may perhaps be more amenable to reform in other spheres too?

This may be too optimistic, as is the idea that more pragmatic conservatives like former president Rafsanjani and reformers like the former president Khatami might form a successful front against hardliners like the current president in next March's parliamentary elections.

As Alex Bigham pointed out recently on Progress Online, reformists lack a clear leadership figure and are prone to being disqualified from standing in elections by hardline administrators. Although conservatives currently appear divided, the prospect of an imminent election often causes them to pull the likes of Larijani and Ahmedinejad to pull together.

Internationally, perhaps none of this matters much anyway. Speaking of clowns, there remain a large number in Washington who simply don't have the political will to seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. In this week's Guardian, Max Hastings refers to a revelation by Barbara Slavin that the Khatami government was rebuffed in offering a 'grand bargain' to the US in 2003.

Would that there were such propitious political circumstances in Tehran today - not that the Bush administration would take any notice. 

Too many abortions?

David Steel is rightly credited with introducing a breakthrough Bill to legalise abortion in 1967 which took away the horror of women dying in backstreet procedures and helped to liberalise attitudes towards sexual freedom and a woman's control over her body. Today he gave a worrying interview to the Guardian in which he suggested that everybody could agree "there were too many abortions" and that women were using abortion as a form of "contraception" - an argument which is made more often by writers in the Daily Mail.

While it could be argued that there are too many "unnecessary" abortions, it's difficult to know what number might constitute an acceptable or expected level of abortion. In the year following the Abortion Act, 55,000 abortions were undertaken. That figure has now risen to 193,700 in 2006, a 4% rise since 2005. A number of sexual health charities have suggested some of the increase could be due to Eastern European migrants. Others have blamed cuts in provision of contraception and sexual health advice for the increase.

What is clear is that there are still too many barriers to early abortion and we should be trying to break them down rather than turning up the moral indignation or putting the blame on women's "irresponsibility". The first barrier, which Lord Steel raised in his speech today to the Global Safe Abortion Conference, is the need for two doctor's signatures to allow an abortion to proceed. There is no reason why one doctor cannot give consent as is the case in all other operations. The only other situation that I know of where the consent of two doctors is required is the compulsory admission of a mentally ill patient to hospital.

The second barrier which should be overcome is the need to prove that not terminating the pregnancy would "involve risk of injury...to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". It is demeaning for women to have to pretend their physical or mental health might be harmed by the continuation of pregnancy, when in fact there may be any number of reasons why giving birth and taking on the responsibility of another human being may not be a good idea. Women should be able to ask for an abortion within the time limit on the basis of their own decision about their best interests.

The third barrier is the number of GPs who feel as though they can appeal to their own moral compass, rather than stick to the guidelines of their profession which requires them to refer women wishing to have an abortion on to those who can give impartial advice and counselling. Stronger guidelines should be issued to GPs about the seriousness of making judgments on the basis of their personal rather than professional opinions, and checks should be made on the provision of advice by GPs by mystery shoppers to see how widespread the problem is.

Another barrier is the lack of access to the morning after pill. An article written by Ellie Levenson described how women have to lie in order to access the pill, and yet arguments to allow women to keep a stock of the pill are batted away on the grounds that it would make women take even more risks with their contraception. The anti-abortion lobby can't have it both ways - if they think there are too many abortions taking place, there has to be greater access to ways of preventing unnecessary abortions in the first place.

And finally we need to stop arguments which suggest that women are using abortion as simply another form of contraception. First, this trivialises what is an incredibly difficult decision, and a medical procedure which can hold risks particularly at the later stages. Second, this assertion could actually lead to women thinking that abortion really is available at the drop of a hat. As many providers will tell you, there aren't any waiting list targets for women waiting for abortions and it can often take a number of weeks to be provided with one. Some women miss the abortion time limit altogether and are faced with an unwanted baby, or a journey to another country with more relaxed rules. Current debates risk forgetting the important steps made forward in the interests of women's health and sexual freedom - we can rage about the viability of unborn babies at 24 weeks, but these questions only affect a small proportion of women every year. Many more face barriers at the start of their pregnancy and that is where the debate really ought to be focused.

Should Gordon meet the Dalai Lama?

It's not often that following a course of action pursued by George Bush is necessarily a wise idea, but the president's meeting last week with the Dalai Lama is one that Gordon Brown should follow.

The prime minister's emphasis on human rights - underlined again today by his Guardian Comment is Free piece on the need for more action against the Burmese junta - has been one of the defining characteristics of his government's early foreign policy.

Brown could show once again his personal commitment to human rights by agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits  London next year. Show your support by signing the petition on the No 10 website.

Who cares about Europe?

The voters of Broughton Astley in Leicestershire, Crigglestone in Yorkshire, and East Stoke in Dorset are, apparently, leading where the rest of the country now wishes to follow.

Each of the three villages have exploited a little-known provision in the 1972 Local Government Act in order to stage their own referenda on the EU Reform Treaty. Support for a nationwide referendum is now running at 73 per cent, according to a recent poll for the BBC's Daily Politics.

But how much do voters really care about Europe? David Cameron is no doubt hoping that his vocal support for a referendum puts him in a win-win situation: just over two-thirds of voters told the Populus/Daily Politics poll that the issue of Europe would be important to them when it came to casting their votes at the next general election. At the same time, the issue allows Cameron to curry favour with those elements of the Eurosceptic media which have hitherto been least impressed by his leadership of the Tory party.

Cameron should, however, beware - and not simply because, as Steve Richards argues in today's Independent, he risks being saddled with a commitment at the next general election to hold a referendum even after parliament has ratified the treaty. Rather, as Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report suggests, Europe may not have the potency which the Populus poll suggests. Wells believes that if voters are asked whether an issue is important or they care about it, they almost invariably say they do. He believes that a more reliable measure of the importance that voters attach to an issue comes about when they are actually pick it out as more important than other issues. Mori's monthly tracker poll, which asks voters, unprompted, to come up with what they believe the most important issue facing the country is, thus provides probably the most reliable source about what's really bothering the public.

By this measure, Europe's salience is somewhat more limited. Mori's September poll, for instance, found that only 4 per cent of voters cited Europe as one of the most important issues facing the country, as against 43 per cent for immigration, 41 per cent for crime, 36 per cent for health and 22 per cent  defence and international terrorism.

That's not to say that political leaders cannot drive issues up the agenda and onto voters' personal list of concerns. Throughout 2000 and 2001, when William Hague's Save the Pound roadshow was hitting the streets, around one in four voters said that Europe was one of the most important issues facing the country. Not, however, an entirely happy experience for the Conservative party or one that David Cameron might want to replicate.

Hard times at the Beeb

Jeff Randall, ex-BBC business editor and now vocal critic of the corporation, got in quite a huff on last night’s Newsnight about the way news and factual programming look set to suffer in the round of cuts at the corporation. Why, asked Randall, should Today and Newsnight (annual budgets of £5m and £8m respectively) suffer cuts while BBC 3 (annual budget: £93m) – whose output includes such treasures as Tittybangbang and Help Me Anthea – I’m Infested - is spared the knife. It’s a bit like Mrs Paxman demanding the Paxman family achieve cost savings by cutting back on tea bags, he argued.

The key question is whether the quality BBC news output will become materially weaker as a result of the cuts. Stephen Glover says in today’s Daily Mail that it is difficult to see how cutting 20 per cent of news jobs could not result in a decline in quality.

However, according to its less than objective rivals, there are signs that BBC news could do with cutting back on a few staff. Sky News political correspondent Glen Oglaza noted on a blog that at the launch of Chris Huhune’s leadership bid the BBC staff present at the event numbered 12, against just three at Sky and ITN respectively. ‘Nuff said,’ concluded Oglaza, clearly with no axe to grind.

Interesting blog

Here's an interesting piece from the former Labour MP for North East Derbyshire, Harry Barnes, on his 'Three score years and ten' blog, entitled 'Seven reasons I'm not a Bennite'.

Some of you might be surprised to read a former member of the Campaign group provide some particularly thoughtful insights on the military interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, which spanned some of his time in parliament.

Making the connections

Last Saturday I attended a huge rally in support of our local hospital. It should have been one of those heart-warming, everybody -pulling -together -for- a -good -cause, occasions. But it didn't turn out that way for me.

There I was, amongst thousands of mainly Tory-voting, middle to upper class people, led by our local MP, Sir Nicholas Soames, who were protesting against A&E and maternity services at the Princess Royal Hospital being transferred from Haywards Heath to Brighton and casting our Labour government  as the villain of the piece.

To add to my discomfort, whereas all the other T-shirts and posters were proclaiming SAVE THE PRH, my placard read SAVE THE PRH, PAY MORE TAX! Needless to say my particular contribution was not well received. Reactions ranged from pitiful, "he must be crazy" smiles to disdainful grimaces. The only positive response was from a Roman Catholic priest, which I have duly weighed in the balance against the thoughts of Richard Dawkins.

But what my lone placard did do was to provoke a very useful discussion about whether it was possible to have hospitals catering for all needs in every locality without sharp rises in the levels of taxation. The real issue, in my opinion.

It occurred to me afterwards, when regaining blessed anonymity in a near-by coffee bar, that here is a tactic that might be adopted more generally in the struggle for a better society.. That is, instead of just joining in demonstrations against hospital, school, or care-home closures (which effectively puts the boot into our own government) Labour activists might be better employed in using these events to make the link between better, universal, public services and the need for more tax revenue, as I did (even if it lays you open to receiving some funny looks!).  After all, consciousness -raising is a vital part of progressive activity and there is no way we are going to meet the enormous public demands of a progressive agenda unless people at large are prepared to make this connection.

 

Provinicial GP or patrician QC?

The ever-excellent John Curtice, in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, says it is mainly the Lib Dems who are suffering as a result of the recent Cameron surge.

But he also argues that this makes a Conservative majority at Labour's expense more likely:

'If the Liberal Democrats are on 23 per cent, as in 2005, Mr Cameron could well need an 11-point lead for a majority. But with the Lib Dems down to 14 per cent, the seven-point lead recorded in the poll could just be enough.'

The inference from much of today's press is that Nick Clegg could be Labour's unlikely saviour.
Perhaps, but didn't most of the Lib Dems' gains in 2005 come in Labour-held  seats?

And what evidence is there that Clegg would be more popular than Campbell? Ming's ratings may be bad, but Clegg is, at the moment, almost completely unheard of. He may be young and he may be good, but  there is no guarantee voters will prefer a Lib Dem leader with the air of a provincial GP to Ming's patrician lawyer.

Profile of a Tory donor

We've just heard the High Court judgment that the Tories won't be able to keep a £8.3m donation from the late Branislav Kostic, a 'drugs mogul'.

The court accepted Mr Kostic's son's argument that his father had been, inter alia,  "deluded", "insane", "not of sound mind", "mentally ill" and "paranoid" when rewriting his will.

While his case should arouse our sympathy, the court was left with little choice given Kostic Snr's description of Margaret Thatcher as "the greatest leader of the free world in history."

Progressive politics cannot be 'fuzzy' politics

Political cross-dressing is occasionally sensible from a tactical perspective but rarely does it make for an effective political strategy. Too many voters just don't see what the real differences are between the two main parties in Britain, we live in the age of fuzzy politics.

As Gordon Brown attempts to set out his 'vision' for the nation he knows that he will need to articulate what differentiates progressive Labour politics from reactionary Conservative politics.

For me there are three main differences:

1. Conservative politics believes that inequality in society is inevitable - progressive Labour politics believes that inequality is repugnant to a modern, civilised society.

2. Conservative politics believes in that most government 'intervention' is futile, be it in the markets or in the realm social policy. Progressive Labour politics believes that there is both strength and virtue in collective endeavour, that government really can make a difference in helping improve the quality of life for all.

3. Conservative politics seeks to entrench privilege and limit opportunity, it is about maintenance and not improvement. Progressive Labour politics recognises that to live is to change, that reform is often necessary to help re-affirm or re-assess strongly held values and beliefs for a modern setting.

Over the coming weeks and months Gordon Brown will need to share his 'vision' for Britain and offer the electorate a real choice come the next election. Yes, the centre ground is where elections are won and lost, but we should remember that in politics the centre ground covers a very wide area.

Hooray for ya-boo politics

A popular explanation for the public's lack of interest in politics is that ‘ordinary people’ are turned off by the kind of adversarial, ya-boo politics on display at yesterday’s PMQs.

Roy Hattersley argued as much on last night’s Newsnight, saying something along the lines that ordinary folk outside the Westminster village don’t connect with Punch and Judy politics, caring more about which party can deliver the best schools and hospitals than which leader scored the most points at PMQs.

In today’s Independent, Adrian Hamilton spots a weakness in the argument that ‘if only politicians would concentrate on policies and what affected the ordinary individual…people would return to the fray.’

‘Would that it were true,’ he says. ‘The loss of interest has come not at a time of extreme factionalism but with the lack of politics associated with Labour's huge majorities in the Commons. Without the air of a real, down-and-dirty struggle for power, politics has seemed boring and irrelevant.’

Hamilton likens politics to sport: once people sense a real contest they suddenly take interest. ‘When everyone thought that Gordon Brown had it in the bag, the voters lost interest in the opposition,’ he says. ‘What turned it around was…the sense that the Tories were back in the race, with ideas, with a common touch but above all with the hunger to win.’

The idea that Commons debates should become less ya-boo and more polite and consensual, risks turning them into dull, procedural affairs, akin to a debate in the Welsh Assembly or European Parliament. Now that really would switch voters off.

Making a mockery of the Reith tradition

I don't know how many of you watch Mock the Week. I'm not a fan myself but last July I came across this BBC TWO satirical comedy show whilst idly flicking through the channels.

My attention was caught by one of the comedians involved making a "humorous"remark about Gordon Brown being blind in one eye.This was followed by similar contributions from the other panellists about the blindness of David Blunkett, the tinnitus of Jack Straw, and the height of Hazel Blears. All to uproarious laughter from the studio audience.

Now I can enjoy a joke with the best of them but I must admit that the whole thing left me with a very nasty taste in my mouth. In fact I was so incensed that I immediatly reached for the phone to put in a complaint to the BBC.

Since the answer I received was so inane I decided to go to the next step in the complaints procedure with a letter to the Editorial Complaints Unit. Here is an extract fom that letter.

" The BBC Information team confirmed that the programme had been editorially vetted before transmission so we must assume that the BBC considers that such jokes are acceptable. The justification was that no offence was intended and what some find offensive the vast majority will find hilarious. No doubt the Romans would have said the same thing about the humiliation of their slaves for public entertainment.

The question of whether offence was intended is a red herring. This is a matter of taste and civilised standards which the old BBC from Reith onwards used  to uphold. Whilst accepting that the concept of taste changes over time, especially regarding matters of sexuality, I think there is a huge difference between schoolboy smut appealing to an adult audience (is that a contradiction in terms?) and nasty remarks making fun of disabilities and physical appearances, however light-hearted the delivery. Or can we take it that such considerations no longer concern the BBC?"

And this is how the Editorial Complaints Unit responded to these points.

" When we spoke to the Executive Editor for comedy, Suzanne Gilfillian, she told us that having discussed the piece with the BBC's editorial policy advisers before transmission she had felt it was defensible, primarily because the subjects of the material were Government ministers and people in the news. She told us " the role of the show is to Mock the Week and especially those in positions of authority. The facts are that Gordon Brown and David Blunkett are visually impaired. The joke would not have been relevant, nor indeed acceptable, had it not been made in this context "....I don't feel there are grounds for upholding your complaint".

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Considerations of taste and maintaining civilised standards do not now concern the BBC where the target is government ministers and those in the public eye. Gordon Brown and David Blunkett are visually impaired so they are fair game for being made fun of on this basis. Does it matter?  It matters to me. How about you?

Here is a transcript of what was said in the show to help you make up your mind.

Andy Parsons: He does look pretty uncomfortable doesn't he, Gordon Brown And I think that's because not a lot of people know , he's actually blind in one of his eyes. And I think so as people do know that he should wear a little patch, cos nobody would muck with Britain then would they - if we were run by a pirate. The trouble is he wouldn't be some sort of swashbuckling sort of Jack Sparrow thing would he. He'd look more, with a patch, he'd look more like a bear from Children in Need. We'd have the Right Honourable Pudsey running the country.

Michael MacIntyre: Does that mean there would've been meetings  between Blair, Brown and Blunkett and only three good eyes in that room? Blair could've run in in the blind spot while they were chatting. And Brown could be going "I can't wat for him to go. I've never liked him. I'm going to overthrow him". And he's like "Suprise! I was here all along, you didn't see me".

Hugh Dennis: But the other thing about that cabinet is that Jack Straw has tinnatus, so he can't hear anything. He's just got a constant buzzing in his head. So it's  a blind man , a half-blind man and a man with tinnatus.

Frankie Boyle: It's like the Wizard of Oz or something.

Russell Howard: They should all join forces like Optimus Prime did to create his one true self - all sort of  jump into each other.

Jan Ravens: Hazel Blears is a munchkin isn't she? Hazel Blears is only about so high (squats in her chair). Hazel Blears makes all her speeches from down there doesn't she. It's like, it's pint sized Hazel Blears.

Dara O'Briain: It's like she's pint sized and she's really small and he only has one eye so therefore no depth perception...he must think she's a long way away all the time.

PS   If my gripe is a generational thing all I can say is God help us!

Whose advantage now?

Several tonnes of newsprint have been expended on the political developments of the past couple of weeks.  Brown's bounce(s), an unexpectedly united Tory conference, the resultant tax proposals which cast the Tory press into its current frenzy, and finally the weekend's announcement that there will be no autumn election.

So last night, the first day of the new parliamentary term, was a great time for a Progress seminar on 'Brown's first 100 days: Advantage Labour?'

Mary Ann Sieghart seemed certain the events of the last week meant the answer was now 'hardly'. Brown's good start had always contained a contradiction - either his new, smily, inclusive persona or his previous, factional, dour one was a lie. Cameron and Osborne's well-received performances last week had exposed all that. Cameron's risky, 'unscripted' speech showed it was he who was the courageous one.

But doesn't all this seem like Cameroonian polemic, given the hard psephological facts? Julia Clark of Ipsos-MORI argued that Brown probably would have won an early election. But voters are clearly in a volatile mood, she said, what with a raft of new policies to digest. How decisive will Osborne's inheritance tax proposals really be? Tax only ranked midway up voters' priorities, way behind health and crime.

Peter Hain did admit the Tories had gained some traction with some 'clever wheezes' on tax. Inheritance tax was an issue in the south and even in his native south Wales, but the Tories' plans simply didn't add up. Their plans on incapacity benefit were inhumane. Last week's 'bad week' for Labour didn't wipe out the past three months, he argued.

Giles Radice concurred, describing it as 'absurd' to say that things were suddenly irretrievable for Brown. Things were 'never that clear-cut in real life'. Brown needed to recapture some of the magic of the first three months, where he dealt seriously with real crises and real issues, rather than invented a new persona.

What do you think?

Tom Brooks Pollock.

That photo.

The hysterical response of the Tories to a computer-adjusted picture demonstrates how desperate they are for a smear story to turn the polls in their favour.

Even if the facts were as alleged and our Jamie had actually agreed to the photo being altered, would this have been such an awful offence? The photoshoot was done to show the support of those present for the new hospital. The insertion of Mr Purnell's image after the photo had been taken was quite immaterial in this connection.

There would indeed have been cause for censure if James had not bothered to turn up at the event. But he did make the effort, albeit twenty minutes late, and I can well understand the practical photographic reasons for recording his presence in the way that was done.

Context is everything in incidents of this sort. The so-called "fakery" did not involve misrepresenting anyone, as the BBC trailer for the documentary about the Queen did. Nor did it involve the kind of breaches of trust perpetrated by the BBC and ITV in respect of their phone-in audiences. It was done simply to rectify the consequences of a heavy ministerial schedule. Maladroit? Yes. Something approaching a resignation matter? Come off it!