Shane Greer

Recently I argued that David Miliband was posturing for the leadership of the Labour Party.  Interestingly Guido has drawn attention to something said by Miliband on Wednesday’s Newsnight:

Paxman: "How much longer can you resist these calls for you to take on the burden of leadership?"
Milibland : "For as long as it takes until Gordon Brown calls the next general election. Gordon was the right leader last year and he is the right leader this year, and to take us into the general election." 

Sounds a lot like Miliband’s nailed his flag to the mask. 

The tragic story of thirteen year old Sam Harris who was left with serious injury after an accident on a bouncy castle at a friend’s birthday party is something sure to make any parent pause for thought.  Growing up I never really gave the act of going to a friend’s house much thought, except of course to the extent that I was excited by the prospect of what we’d get up to. 

But unspoken or not the decision of my parents to allow me to stay at X or Y’s house cannot have been a light one.  In agreeing to let me stay at a friends house they were placing their trust in me to act sensibly and perhaps more importantly in my friends’ parents to act with due diligence in the discharge of their quasi-parental role. 

When I think of some of the things I used to get up to (like jumping from the garden fence to my best friend’s roof) it’s amazing none of us ever ended up with a serious injury or worse.  But what if we had been injured, what if I’d slip and fallen 15 foot onto the concrete floor?  Would my parents have sued my best friend’s parents?  Would they have been right to sue them? 

I honestly don’t believe for a second they would have sued, but more importantly I don’t think they would have been right to sue.  There’s a clear difference between actively placing an individual in danger and being negligent as to an individual’s safety.  But when children become involved though what parent can honestly say they’ve provided sufficient supervision to their children at all times?  And what is sufficient supervision exactly? 

The parents of Sam Harris have suffered and continue to suffer from a tragedy no person would wish upon a parent.  But children are children and accidents sadly do happen.  Sadly a ruling such as that which awarded £1m to Sam’s parents will only serve to further embed the idea that when it comes to activities for children the potential for liability should be avoided at all costs.  The effect of this idea can already be seen in the decline in school trips and the lack of people volunteering to be Scout leaders etc, but with this new ruling we can add to the mix a decline in the number of parents willing to host birthday parties and, to take it to its logical conclusion, a decline in the number of parents willing to have other people’s children over on a Saturday afternoon. 

In attempting to protect children the State has in this decision failed utterly to consider the potential knock-on effects of its decision.  One can only hope the case goes to appeal and that reason will prevail. 

In my second post on the Centre for Policy Studies I discuss the latest YouGov poll and the importance of perception over reality (especially if you’re a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party).  Here’s an extract:

"… amongst friends of course the belleagered members of the PLP will dismiss the results with forced confidence: “it’s anything-you-want-gov, it doesn’t mean anything”. But hehind closed doors they will consider the possibility that this poll isn’t an anomally, that like the mayoral poll it acts as a portent of disaster about to befall Labour, the chime of a political knell. Even those MPs who have the strength of character to stare YouGov’s poll in the face and convince themselves it’s further off the mark than Gordon Brown’s political judgement when he decided not to attend Gwyneth Dunwoody’s funeral will find it difficult not to contemplate the distinct possibility that even if the poll is an anomally it nevertheless demonstrates a fundamental change in the country’s mood; a change of mood that means one very simple thing – job hunting will be very much on their to-do list in two years time…" 

You can read the whole piece here. 

Reclassifying cannabis from C to B might sound like a great idea, and to listen to Jacqui Smith you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s a superb idea; after all she is “unwilling to risk the future health of young people”.

But let’s be frank, reclassifying cannabis will do nothing but soothe the worries of a moral minority, whilst completely failing to make cannabis users think twice about their actions.

For a start under-18s won’t be treated any more harshly under the new classification (apparently Jacqui isn’t that concerned about the health of young people), and let’s not forget that it’s at that age, before they reach maturity, when many people start down the path to habitual use.

If Brown’s Labour were serious about listening perhaps they would have listened to Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who told them changing the classification would not produce the desired result…
——————

My computer has spent the day upgrading to Vista Ultimate. As a result there’s been a distinct lack of blogging… until now - behold the power of the Blackberry!
——————

Ben Brogan has drawn attention to Alastair Campbell’s appearance on Daily Politics earlier during which he said:

"The Labour party have had one unelected Prime Minister come in and I think to start playing around with two is not a very clever way to go"

Brogan contends that Campbell was trying to be helpful, but that his choice of words was more likely to add to Brown’s woes.  I wonder though…

Alastair Campbell is best known for his genius in the field of political communication; a man who uses words like weapons in the war to seize the political agenda.  As such it would be surprising indeed if his words were not uttered with a purpose in mind.  And given the context in which the statement was offered it would be particularly surprising if the purpose in mind was not to undermine Brown. 

In an aside it’s worth noting that Campbell’s appearance on Daily Politics breaks something of a media black-out (a black-out Campbell’s publicist intended to keep in place until his novel is published later this year).  I wonder what provoked him to step into the light…

Madame Tussauds has launched its own election to determine whether Gordon Brown should be immortalised like his predecessor.  Their reason for not casting Brown in wax already is quite simple:

"When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair last year, for the first time in a 150 year history, Madame Tussauds took the decision not to immediately create a figure of the current Prime Minister.

Instead we chose to wait for a General Election to confirm Gordon Brown’s status. Ten months later there is still no sign that Mr Brown intends to go to the polls – so Madame Tussauds is holding its own election to let YOU decide the question: Gordon Brown – in or out?"

‘Confirming Gordon Brown’s status’… hmm, it sounds an awful lot like Madame Tussauds have reservations about the merits of Brown’s leadership (I wonder why that might be!?):

I know what way I’ll be voting.  To keep Brown out of Madame Tussauds click here. 

After 13 years at Talksport James Whales had his contract terminated for urging listeners to vote for Boris in the mayoral elections.  Given the current state of the law it would naturally be wrong to criticise Talksport for their decision to fire Whales.  But the fact they felt compelled to take such action speaks volumes about the extent to which the regulation of broadcast media inhibits free speech. 

When I get into the office in the morning I read through the papers; Sun, Times, Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Mail.  What they all share in common is the freedom with which they express political bias - there’s no restriction on their ability to urge readers to vote for candidate X or Y (indeed the Evening Standard made no bones about their candidate of choice in the mayoral election). 

I’ve never understood the logic of the broadcast media restrictions; are viewers less able to make intelligent decisions than readers?  Am I more likely to be swayed by Sky News than the Times?  No and No. 

Perhaps it’s time the law reflected reality…

Blogging’s been a touch light non-existent today as I’ve been out at Camden Markets visiting, amongst other things, one of the coolest shops in London (Cyber Dog).  Anyway, now that I’m back and have had a chance to read the news I thought I’d chip in on the latest entrant to be the next MP for Crewe and Nantwich, Miss Great Britain. 

Gemma Garrett, the current title holder, has launched her bid in an attempt to get another round of press coverage:

"…make Westminster as glamorous a place as its fellow European legislatures, where beautiful women abound in the higher echelons of government."

Whatever you think about Gemma’s run for parliament, and having met her at Radio 5 a while back I’d add that she’s pretty savvy, it’s important to bear in mind that her bid is if nothing else a profound statement about the pluralist liberal democracy we enjoy. 

It’s easy to forget that the, relatively, civil manner in which we choose our representatives isn’t the norm.  We enjoy a system that affords people the freedom to form parties - whether it’s Gemma’s Beauties for Britain party, the Monster Raving Looney party, the Conservatives, or Labour - and stand for office.  We enjoy a system where close run battles are settled by recounts rather than bloodshed. 

Gemma won’t win in Crewe and Nantwich, but the fact she’s standing at all serves to remind us that we have won perhaps the greatest battle of all; the battle for freedom. 

Let’s hope we never forget it…

I’ll be co-hosting a live-chat with Iain Dale between 6 and 7.30pm today.  So if you have a few minutes or a full hour and a half pop across to Iain’s and join us.  We’ll be discussing Gordon Brown’s live interviews on Andrew Marr and Adam Boulton earlier today, as well has the coverage in the Sunday papers