Author Archives: Prateek Buch

Opinion: The Nutt affair – or, the thin line between evidence and policy

Firstly, a disclaimer: I am a scientist, who is also interested in governance and politics, so the following post may come across as somewhat heated. Apologies, but I do feel that the recent furore over Prof. David Nutt’s sacking as Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) goes right to the heart of why I took up both science and politics as profession and interest respectively.

We begin with Prof. Nutt’s most recent criticism of the government’s drugs policy, which attracted headlines for claiming that alcohol, despite being legal and freely available, was more harmful than the Class A narcotic ecstasy (MDMA). At first sight this may seem like an outlandish statement to make, but the evidence, collated by Prof. Nutt, suggests otherwise; granted, the recent publication from Nutt’s The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) at King’s College London wasn’t peer-reviewed, but the methodologies used to calculate his ‘harm index’ were so, and published in one of the most respected medical journals, The Lancet in 2007 (the full article is behind a paywall, contact me if you want the pdf…). Just to repeat this – using what seems to me to be a robust method, taking into account everything from physical harm to the user to social harms at large, ecstasy does indeed seem to be less dangerous than alcohol, and it’s using this tried and tested method of enquiry that Nutt used to conclude that cannabis should remain a class C drug.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Conference fringe: Defending free speech – keep libel laws out of science

Lib Dem Conference:
On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | LDV Events | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home

With a harsh economic recession continuing to bite, with Westminster politics remaining in the doldrums and with a global climate change summit fast approaching, legal action taken against a science writer may be far down your priority list as party conference season approaches. And yet, the British Chiropractic Association’s attempts to silence Simon Singh’s critical comments reveal fundamental flaws in Britain’s libel law, and threaten to undermine the freedom of expression that insulates us from the very worst consequences of public and private sector failures.

It is in this context that I invite all Lib Dem Voice readers to attend a fringe event I’ve organised at this year’s conference. The event is entitled Defending free speech – keep libel laws out of science, and will take place in the Marriott Highcliff Hotel’s Blandford Syndicate room 3 at 13.00.

We will hear an illustrious panel of speakers discussing how legal threats are being used to suppress scientific debate, and how Britain’s libel laws must be reformed:

Posted in Conference | Tagged , , , , , , , | 28 Comments

A tale of two recessions

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

Dickens may well have been writing about 18th century France, but it’s likely that historians looking back at 2009 would conclude something similar about our current economic predicament.

In the midst of a recession triggered by a financial crisis, the economy at large has been in decline in the UK for five quarters. The knock-on effects of the credit crunch, brought on largely by unsustainable and deregulated banking speculation, have been dire; bail-outs in the billions which, according to Vince Cable’s sage analysis, “privatise profits and nationalise losses“; job …

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Opinion: Forget ‘flipping,’ moats and duck houses – this constitutional crisis is a glorious opportunity

Duck houses, £2,000 televisions, moat cleaning – the additional cost allowance (ACA) has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds and several MPs their jobs, but it just may prove to be the trigger for widespread governmental reform that progressives have long argued for.

Let’s not focus on the minutiae of who claimed what, and think instead of the wider consequences of this crisis. We must recognise that this ugly episode is but a symptom of a more fundamental failure of governance in the UK, and at the same time represents a glorious opportunity to reform an electoral system rotting from its very core.

So while it is a scandal that Sir Peter Viggers claimed over £1,600 for a duck shelter or that Shahid Malik MP rents a house at a fraction of market cost, many within our party and outwith will be quietly pleased that a sub-set of Parliamentarians have presented reformers with a near-perfect storm: public disaffection with a government coupled with visceral anger at the wider political economy.

To put it bluntly, the ‘Malik defence’ (also known as, and I paraphrase, “I didn’t break any [absurdly lax] rules so technically I did nothing wrong”) and the ‘Kirkbride defence’ (aka “it never crossed my mind that I was in the wrong until the press exposed my faux pas”) simply won’t wash. The public is hungry for more, much more.

This is the message that Nick Clegg has so eloquently sets out in his Guardian article laced with both fury at Westminster’s myriad failings and optimism at the transformed political landscape before us. The early debate over a response to the exposure of MPs’ conduct largely revolved around how to stop future abuses of the expenses system, perhaps a whisper or two about a snap election to purge the corrupt and refresh the Commons.

Indeed, David Cameron set out his vision for change this week, in what is rapidly becoming a stirring forum on the future direction of British politics, as part of The Guardian’s New Politics debate. But take a closer look at what Cameron wrote, and note what he missed out – his attempt to cast himself as a great reformer, as the saviour of government at a time of undeniable crisis, falls short of what is required.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 3 Comments

Opinion: Postal Ballot – to save the Post Office we need to revisit the cooperative movement

Saving the local Post Office from closure, and the Royal Mail from privatisation, has long been a serious issue on the campaign trail for traditionalists and progressives alike.

At this time – when private banks have ceased lending to sound customers and many urban and rural areas are excluded altogether from essential public utility services – these causes take on a more acute tone. At the risk of schadenfreude at Labour’s calamitous handling of these essential institutions, let’s examine just how the government’s proposals for the postal service fail to deliver (apologies, I couldn’t help it!).

Hardly anyone would deny that the Royal Mail faces pressure to modernise and to compete with commercial services, and that to keep pace with an ever-changing communications landscape some restructuring is required. The question is how this is best achieved, how to prioritise disparate facets of the service from universal postal coverage to banking and civil services.

According to the accepted Westminster doctrine, established some 15 years ago and remaining today, competition is the key. Ask the Royal Mail to compete for business with private sector providers and its efficiency will increase, the customer will win.

The problem is, private sector providers are able to cherry-pick juicy corporate contracts and profitable speciality deliveries, leaving the public sector to ensure that Mrs. Jones’ birthday card gets from Weston-super-Mare to Wick on time and intact. Not only this, the underfunded Royal Mail has little capacity to invest in modern infrastructure and facilities.

As befits the current administration, their response is to part-privatise the Royal Mail and sell off hundreds of Post Offices, hoping that the private sector will still serve communities whilst turning a handy profit. Unsurprisingly this is not a popular proposal; so much so that as many as 150 Labour MPs are expected to vote against their own party’s policy, risking turmoil for an already beleaguered leadership.

As far as the Conservatives are concerned Labour’s policy doesn’t go far enough, some Tory MPs favouring a complete sell-off; however they may still support a part-privatisation in the knowledge that they can always complete the job themselves in a few months time.

To avoid the embarrassment of relying on Tory votes to pass this reform into law, a desperate Downing Street scramble has unfolded in the last few days, with Compass chair Neal Lawson apparently failing to get the rebel MPs to agree on a not-for-profit model for the Royal Mail along the lines of Network Rail. Without this compromise the government must steel itself for defeat, potentially scuppering the chances of both postal reform and of Gordon Brown lasting until next June as PM.

So what of the Liberal Democrats – how would we do things differently?

Posted in Op-eds, Party policy and consultation | Tagged | 12 Comments

Opinion: Just how free are we?

In print, on television and radio, online, in lecture theatres and in town squares up and down the country, we are seeing a resurgence of an ailing art; public debate is back, and this time it’s polemic. How to recalibrate capitalism in the wake of recession; how to ensure whatever emerges has less impact on the environment; how a lasting peace can be achieved in the Middle East; these issues and more are being pored over with a renewed vigour.

To that end we should be proud to live in a country that leaves us free to express our opinions; free …

Posted in Op-eds | Comments Off
Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists, where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party.

Poll


Categories

Recent Posts