Drugs, Sport and Politics

The overlap between politics and sport usually covers support for major event bids, such as the Olympics and World Cup, and limited discussions of the value of sports sanctions against Zimbabwe under Mugabe or the USSR in 1980. I think there is another one that is in the news, today. Politicians should advocate a move to criminalise the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

The case of Dwain Chambers is a sad one for British athletics. Last night, Chambers completed his comeback with a silver-medal winning performance in the 60m at the World Indoor Championships, having completed his ban for the use of perfomance enhancing drugs, which he both admitted to and apologised for. Sadly, Chambers had also said that he had retired from the sport two years ago. This meant that he was not subjected to the regieme of random and out-of-season testing since that, which means we cannot be sure that he has not relapsed. There is no indication that he has, mind you, only that he has not been held under the same scrutiny as those he is competing against.

I no longer believe that a ban from the sport is enough of a punishment for taking drugs in sport.We too often refer to it as “cheating”, which suggests that the damage to the spirit of sport is the extent of the harm done.

Another important issue is that he acted in a way that not only cheated athletics fans and broke the rules of the game, he also materially damaged those he competed against who were denied prize money along with medals, titles and the sponsorship deals that can come with them. If it is right to imprison perpetrators of other “no harm” crimes, such as fraud and white-collar City crimes, then the same can be said here, too. 

By coincidence, US sprinter, Marion Jones, began her jail sentence, today. She was not imprisoned for taking drugs, but she did at least face a serious term for lying to investigators about using them. It is a start that the UK could learn from, but I believe the offence itself should be enough.

It has also emerged that it may be possible Chambers to challenge the life ban he still faces from the British Olympic Association, which means he cannot represent Britain at the Olympics. The defence that may be used is that the ban limits the ability for Chambers to carry out his trade. Good. He abused the position he was in and forfeited the right he had to practise his trade. Other criminals face lifetime bans for cheating the markets (insider-trading, for example) and the consequences are no less severe here than in finance cases. 

The law should not be changed, retrospectively, to allow for charges to be brought against Chambers. But they should be changed so that charges can be brought against those that come after him. If the UK wants to be sure that the utmost is being done to prevent drug abuse among British sportsmen and against those coming to the country in 2012, then we should ensure that they understand if they cheat and are caught, they will go to prison.

It is the only fair punishment for those that deprive others of what they rightly deserve. 

Heaven or Hell for Tony Blair

There are plenty of email jokes about Tony Blair and co and most are not worth repeating, but I liked this one so I thought I would share it. Apologies to anyone that has seen it before… :0)

—

While on his morning walk, ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair falls over, has a heart attack and dies because the accident and emergency ward at his nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time. So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates.

“Welcome to Heaven,” says Saint Peter, “Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a politician around these parts, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

“No problem, just let me in; I’m a good Christian; I’m a believer,” says the ex-PM.

Tough on Grime, Tough on the Causes of Grime

Gordon Brown has tried hide to shake of the shackles of the Blair era. But has he really moved so far from Tony?

His speech to the Labour conference, yesterday, reminded us that, like Blair, he is a top-class political act. He may not chime with many Tories, but he chimes with enough of the country as a whole, just like Tony.

Some of the reasons for this are not so different either. Gordo’s focus on cleaning hospitals made me think of that most vibrant of Tony’s conference speeches. The variance was not huge and he only just side-stepped,

“Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime!”

Like Tony B, Gordon B also wanted to reach out to Tory and other non-natural Labour voters. He had a nice blue background and managed to pull off that most Blairite of tricks: pleasing both the Gaurdian and the Daily Telegraph at the same time (see their headlines this morning) .

But it was the one thing that I could not stand more than any other about Blair that made me cringe. The Reverend Blair used to continually emote rather than argue. He would assert his moral authority more than present a case based on facts. It was that, more than anything, that led to the British involvement in Iraq. And what of Gordo? He is guided, it seems, by his own ‘moral compass’ above all other instincts. While this sounds like a virtue, it reminds me only of the problems we had with the last chap to say that.

It seems that Gordon’s greatest political trick may just be to have convinced anyone that anything much has changed at all. Maybe the Blair-era has not passed at all.

Garry Kasparov and Geek Cool

In the bus from the airport to the conference venue, several of the other attendees for the EIN event could not understand why I was getting so excited about the chance to meet Garry Kasparov.

Kasparov is an extroadinary man. He excelled at chess, the most intellectual of all games. He was not just the best of his time, he may have been the best of all time and with that deserves to be thought of as one of the greatest minds of all time. But more than that, many people excel to the point where they represent their school, city or country. Kasparov represented humanity. All of it. In a fight against machines, and he won.

To me, Kasparov is cool, ‘geek-cool’ maybe, but certainly cool.

When he retired from chess, he took a role in politics as the leader of the United Civil Front in Russia. He continues to campaign for democracy there. However, some in the audience today criticised his choice of political partners, citing that some are neo-Stalinist. Kasparov pointed out that he and his partners did not agree on many things, not least the importance of a market economy but that there was a bigger issue they agreed on and to which Putin is opposed:

“In Russia, we are not fighting to win an election. We are fighting to have an election.”

He went on to criticise the use of poll evidence that is often used to indicate support for Putin. He pointed out that in a country with a long memory of the KGB, if someone asks whether you support the government, you say yes. After all, you are never sure who else might be listening. Kasparov’s assertion was that the silent majority are very unhappy about the systematic abuses of the state and the destruction of it by a cadre of Putin’s supporters.
Sadly, In the end I think I may have upset the man that at least one speaker from the conference floor referred to as “maestro”.

After he finished speaking today, I asked him whether he worried that as an out-spoken critic of Putin, he might share the fate of Alexander Litvinenko. After all, I had been surprised by the lack of security surrounding Kasparov. His reply?

“Thanks for reminding me.” Sorry, Garry.

Why is Bush not weaker?

Given that so much has been written about the UK party leaders over the last week and how their poll ratings determine their authority, I have been thinking about why the same is not the case in the US. After all, a quick look through the polls on pollingreport.com suggest about 30% of Americans think he is doing OK and more than twice as many, 65%, think he is doing a bad job!

Contrary to many views, the US President is not unlimited in his power. Congress, the Supreme Court and the federal system all conspire, deliberately, to provide boundaries to what the President may do. So, given that Bush Jnr’s popularity is so low, why is he able still to act with such authority in overseas diplomacy?

The answer is that the race to become the next President is more unusual and less able to predict than any other of the last 50 years. The leading Republican candidates are from the North-East, although no one matching that description has one the Presidency in modern times. The Democrats always need to be from the old-South to win and neither of the leaders match that requirement, either. Whatever happens, there will new rules after this election.

One article I read recently pointed out that Iran makes a habit of continually analysing US politics in more depth than any TV pundit as they attempt to foresee the political climate. The Iranians, like the other players in Iraq and beyond, monitor US politics and try and work out whether future expected changes, like who might be the next President, are good or bad for them. This explains why the Iranians are still willing to deal with the Bush administration over Iraq, in line with the deal announced two weeks ago. Like the rest of us, they have no idea of whether what comes next will be worse for them.

The fear of the unknown outweighs Bush’s current weakness.

A Dig at Digby

Sir Digby Jones, like me a graduate of UCL, has (unlike me) become a Labour Minister. The odd thing is that, like me, Digby is widely known amongst his friends to be a Tory.

So why has he taken an oath of office?

The short answer is that he is an ambitious man who wants to be seen to have made a difference. Nothing wrong with that, maybe. He has also managed to do so without entirely abandoning his free-market, Conservative instincts by insisting that he will not take the Labour whip.

The question, remains though, how will this work in practise? The answer appears to be that it will be complicated. Will Digby attempt to answer questions on government policy during the press conferences that will be a key part of his job, all over the world. Similarly, will the businessmen to whom he is trying to promote the UK have faith that his word can be trusted. After all, when he talks about the UK’s commitment to a new market, will people believe that he is really “in the loop” on the the latest intentions.

Time will tell whether this was a deft move or a daft one. If it does not work out for him in the Labour Party, I am sure he would be more at home with the Conservatives.

Technical Difficulty

Apologies, but a little technical difficulty is causing problems with posting. We will review this as soon as possible and resume regular postings when we can. Meanwhile, we will save new posts so that you can still read them when normal service has resumed!

Will the Last Ex-PM Out, Please Turn Off the Lights?

Does anyone have a greater insight into the potential of a Gordon Brown Premiership than Tony Blair?

Can it this be coincidence that his first act after handing over the reins of power will be to leave the country? Perhaps we should all follow his lead.

Is Brown Yellow?

It seems Brown has offered a few Lib-Dems some junior ministerial jobs.

I have previously posted about the merits of Paddy Ashdown. He is a truly exceptional man and someone whose talents are needed in many of the trouble spots of the World. However, I am not sure that the best place for them is in the Cabinet team of Gordon Brown. While I think that Paddy is a great guy, what does this really say about Gordon’s faith in the rest of the candidates he has to chose from among the Labour ranks? Not a lot I would think.

Poll Results: TRG Supporters Favour the Union

In for our May poll, we asked:

Do you support the Union of Scotland with England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The responses were as follows:

• Yes - there should be no changes - 57%
• Yes - but the ties should be loosened into a federal structure - 24%
• No - Scotland should be independent - 19%

That is a pretty clear result. TRG supporters would appear to favour the Union much as it is, today, with over-whelming (81%) support for the Union to continue in some form.

Sadly, we can’t see where voters are from to understand whether that was a major factor in the views expressed.

You Get What You Vote For

A few moments ago, Alex Salmond MSP became First Minister of Scotland at the head of a minority administration.

I suspect this will be just the start of the problems that Labour (in Westminster and Scotland) will now face with the Scottish administration. Sadly, though, it will not just be the Labour party that will feel the pain. The Tories and Lib-Dems must take heed of what is going on there and not let Salmond wreak long-term, irreparable harm as he seeks short-term point scoring opportunities.

At a dinner hosted by the TRG on Monday, Lord Strathclyde (and I hope he does not mind me reporting this) referred to Salmond as the “Ken Livingstone of Scotland”. This is not a bad description. Both are populists with a disregard for many of the conventions of modern politics. Both are also prepared to play fast and loose with the serious issues of tomorrow if they think it will lead to a good headline today.

All political parties in the UK need to set aside the temptation of quick headlines to ensure the long-term preservation of the union.

A Question of Free Choice

Where to draw the line in the balance between freedom of choice and enforcement of one option for the benefit of the majority?

This is an old debate. Two current government policies through, have made me question where I believe that line should be. In principal, like most Tories, I will always favour free choice rather than believing that the state should try and tell me what I should be doing for my own good.

One small detail from the forth coming ban on smoking, for example, makes me very uneasy. I am a non-smoker and am personally looking forward to smoke-free bars from July. However, I would have been satisfied with tougher rules on making smoke-free areas. What I had not realised until recently is that, as the ban extends to all places of work and company-owned cars are deemed places of work, that a person on their own in car will now not be allowed to smoke. Getting round the obvious difficulties of enforcing this, I cannot see that the individual smoker should be deprived of their choice to smoke when they are clearly not disadvantaging anyone else.

On the other hand, there are times when I think the benefits out weigh the gains. One policy that attracts my support in principle, again assumming that the resources are available, is to raise the age of compulsory education from 16 to 18. However, a critical part of making such a policy work must be the availablity of sufficeint choice in the range of courses available. Meaningful practical qualifications and skills training must be options for those not best suited to traditional academic courses.

There should be a simple guiding rule in the application of any deprivation of choice. Is substantially more benefit derived than lost. This is not the case in parts of the clumsy anti-smoking bill. It would be the case in raising the age of compulsory education.

Let us see if the Prime Minister-in-waiting, is brave enough to make the case for such changes.

April Poll Results: Tax Breaks for Married Couples

Last month we asked visitors to this site to vote in response to the following question:

Should we give tax breaks to married couples to encourage marriage?

The responses were as follows:

• Yes - 42%
• No - 58%

The results, then, were fairly close although there was little doubt about the result. I would be interested in anyone commenting on how they would interpret this.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of using the tax system for social manipulation. I prefer to believe that people should be free to do lead their lives as their moral choices dictate. However, there is clear evidence that children that grow up in homes were the parents are married are less likely to commit crime, use drugs and will do better at school. Perhaps governments should, therefore, intervene more through tax to encourage marriage.

Here’s The Money… Oh, No, It’s Not…

In all of the coverage of the Budget over the last 24 hours, it is hard to find something new or different to say. But perhaps there is just one more example of Brown’s shameless attempt to grab a false headline that is worthy of note.

Essentially, Brown announced more money to encourage carbon neutral home building. However, as a friend of mine, who works in renewable energy and is therefore effected by this, has pointed out, the DTI has said that it will not be distributing that money just yet, after all. This is because it does not know how it should be allocated.

Expect that one to end up in the long grass along with the other tax cuts that will not take effect for over a year.

Update: The BBC have now started to report this, too. See here.

Is There Something Different About Gay Couples?

It is fun to watch the cabinet hacking at each other once again, although only as a spectator sport. It must get in the way of effective government, but at least there appears to be a real debate and that is a good thing.

The subject in question is the question of a proposed new anti-discrimination law that will prevent, among other things, gay couples from being discriminated against when going to adoption agencies. The Catholic Church, which through the agencies it manages looks after many of the most desperate cases, has registered a protest and written to members of the Cabinet including Ruth Kelly, who is rumoured to be considering resigning if the law goes through.

So here we have a tricky dilemma: should liberal, post religious values be able to over ride sincere, religious beliefs?

The social liberal in me wants to back the rights of gay couples, but I am not sure that trampling over genuinely held convictions is not an abuse of the same intention. Which ever way around, someones rights will lose out.

While I am unhappy for the state to support any institution that discriminates against anyone who is a member of the society it represents, I am not sure that that should apply to voluntary organisations that supply additional support. If the state was the only provider of adoption services and the Catholic Church stepped in to say that they would take some of the most difficult to place children, we would all be rightfully pleased. So why should be limit their activity now?

But perhaps this is the wrong question. As I said on 18 Doughty Street on Thursday evening, MPs are allowed free votes on matters of conscience. Perhaps the general public should be allowed to do the same. Give the religious groups an exemption in these cases and see if public donations dry up or continue. The state could provide no-exclusion services as it does now. That way, everyone is able to exercise the same freedom of choice in matters of conscience that MPs enjoy and more children will be cared for - surely the most important criteria here.

Update - 29/1/07

The BBC has a story suggesting that David Cameron will back the new law if there is no compromise. I will be interested to see if he allows his backbenchers a free vote on the issue. This seems likely, with David Davis suggesting already that he will vote against the bill.

Ashdown is a Man to Listen To

Paddy Ashdown is not a figure that is widely loved by many Tories, particularly those that find themselves regularly fighting tooth and claw with local Lib Dems.

However, in the area of post-conflicy reconstruction there are few more authoratative figures and his observations deserve to be noted and acted upon. Writing in The Independent yesterday, he makes clear the extent to which the UK-US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are under-scale and under-resourced. He notes the lessons of past situations, such as Kosovo, and highlights the lack of recognition Blair’s government pays to the history of such events.

His key point is the level of resources needed after a major conflict, often more than was needed in the war itself. Most starkly, he points out that:

“In Afghanistan, we have 1/25th the number of troops and 1/50th the amount of aid, per head of population, that we put into Kosovo. There is political short-sightedness: a combination of hubris, nemesis and amnesia.”

If that is an indication of what will be required to render anything close to a satisfactory outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan we must acknowledge this now, but we cannot act alone. Sadly, the situation remains as it ever was: without international support we cannot hope to redeem the situation and there is little to suggest that coming together.

Home Office Divorce

It is only the middle of the week and the idea of splitting the Home Office into two departments, launched by John Reid only on Sunday has already disappeared.

The suspicion is that the idea was a highly cynical ploy to get the story of a No 10 aide being arrested in the cash for honours scandal. Another staffer from No 10 has been questioned for a second time and this does not look good for the government. To play so frivolously with the Home Office when there are real issues there is pathetic and Reid should be ashamed of himself, if that is indeed what happened. He should divorce the Home Office before it divorces him.

For all of this, is it a good idea? It is hard to know. The Home Office is large and seemingly impossible for a series of ministers to manage. It may simply be too big. On the other hand, many of the problems it has seem to stem from one part of it not talking to the other (criminal records, prison releases, etc) and that would hardly be helped splitting it further.

What is clear is that it is in a truly awful state, something radical needs to happen and there are scant few ideas in the public domain.

Tyranny of the Treasury and the BBC

The Treasury’s tentacles are everywhere and they poison much of what they touch with their micro-managed venom. Take the BBC for example.

The BBC has made clear that as the license fee is effectively going to be cut in real terms, further cuts in services and costs will have to take place. This has happened at the insistence of the Treasury who pushed Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell to be much tougher than she thought appropriate.

The BBC’s situation is made worse because the Treasury holds the right to cap the BBC’s level of borrowing so any cut in the license fee has to lead to a cut in services immediately without any ability to borrow when capital costs need to be covered.

As if that was not enough, the BBC is being forced to move large amounts of their production from London to Sale in a political move to shore up support in the Labour heartlands despite the cost of moving, estimated at some £600m, and the increased running costs that will result from adding a further major production site. It is not certain what will happen to the new BBC premises in West London that was designed to meet the corporation’s complete needs for years to come. The government is forcing much of the facilities onto a scrap heap when it had decades of useful life in it. Some of it may be rented out – much will be wasted.

These three points, all insisted on by the Treasury, in spite of experienced voices voicing concern from the BBC, external experts and even other government departments, have combined to ensure that the BBC’s output will lessen, the costs will increase and the license fee payers will get a worse deal than ever. We all have the meddlesome Chancellor to thank for that. He insists he always knows better than everyone else.

What new areas will he find to meddle in once he becomes Prime Minister? It is a frightening prospect.

Storm in an Archived Teacup

Our recording of Macmillan and the press release we put our about it yesterday has caused a bit of a storm on the Conservative Home website with more than twice as many comments in response to their report as any other recent story.

Have a look here and comment yourself if you have a chance!

Will 2007 be an Election Year?

Will there be an election?

My belief is, well, just maybe, yes. I have talked about this with friends and colleagues a great deal recently and I would say I now reckon there is a 50:50 chance of a general election in 2007 assuming Blair will go sometime next year and Brown will become leader. Some of the members of the media I have spoken to have also told me that they have made plans as to who will go where and how the coverage will work. We should all probably be as diligent.

The reasoning goes like this:

1. Brown needs a “victory” of some kind to give him legitimacy before the media takes him apart. Unless he is challenged by a real heavy weight, and there is no sign John Reid or anyone else of that level will do so, Brown’s ascension will look like a coronation and will prevent him ever being able to govern effectively and he knows it. An election win would solve that.
2. Brown wants to govern for as long as possible. 2007 may well represent his best chance to win an election. He knows that on present form David Cameron is getting better week by week. The sooner Brown can beat him, the less threatening Cameron will be. To add further weight to this argument, the Tories are also not as well prepared as the other two parties to fight an election. They have selected fewer candidates and have more internal questions about who those candidates should be. Brown would love to catch them on the hop.
3. There is a honeymoon period for any new leader during which the public want to give them a chance on the basis that “they have only just got the job”. This will only last a few months, at most, and Brown will want to take advantage of it. He can also maximise the effect by coming out with a raft of new policies the moment he assumes office. His pre-budget report looked like an introduction to just such a list of new measures for next year.
4. Brown is right to also think that things are not going to get much better if he waits around. After the initial glow has passed, most of the major policies (Iraq excepted) are not ones he can change dramatically - after all, he helped shape almost all of them. Also, the major faces around him will be the same. Much of the Labour talent pool has already been tried and found wanting. Three months after Brown takes over, the public will not think there is much that has improved. Brown may also have more indicators suggesting the economy will slow from 2008 and will be keen to go to the country before it does and his own record is scrutinised.
5. An early election would also mean a short campaign and Labour does not have the resources for a long one. Their situation will only get worse before it gets better. The Tories meanwhile, have a bigger debt but deeper pockets. For them, the advantage is in a longer campaign where they can out spend Labour.

The question that remains is whether he has the guts to risk a job he has waited for so long. The “no” camp cites his refusal to push Blair when he was weak, but my instinct says he is cautious most of the time except when he has brooded on something and worked up to it. Here is a case in point. If he judges the tide is with him he will jump.

And if there is an election, when will it be?

The two most likely answers are May or October. May would allow the election to be combined with the local and Scottish rounds where Labour is expected to do badly. A general election would help lift that, goes the argument.

My vote is with the autumn though. This would allow Blair to make the most of his martyr complex and absorb the blame for bad May results and in so doing, saving his long-term reputation with the Labour Party (there being no other real chance for him to leave on a high note). Brown would then have the summer recess to dominate the media with his new policies while being unchallenged in the Commons. It would also give time to pull forces out of Iraq, something that could not be done my May, and the only real break with Blair-era policy that the general public will make voting decisions on. Brown could then call the election before the end of his honey moon period and take the stage at a rescheduled Labour Party conference as the victor of an impressive fourth successive term. Or at least, that would be Brown’s version of the script.

And if there is an election, will Brown win?

The Guardian suggests today that the Tories are on 40% to Labour’s 32%. Gordon Brown could be one of the shortest serving Prime Ministers in history.

Meanwhile, I am off to Ladbrokes to see the latest odds.