The coalition and political biodiversity

I miss Matthew Parris.

I always used to read his Times columns but since that paper disappeared behind the paywall last year I have (so far) not succumbed to the temptation to sign up. But listening to him this week on Radio 4's Any Questions gave me a reminder of what I am missing.

I was particularly impressed with something he said about the coalition government with respect to control orders. He explained that he is a card carrying Conservative member and always will be but that on this and related subjects he does not trust his party's own instincts and the fact that Nick Clegg is coming at this from the direction of having been sceptical about them and will come to a judgement based on the facts presented to him is a good thing. He even said that he would trust Clegg's judgement on this basis and go along with whatever he decided. He went on to suggest that this is an excellent example of where the fact that the government is a coalition is a benefit to the country and that its decision making processes are the better for it.

I think Matthew is right. I would not go so far as to say that I personally would defer my own judgement to Clegg on this particular issue, I have my own view, but I certainly think the fact that politicians from two different parties are involved in the decision making process is ultimately a good thing.

I think for me it is a bit like biodiversity. In nature if there are not enough of a range of genes available within the pool of a particular species then eventually it atrophies and ultimately dies. I think that is what can happen with single party government and it certainly happened with the recent Labour administration. But with more than one party in government, the body politic has an infusion of different and in some cases disparate ideas from which the governing programme emerges.

Following this, I may even be tempted to do a month trial of the Times to get a more regular infusion of Mr Parris' disparate ideas!

Another reason why The Times' paywall experiment will fail

I have blogged at length about the future of newspapers and The Times in particular. Now that particular paper in its online form is behind a paywall.

The pricing structure is £1 per day or £2 per week which as I have said before is too expensive. However they are doing an introductory offer of £1 for the first month. Even though I think this whole enterprise is doomed to failure, for £1 for 30 days I thought I would have a pop to experience what life is like on the other side of the wall!

However when I started going through the process I found that in order for me to pay them the following information is mandatory:

E-mail address

Title

First Name

Last Name

Date of Birth

Country

Full address including postcode

And then some check boxes you have to navigate to ensure you don't get a load of marketing bumpf sent through.

I also went to have a look at the information they require to pay for 1 days' access. It is exactly the same. In the end, even at the very reduced price of £1 for a month I didn't bother.

Imagine if you popped down to the newsagents to pick up the Times and before they would let you purchase it you had to fill in a form with all of that personal data listed above. You'd tell them to go and shove it. If they are serious about trying to make this work, they need to come up with an easier way to take payments from people. The fact that they have not done so makes me think they are not serious.

This is yet another reason why The Times' paywall experiment is doomed to failure.

Is Bevanite Ellie really worth two front pages?

Large pictures of Labour Twitterer Ellie Gellard adorn the front pages of both The Times and The Telegraph this morning. I aint linking, you can find them yourself if you must.

Ellie is know on-line for being a ridiculously on-message Labour Twitter user under the guise of @BevaniteEllie (warning, link may contain propaganda). In fact she is so blinkered and partisan that I had to stop following her, and I am pretty tolerant of that sort of thing. I remember one exchange I had with her when I didn't agree with her about something that she told me she felt physically sick.

Anyway, the "story" is that apparently a couple of years ago she thought the time had come for Gordon Brown to stand down. You know, her and probably at least 80% of all Labour members. And she has recently been used to introduce Brown at events. She was there at the manifesto launch yesterday. Oh and she said something beastly about Margaret Thatcher on Twitter at some point.

That's it. Someone hardly anyone has heard of a couple of years ago was a bit pissed off with the Labour leader and said so (along with loads of other Labour members). And she made a slightly off-colour joke about a former PM with whom she clearly has strong ideological differences.

How on Earth will The Times and the Telegraph find the space for all the other Labour members who have done things like this too on their front pages?

Oh, did I mention that Ellie is 21 years old and very pretty too? But of course this can't have had anything to do with the editorial decision to run with a large photo of her on their respective front covers.

Can it?

Stats show Man United get more time added on when they need it

Patrick Kidd has a good piece in The Times today describing Alex Ferguson as a "dyspeptic bully" with reference to how he reacts when his team loses.

Despite getting nearly six minutes of stoppage time in their 1-0 FA Cup 3rd round defeat to Leeds United, a team two divisions below his own team on Sunday, Ferguson was furious and insisted they they should have had more time and the fact that they did not is an "insult to the game".

What an absolute load of rubbish. As an armchair Liverpool fan (and believe me, we have had our fair share of defeats in the last 20 years!) I have seen on countless occasions Ferguson making it abundantly clear he wants the whistle to be blown as soon as injury time starts when his team is ahead. And the exact opposite when he is behind.

So what, you might say. All managers do this, he's just the most high profile.

Except that it has an actual effect. I was going to do some research on this myself but first I tweeted to see if anyone had already done some and @BinaryDad drew my attention to this article from The Guardian last September entitled "Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it".

They analysed the results of every Man United league match at home since the 2006-2007 season and discovered:

On average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.

It seems to be getting worse too:

In 2006-07, for example, United were winning 15 times on entering stoppage time and referees added an average 194.53sec. In the four games when United were not winning there was an average of 217.25sec. The following year the disparity was greater, Opta's figures showing an average 178.29sec added when United were winning and 254.5sec when they were not. Last season it was 187.71sec compared to 258.6sec.

So last season they got almost 38% more stoppage time when they needed it at home. I am sure Ferguson's antics on the touchline must contribute to this.

On Sunday, Alex Ferguson's team lost to the better side on the day. Leeds had more of the possession and within the rules and the ample amount of extra time, they won. He should accept that and stop moaning, after all, this research makes it clear he gets more than his fair share of "luck".

Taking illegal drugs is normal for millions of people in the UK

There was a fascinating article by Melanie Reid in The Times on Monday. It covered the release of a report by Dr Fiona Measham and Dr Karenza Moore, criminologists from Lancaster University which set out to "explore the hidden world of pharmaceutical intoxication in Britain’s bars and night clubs". Here are a few snippets along with my thoughts:

They discovered evidence that almost all Britain’s thousands of clubbers routinely take drugs, in particular cocaine (tried by 83 per cent of people), cannabis (93 per cent) and ecstasy (85 per cent). Eight in ten had taken a drug within the previous month, and nearly two in three of those questioned had taken, or were going to take, drugs on the night they were surveyed.

So in the world of clubbing in which hundreds of thousands of UK citizens indulge every year, taking illegal drugs is normal.

The extent and complexity of drug use that the academics uncovered surprised them. “Everyone knows that it goes on,” says Measham, a senior lecturer in criminology, whose 2001 study Dancing on Drugs was until now the seminal study of recreational drug use. “How else would the clubbers stay awake until 5am, when the club closes? But it’s unspoken.

Not only is it normal, but everyone knows it is and in fact it is obvious if you think about it. Staying up dancing until 5am to repetitive beats is not something that is easy (or even desirable) to do for many without some sort of chemical assistance.

...Here too is highlighted another contradiction: between the growing commercialisation of the night-time economy and the increasing government policy of what Measham calls “the criminalisation of intoxication” without education, advice or treatment services attached. The people who suffer, under the present situation of tacit tolerance of drugs, are the users. “Even if the club owners wanted harm reduction literature in their club, it would acknowledge that there was drug taking on the premises. And they are concerned about being arrested or shut down.”

Last year the owner of the Dance Academy in Plymouth, Manoucehr Bahmanzadeh, and its manager, Tom Costelloe, were found guilty of allowing the venue to be used for the supply of Ecstasy and jailed for nine years and five years respectively. This despite neither man having actually sold drugs on the premises.

So all the talk by governments of pursuing harm reduction and education of the risks alongside criminalisation is highlighted for what it really is. The two policies are incompatible with each other. If you keep drugs criminalised then by definition you are providing a strong disincentive for people wishing to use drugs to seek help and advice and those in a position to be potentially able to provide help, advice and possibly medical assistance will of course be very wary of doing anything that may result in their prosecution and imprisonment.

Clubbers of all ages queue quietly outside the Manchester venue — many, Measham’s evidence would suggest, already “front-loaded” with drugs. Notably, only people who have taken alcohol are behaving obnoxiously. The security on entry is strict but not too strict: Measham and Moore found that in practice only large quantities of drugs — ie, too much for personal use — will be removed from clubbers.

Surprise, surprise! As I have been saying for years, groups of people taking drugs like cannabis or ecstacy are far less of a nuisance to the rest of society than those who are taking alcohol. This snippet also highlights how much of an ass the law is. The security know full well of the extent of drug taking and mainly turn a blind eye to it. Disobedience of a law on such a scale must surely bring the repute of said law into serious question.

What is important, Measham and Moore say, is to draw the distinction between this kind of recreational drug use, and the problem drug use that dominates the political agenda and absorbs its resources. The two groups do not overlap; the dealers are different; and so are the drugs. Clubbers almost never take heroin or crack cocaine, the academics’ surveys show, and they remain in society. The UK’s problem drug users, with a daily dependency on such drugs, may be hugely outnumbered by the recreational drug takers — 150,000 as opposed to four million — but they remain the focus of government policy.

Highlighting that the main focus of drugs policy is on the very small minority of drug users who develop problems, rather than the millions who can manage just fine, holding down careers, families and being good citizens contributing to society in many other ways. Those millions of people are criminalised by the current system and are exposed to potentially dangerous "cut" variants of their drugs of choice as well as lack of access to help and information, all so that the government can appear "tough on drugs".

I am not convinced how "tough" any regime can be considered when the law is largely ignored and considered ridiculous by such large swathes of the government's own population.

As soon as politicians get near power some sort of blinkers in this area of policy descend and they refuse to countenance the blatantly obvious, that the "war on drugs" has manifestly failed. Perhaps this report will help contribute to the existing wealth of evidence against current policy and will help stiffen the spines of those politicians who privately accept this fact but publicly still pretend that the "war" is winnable.

Millions of the government's own citizens are telling them their position is untenable.

W(h)ither democracy?

There is an interesting vignette of what is wrong with our political system in one of The Times leader articles today on public spending:

Labour will not grasp this nettle, having failed to tackle the pension apartheid between the public and private sectors for fear of upsetting the unions. There is a hint, though, that the Conservatives may be preparing to do so. Although the party has not yet published any detailed proposals, and may not do so this side of the election, it is letting it be known that this is an area where it is ready to take action.

So on one of the biggest issues facing us, the Conservatives "may not" publish detailed proposals this side of an election. In which case how the hell are people supposed to make up their minds whether to vote for them, and what sort of mandate will they have even if they win power? And one of the largest circulation newspapers in the country just mentions this in passing in a leader article. Rather than being cause for outrage and insisting they must spell out their plans it's just accepted with a nudge and wink in the lobby that the detail may wait until after the election. In other words, we the public don't get any say.

No wonder people are disillusioned with politics.

Tenants need security of tenure

Matthew Taylor has a thought provoking article in The Times today. He argues that the home ownership ideal that so many Brits aspire to is actually unhealthy for the country and far better would be a balance of about 50% owners and 50% renters.

I agree with Matthew that changing the culture to ensure that renting was a more viable option for people and they did not feel compelled to get on the housing ladder would be better. The problem however can be summed up in three words: "security of tenure". Or indeed lack of it.

I blogged a few months back about how I had been effectively evicted from two of the flats I lived in through no fault of my own. Here are a couple of excerpts from the post:

The worst thing about privately renting in my view is the lack of security of tenure. In two of the places I rented, I was forced to move out on the whim of the landlord. The worst example of this was a lovely flat I lived in where I was very happy. During my time there I got made redundant from my job. Now I work in a highly skilled profession and there was no doubt I would get another decent paying job in a short while (it took me 2 or 3 months in the end - not bad). I wanted everything to be above board and because I would be claiming housing benefit I thought I owed it to the landlord/agency to inform them of this even though I subsequently discovered there was no legal obligation on me to do so. Big mistake. The first thing that happened was the landlord insisted on the next 3 months rent in advance in a lump sum. I could cover this because it amounted to roughly my redundancy payment. However 3 months later the landlord served notice of eviction on me. By this time I had already started my new job at the same salary as I had been on before but they weren't interested. I was out. I loved that flat and would have been very happy to stay there for years, until I had been in a position to buy my own property which was not to happen for another 3 years almost.

I am not an expert on the intricacies of what lie behind the situation around renting in the UK but surely there could be a rebalancing to give a much stronger security of tenure. Some relatives of mine lived in Holland during the 1980s and they still maintain strong links with the country now so I have been over there a number of times over the years. I know people over there find our obsession with purchasing our own homes in this country quite odd. However I knew a woman over there who was in her late 20s with a child and privately rented a beautiful flat with 3 bedrooms in a very nice area and she was paying the equivalent of £150 per month. This was in 1991 so it would obviously be more than that now but the crucial thing for me was when I talked about what her longer term plans were and when she would be looking to buy somewhere. "Why would I want to buy somewhere when I can stay here?" was her response. The situation she was in there of course was that she had security of tenure.

I am afraid unless and until this problem is addressed then private renting will often seem like a staging post until the tenant can buy somewhere.

Matthew Parris is spot on comme d'habitude

The Saturday article by Matthew Parris in The Times today is spot on about Gordon Brown and the situation the government now finds itself in. He compares Mr Brown to one of the deathly sick Soviet leaders limping on, dragging the rest of his party to political oblivion.

From the corner of my eye I see that the Prime Minister has joined his press conference. He is standing at the podium, waving his arms and saying repeatedly “look”. Deathly pale and grinning waxily - that disembodied smile robbed, it almost seems, from another discarded dummy - he is moving and talking with sort of desperate swagger. Across the bottom of my television screen a moving strap conveys breaking news. “Alan Sugar to join Lords.” “Look,” says Mr Brown, “when the fight is on you don't quit...” “Conservatives gain Staffordshire”. “...I've an excellent team...” “Caroline Flint resigns.” “...She's done a very good job... ” “Geoff Hoon resigns.” “...And there's work to be done...” “Margaret Beckett to leave the Government.”

“I don't think anyone can say that Glenys Kinnock hasn't done important work as an MEP,” he says, as if anyone was saying that. “Conservatives gain Derbyshire.” “Ever since I was a boy,” he begins his spiel on Values. “Conservatives gain Nottinghamshire.”

It is a pitiful sight to watch all of this and I am now fearful that we will get another 12 months of it. Like Matthew, I can remember the last period of John Major's premiership but this is much worse.