Hug A Hoodie

Legal fees scandal

2009-12-18T09:54:00.000Z

Personal injury lawyers are under fire today. The Tories have asked some well-aimed parliamentary questions, and discovered that the NHS is paying out a staggering amount of money to meet victims' legal fees in clinical negligence cases. In over 10% of successful claims against the NHS, the lawyers receive more money than the patient, with NHS legal costs adding up to £700m over the past five years.

It's easy to blame this on the lawyers, a profession whose popularity ratings are only marginally higher than Labour MPs and City bankers. But the real cause of this scandal is the lack of any legal aid funding for patients that have suffered from clinical negligence.

If your operation has been botched and you can't afford a lawyer, you have to enter a "no win, no fee" arrangement. Law firms doing "no win, no fee" work end up losing a lot of their cases, and get paid nothing at all. They then have to charge a "success fee" in the cases they actually win (which gets paid by the losing side, ie. the NHS). Supposing the firms lose 50% of their cases, they have to charge double the rest of the time, just to break even. (In fact, the formula is slightly more complicated than this, and takes into account the likelihood of winning each case, but the basic idea still holds.)

The obvious solution is to give legal aid funding to patients who have suffered from clinical negligence. Then, lawyers would get a fixed and fair wage, depending simply on the complexity of the case. If the legal costs clearly outstripped the value of the likely payout, claimants could make an informed choice about whether or not to proceed. The system would arguably be much fairer.

Unfortunately, our gut reaction is exactly the opposite: to cut the legal aid budget, and to feel very smug about wasting less public money on parasite lawyers. The legal aid budget has been slashed, year on year, but rather than save money, it's stopped everyone but the rich from having fair access to the courts. Both claimants and defendants are thrown at the mercy of the casino-style odds game that is the "no win, no fee" system. Populist anti-lawyer rhetoric may make us feel better for a while, but it won't solve the fundamental problems that have led to this latest scandal.

Question Time - what's the worst that could happen tonight?

2009-10-22T13:13:00.002+01:00

It's no longer about whether the BNP will appear on Question Time. It's about how they will appear on Question Time. For good or for ill, Nick Griffin will be on the panel tonight, and we need to ensure that, despite his presence, the programme is a good advert for the tolerant mainstream of British politics.

Clearly, the best possible outcome is for Griffin to be demolished in debate by the other panellists. From any reasonable perspective, his views range between the deeply offensive and the deeply laughable. (See this article from today's Independent for more information.) With any luck, he'll appear unelectable, devoid of any real answers for Britain, and exposed for the ugly racist he is.

Then again, Griffin is an experienced and slick public speaker. In his job, you'd have to be. He will be used to dealing with probing questions, and you can be sure that he will have worked out his answers, long in advance, to the very predictable things that he'll be asked. So this would appear to be the worst outcome for tonight's show: Griffin deflects the criticism, and maintains a façade of reasonableness that wins over yet more disenchanted voters to the BNP.

But there's an even worse possible outcome. Groups such as Unite Against Fascism have been encouraging their supporters to request tickets to the recording, and it's a fair bet that there will be plenty of anti-fascist campaigners in the studio audience. People who have no interest in arguing against the BNP, and are angry that the BNP has been invited along at all. The atmosphere will be confrontational, and Griffin's attempts to debate will be lost under a barrage of jeers and hisses. If that happens, then he will look like a martyr. As a supporter of a tolerant society, which headline would you rather read in tomorrow's papers? "Racist exposed on TV"? Or "Griffin shouted down by protesters"?

I can think of an outcome that is worse still. Perhaps the worst of all. Because the biggest danger is that tonight's Question Time will turn into a debate with no substance. Accusations of racism met with bare denials and counter-accusations: this will do nothing to tackle the very real problems which have led to the BNP's recent and upsetting electoral success.

We benefit hugely from living in a society where we are valued equally, whatever our ethnicity; we benefit hugely from living in a Britain where we are free to choose our religion, our style of dress, our cultural identity. And we benefit hugely from properly managed, legal immigration to our country. Despite this, a large number of Britons feel worried and alienated by the way in which our society is changing. If we want those people to vote for non-racist parties, we need to take their concerns seriously, understand them, and deal with them in a rather more nuanced way than simply venting our spleen at them.

The argument for tolerance is a complicated one. It needs to be made, and made with conviction. But the other panellists, already under fire for appearing on the programme, will be keen to distance themselves from the BNP as their first priority. If they spend most of the time simply shouting "Griffin is a racist, don't listen to him," the argument for tolerance will never be made at all. And for the political mainstream, that will be the biggest own goal of the evening.

Some brief thoughts on Lisbon

2009-10-02T14:35:00.000+01:00

1. The Lisbon Treaty itself is not a problem. It's largely a tidying-up exercise, streamlining the way the EU works and getting rid of a few anomalies. Far from being a Brussels power grab, it gives citizens of EU countries a greater say, especially by increasing the role of the directly elected European Parliament.

2. The way in which the Treaty has been ratified is a major problem. If the Irish voters do indeed say yes to Lisbon today, the Treaty will have been brought into law in the most underhand fashion. Nothing shows more contempt for democracy than asking a country to keep holding referendums until it gets the "right" result.

There's a gulf of mistrust between EU citizens and EU leaders; even a relatively straightforward Treaty such as Lisbon immediately raises people's suspicions. And that's the Catch-22 for Europe - if almost every change to the EU's structure is seen by citizens as undemocratic skulduggery, it makes it impossible for the EU's leaders to reform the system and make it more transparent.

The bungled handling of both the Constitution and Lisbon certainly hasn't helped matters!

3. Is the Lisbon Treaty suitable referendum material anyway? It's all very well talking about democracy, but most people haven't read the Treaty. We aren't exactly going to have a mature national debate on the finer points of EC law (or EU law, as it will be renamed after Lisbon comes into force and abolishes the confusing "Three Pillars" system).

The Lib Dem position (last I checked) was that Treaties such as Lisbon are not suitable referendum topics - they should be negotiated and ratified directly by the government. Our membership of the EU, on the other hand, should be put to a public vote, so we can choose to keep or reject the whole package.

This seems sensible, but the cynic in me thinks it's a purely tactical policy. There's a serious risk of a no-vote if we had our own referendum on Lisbon, whereas a referendum on EU membership is vanishingly unlikely. The Lib Dem leadership obviously wouldn't like a no-vote on either issue.

Quite how this all squares with point 2 (above) is anybody's guess.

4. This can't go on. If Ireland ratifies Lisbon, and it goes into force, the EU will have scraped through this latest crisis - but for how long? The mistrust certainly won't go away, and we will simply be saving the problems and the resentment up for a future generation to deal with. The current ostrich tactics help nobody.

The EU urgently needs to reestablish its relationship with its own citizens - on a basis of trust and respect - or else it may as well not exist at all.

The most patronising political comment of the month ...

2009-09-16T10:19:00.003+01:00

... courtesy of Unite Against Fascism. Complaining about the BBC's proposal to invite a BNP representative to appear on Question Time, UAF wrote:

"As a publicly funded body, the BBC in particular has a duty to oppose racism. Black, Asian, Jewish and LGBT people pay the licence fee too."

Yes, because all Black, Asian, Jewish and LGBT people agree with your (failed) tactic of refusing to challenge the BNP in debate, do they? And because Black, Asian, Jewish and LGBT people care more about combating bigotry than everyone else? (So much for uniting against facism.)

Well done UAF, you've just patronised the vast majority of tolerant people in the entire country.

Rape laws punishing the innocent, and failing to tackle the guilty

2009-08-09T17:09:00.015+01:00

On my way to Chester two days ago, I gave up on trying to listen to my iPod above the racket of the train wheels, and picked up a free copy of The Metro from the seat opposite. The front-page story was entitled "Child rape" teen is saved by Bebo.

It's a story about a 15-year-old by who had sex with an 11-year-old girl whom he thought was the same age as himself. He was charged with rape, although the girl had in fact agreed to sex (if you can really say that an 11-year-old has the capacity to agree to sex, which is a moot point). He was spared a jail sentence; the court accepted his story after learning that the girl had posted explicit photos of herself on Bebo. He still has a criminal record for underage sex, though, and has to sign the sex offenders' register for two years.

It got me thinking about the complete mess Labour has made of our rape law. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was promoted as a vital modernisation of our outdated laws; an important way of protecting vulnerable women and children. In fact, it’s created more problems than it's solved.

Usually, to convict someone of rape, you need to prove that the victim didn't consent, and the defendant knew that (or, if he made a mistake about consent, you have to prove it was an unreasonable mistake).

However, the 2003 Act introduces a new offence: rape of a child under 13. To be convicted under this section, all you need to do is have sex with an under-13-year-old. Even if she consented, and even if she lied about her age, it's still rape. The logic behind this was that no 12-year-old could possibly consent to sex. It would be unfair and harrowing for child victims to have to go on the witness stand and be grilled by a barrister about whether they’d agreed to it or not.

That's entirely correct in the case of a 12-year-old girl forced to have sex by an older paedophile. But what if she's having sex consensually with her 13-year-old boyfriend? The boyfriend is technically guilty of rape, and he can get a conviction which will go on record and destroy his life. Which, for an Act supposed to protect children, is pretty perverse. (This has actually happened, by the way.)

Not that I'm for a minute suggesting it's a good idea for 12 and 13-year-olds to have sex. But if they do, should they really be dragged through the courts? Surely this is a matter for the family, the community, the school? We do need to deal with children who have sex far too young. But giving them a lifetime record for the second most serious crime is wildly out of proportion, and it completely defeats the object of child protection!

The 15-year-old in the Metro is lucky to have got away with a lesser conviction for straightforward underage sex, rather than rape (which he was technically guilty of, regardless of the Bebo photos). But I was struck by what the judge said to him when releasing him on probation: "I hope you realise this conduct has got you into serious trouble indeed. The maximum penalty for this is ten years' imprisonment."

A boy in his mid teens, having sex with a girl whom he thought was in her mid teens too? Carrying a ten-year jail sentence? My God, half my mates would still be in prison today …

The fundamental problem with our rape law (and the criminal law in many other areas) is that Labour seems to believe you can solve most things if you introduce tough enough laws. It's a case of a lazy government, going for the soft option of shuffling paper around to "make a statement", rather than taking practical action to solve problems.

It's a sad fact, but you'll never get as high a conviction rate for rape as for other crimes. It usually takes place in private, between people who know each other, with no independent witnesses and inconclusive forensics. But we could improve convictions drastically by, say, having 24/7 rapid response cars visiting rape victims, collecting vital forensic evidence as soon as they get the phonecall. Instead, we just re-write the definition of rape, to make it tougher for alleged rapists to defend themselves in court, and in the process, we not only create unfair loopholes that ruin the lives of innocent people; we also miss the chance to do something constructive to protect vulnerable people against the most horrendous crime short of murder.

Aside from lazy governmental thinking, the main culprit is the lobby-group mentality in UK politics. There's a loud and organised women's rights lobby (typefied by Harriet Harman), clamouring for higher rape conviction rates at whatever the cost. There's no equivalent lobby group to represent men charged with rape and demanding a fair trial - and if there was, it wouldn't get very far. Add this to a so-called children's rights lobby that thinks it's acceptable to drag inappropriately-young lovers through the Crown Court, and you have a recipe for injustice.

In other news - I'm moving to London this week, ahead of my final year of legal studies. I don't suppose anyone in the political blogosphere has any advice on how to survive in the big city? ;-)

Jewish students on BNP website

2009-06-27T14:18:00.003+01:00

Since I blogged about the issue yesterday, the British National Party has published a statement condemning the recent court decision regarding admissions policy at the London Jewish school, JFS.

This isn't because the intolerant, racist BNP has any great love or respect for the Jewish community, most of whom they would cheerfully see deported to some random shtetl in eastern Europe. It's because the story gives them the excuse to spout out a load of the usual far-right claptrap: ethnic identity being attacked by the great liberal conspiracy, etc etc.

I looked at the BNP's website today, and noticed they'd put up a picture of some JFS students - the school's Head Boy and Head Girl teams. If I were one of those kids, or their parents, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with that photo on display on a far-right website - more on grounds of safety than anything else. And whilst I will support to the end of the earth the BNP's right to engage in lawful political debate, I wouldn't for a second blame JFS for taking every legitimate legal step possible to have that photo taken down. Copyright infringement, breach of privacy, they'd all help.

Interesting to note that the picture's gone up just before the Jewish Sabbath, so presumably it'll be Sunday at the earliest before the kids and their families can start to do anything about it.

If you're reading this and have any connection to JFS or to the students involved, do please draw it to their attention.

JFS: the court got it right

2009-06-26T11:09:00.006+01:00

First of all, apologies for not blogging in several months (again). In my defence, I had exams, more exams, and then scary pupillage interviews.

Secondly, what I am about to say is very likely to annoy a lot of my fellow Jews who might be reading this. So again, apologies in advance. Take it in the spirit of healthy debate; it's certainly not meant as an attack on Jewish schools or Jewish identity.

But in a nutshell: I think the court got it right this week, when they ruled that a Jewish school's admissions policy was unlawful. Having said that, I'm not quite convinced I agree with their logic; I would come to the same answer for different reasons.

JFS, a Jewish school in London, had refused to admit a boy on the grounds that he "wasn't Jewish". The boy practised the Jewish religion, but from the perspective of orthodox Judaism, that isn't enough. To be considered Jewish, either you must be the child of a Jewish mother, or you must undergo the orthodox Jewish conversion process. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism in a progressive ceremony, not an orthodox one. Through orthodox eyes, this meant that she wasn't really Jewish - and therefore, neither was her son.

The Court of Appeal decided that this was racial discrimination - he was being denied a place because of his parentage. That doesn't entirely ring true, because you don't have to belong to a particular ethnicity to be Jewish. Anyone, of any racial background, can join the Jewish religion, and the worldwide Jewish community is very ethnically diverse.

My real objection to the JFS is that they were applying the orthodox criteria for Jewish status, when they should really have focused on the boy's own religious beliefs. JFS is a publicly-funded Jewish school, and should therefore be prepared to take anyone who practises Judaism, in any branch of the faith, whether orthodox or progressive. Orthodox Jews are quite entitled to decide who can be a member of their synagogues, and take part in their worship. However, no one grouping within British Jewry should have the right to set the legal standard for Jewish status in the British courts.

There is a wider debate about whether we should allow faith schools at all; I don't want to get into that minefield right now. I would simply argue that if we are going to allow schools to prioritise students of a certain religion, the sole criteria should be the student's own religious beliefs, and not the criteria set by a particular religious authority (such as the United Synagogue) - because that would mean giving away control of admissions policy to an unaccountable religious grouping with its own agenda. Admissions policy should be a public matter.

(Incidentally, I blogged about this issue last time it was in the courts a year ago: you can read my original article here.)

Ian Tomlinson death: has the Met moved on from Menezes?

2009-04-08T13:33:00.001+01:00

The Guardian today has footage of the attack on Ian Tomlinson, who died from a heart attack shortly after being bludgeoned to the floor by a police officer as he tried to walk home from work during the G20 protests.

The news is shocking. I sincerely hope that whichever officer did it is hauled before a court. Depending on what evidence is available, it may be possible to charge him with manslaughter, and perhaps even murder. It's harder, though, to work out what this case tells us about the police. For example, what about the other police officers that went to help Tomlinson when he collapsed? They formed a human shield to protect him from bottle-throwing protesters. With examples of the very good and the appallingly bad within the space of minutes, what do we learn about the Met?

The answer, perhaps, can be found in the Met's own response on the night of Tomlinson's death. Their spokesman appeared to gloss over the avoidable death of an innocent man, preferring to talk about the professionalism of those officers who went to his aid. We need to be cautious - the true extent of the story, including the damaging footage, has only just emerged, and the police may not have had time to formulate a proper response yet. But if they choose to brush this one off, it will tell us something very sinister: that whilst there may be a great deal of bravery and dedication to service on the front line, there is a very cavalier attitude amonst the top brass.

When Jean Charles de Menezes was shot, the upper echelons of the police, together with Ken Livingstone, closed ranks to pretend that it wasn't their fault, and that we should blame the terrorists who created an atmosphere of fear - conveniently forgetting the criminally negligent series of intelligence screw-ups that led to an innocent man being mistaken for a suicide bomber. They compounded that failure by telling lies, and claiming that Menezes had behaved suspiciously: he hadn't. The Menezes case illustrated the gulf of responsibility between front-line officers and policy-makers. You couldn't really blame the men who shot Menezes, because they had been told comprehensively that he was a bomber. Responsibility had to lie with those in the command chain who made grave mistakes, and then lied to protect themselves.

The real test of how the police has moved on from Menezes will be how they handle these shocking events. If we see an open and cooperative attitude towards finding the truth, something vaguely good might have come out of all this. If we see a repeat, where the Met ducks justice, hiding behind the immunity of being a public servant, then we will have got precisely nowhere.

Assisted dying, and Patricia Hewitt

2009-03-22T22:50:00.009Z

Patricia Hewitt is campaigning for the right to die. She believes that terminally ill people who are mentally competent should have access to assisted suicide, and is calling for a Private Members' Bill in parliament to change the law.

Part of me wants to be cynical; she never said anything about this as Health Secretary, after all, when she might have done something about it directly. But then again, this is a genuinely cross-party issue, and if she can achieve something with her campaign, then all power to her.

I'm strongly in favour of the right of a terminally ill, mentally competent adult to decide to end their own life, as long as they make the choice freely and without being put under pressure. For me, that comes down to the core liberal principle of personal autonomy: my life is mine to dispose of, and not the state's to enforce. I do understand the serious practical arguments against assisted dying (how do we know that it's a genuine free choice?), but I would like to think that they can be overcome with well-drafted legislation and high quality medical care. And is it right to let a question of practicality defeat an argument that seems sound in principle?

Beyond all the political arguments, there's an important legal problem in the mix. Currently the law on assisting suicide is ambiguous. In particular, it's unclear whether a person who travels to Switzerland, to help a loved one get to the Dignitas clinic, is committing a crime. MS sufferer Debbie Purdy went to the Court of Appeal last month, arguing that the government had a duty to make the current guidelines more explicit. The court unfortunately ruled that the guidelines were adequate, so in fact, we're still in the dark.

So far, the CPS hasn't prosecuted friends and family who have accompanied patients to Dignitas, and quite right too. From the point of view of a person wanting to spend those precious last few weeks with a dying husband or wife, this is great news. For the legal system, it's not so helpful: only if a relative returning to the UK from Dignitas is charged and tried will we have a final answer as to whether or not it is a crime to go there to support a loved one.

I'm very uncomfortable with that situation. It seems very wrong for someone to be guilty of a crime if they have no way of knowing that whether their conduct is illegal until it finally comes to court! To me, that seems to be a serious breach of the rule of law, and I hope that if Debbie Purdy takes her case to the House of Lords (or the Supreme Court, as it will shortly become), they will decide to clear things up.

The current saga also sheds light on the cruelty and cynicism of so-called Care Not Killing, the campaign group against assisted dying. They have steadfastly opposed any attempt to clarify the law in this area. In other words, for the sake of their own political campaign, they are happy for an unfair ambiguity in the law to put terrifying pressure on terminally ill people and their loved ones, and potentially to rob them of their last chance to say goodbye. I think that's shameful; and I don't see much that's "caring" about their attitude.

Sir Liam Donaldson is a nutter, Part 2

2009-03-19T10:19:00.001Z

Sir Liam Donaldson is the government's chief medical adviser. Recently, he's been arguing in favour of a new policy: a minimum price per unit of alcohol. That might get rid of the odd handful of dangerously cheap all-you-can-drink deals and promotions, but it'll also force sensible and moderate social drinkers up and down the country to pay more money.

You can argue the toss as to whether this is a good policy or not. Personally, I don't. But the main thing that bothers me is this: why does Donaldson see it as his business to come up with public policy? He's there to advise the government about medical science, so that they can come up with policy measures.

This isn't the first time that Donaldson has put forward ideas that are out of touch with reality. As I blogged last summer, his plans to cut the drink/drive limit for younger drivers were well-intentioned, but dangerous. But when a medical adviser unilaterally decides to invent sweeping measures that touch on licensing law, taxation and highways enforcement, it's not surprising that he comes up with junk.

Now, I'm not for a moment doubting Sir Liam's scientific expertise, and I'm not for a moment claiming that I could come up with any better suggestions of my own. But I would like to think that the state response to alcohol problems is formulated by the Department of Health on the basis of a lot of research and consultation, taking on expertise from a range of different sources. Just introducing something that the CMO dreamed up one evening at the pub is unlikely to make for good law - and if he does want to make the law, why doesn't he just stand for parliament?

E-cigarettes and the smoking ban

2009-03-13T10:24:00.002Z

When the smoking ban came in, Lib Dems were split by the issue. You could legitimately use key liberal arguments on either side. I argued the point against Stephen Williams MP at a student meeting - I opposed the ban on the grounds of individual freedom to wreck your own lungs; he supported it on the basis that smoking in public caused unfair risk to others. We were both quoting Mill's famous harm principle on opposite sides of the same debate!

The whole thing was confused even further by the legislation itself, which defined "public place" very widely, including privately-run businesses that were open to the public. That made it even harder to find the dividing-line between personal rights and public menace.

The device that's now in the news is the e-cigarette, a fake cigarette which lets you inhale a fine mist of pure nicotine. Currently unregulated in the UK, various campaign groups (including ASH) are calling for selling restrictions similar to those in place for cigarettes.

The key difference between an e-cigarette and the real thing is that the e-cigarette poses no risk to others in the vicinity. It doesn't pump smoke, tar, or carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. The only person who might be harmed is the person using it. On that basis, I'd argue that any regulation should be very light. Subject to the usual health and safety rules that you'd expect, there's no good reason for making it difficult to get hold of and "smoke" these devices.

Time to abolish "causing death by dangerous driving"

2009-03-12T15:42:00.008Z

Lord Ahmed, the Labour peer serving 12 weeks for dangerous driving, will now be freed, after the Court of Appeal suspended his sentence. Ahmed was texting as he drove down the M1 on Christmas Day 2007, minutes before being involved in a fatal crash. The crash wasn't Ahmed's fault; it appears to have been a pure accident, entirely unrelated to the texting.

Of course, if the texting had been the actual cause of the crash, he could have been charged with one of two crimes: causing death by dangerous driving, or causing death by careless driving.

The latter offence is a relatively new one, introduced by the Road Safety Act 2006. Before the 2006 Act, the only "death by" motoring offence was death by dangerous driving. This led to problems when the defendant's driving was just careless, rather than dangerous. People whose loved ones died in those sorts of accidents felt that their loss wasn't recognised at all by the criminal justice system, which is why "death by careless" has now been introduced.

Much as I feel for people who lose family and friends in car accidents, I can't see a principled legal reason behind either of the "death by" offences. The crimes that they're based on (straightforward dangerous driving and careless driving) are so-called conduct crimes: that means that you don't have to do any actual damage to be guilty of them. Lord Ahmed's case is a good example - his texting didn't cause any harm, but he was guilty of driving dangerously all the same.

A crime like murder, on the other hand, is a result crime: to be guilty, you have to bring about a particular result, ie. someone's death.

The two "death by" driving offences are neither: they take a pure conduct crime like dangerous driving, and then tack a piece of result crime onto the end of it, which is a hopeless mishmash.

I would argue that it's wrong, in principle, to jail someone for bringing about a particular result unless they have some element of mental guilt related to that result. In other words, to be convicted of a crime that includes the words "causing death", you must either intend someone to die, or you must deliberately run the risk of someone dying.

We need to look at the reason why a person is culpable. If they're culpable simply because of the poor standard of their driving, then we should consider their level of car control, and nothing else. If they're culpable because of the result that they brought about, we need to look for intention or recklessness as to that result.

It's technically possible to charge four-wheeled killers with manslaughter - a proper result crime with a proper element of mental fault - but it only happens rarely. That's because juries are reluctant to convict bad drivers of such a serious-sounding crime, even if they're guilty on paper. The CPS almost invariably prefer to use the specific driving offences.

I've come to feel that there are two main reasons behind the "death by" offences: making it easier to convict people, and making the families of victims feel better. The first strikes me as downright unacceptable; the second, whilst it's important, is surely no excuse to cut corners with our principles. I'm sure this will go down like a lead balloon with car crash families, but I'd cheerfully abolish the two "death by" offences.

Just as an aside: why are we giving jail sentences to dangerous drivers, anyway? I wouldn't be scared to meet Lord Ahmed outside a pub on a Saturday night; what's the sense in locking him away at the taxpayer's expense? Surely a long-term driving ban, coupled with some community service (perhaps in a hospital A&E department) would be far more appropriate!

Vince Cable to become Chancellor?

2008-10-09T15:57:00.001+01:00

Some dare to whisper that Cable may be heading to Number 11. Jonathan Calder doesn't believe a word of it; Duncan Borrowman is quite keen on the idea.

If it does actually happen, remember this: you read about it first on Hug A Hoodie, way back in February.

Vince isn't the only Lib Dem to be gifted with powers of clairvoyance ...

Luke McCormick, and the little weapons we drive

2008-10-06T18:07:00.006+01:00

What a day for the government to decide against cutting the drink-drive limit! The very day that footballer Luke McCormick is jailed for 7 years for drunkenly smashing into another car, killing two young boys and inflicting crippling injuries on their father.

At first glance, the two major news stories don't seem to be related. McCormick was driving at double the limit anyway. The planned reduction - from 80 to 50mg per unit of blood - wouldn't have had any bearing in his case. And according to campaigners for the current limit, the biggest threat comes from drivers who seriously overstep the current limit, rather than those who are just within it.

I understand that argument, but it misses a crucial point. The current limit lets you get away with about a pint of beer. And that gives the impression that it's OK to have a drink and drive, so long as you're careful not to overdo it. In truth though, it's impossible to tell whether or not you're safe behind the wheel. If you're a big ginger lightweight like me, you might be floored by half a lager. If you have the heart and stomach of a ~~fluffy~~ concrete elephant, you might be fine. There's no way of knowing.

Once you establish a principle like "one drink is OK, but don't overdo it," you're inviting people to try and judge a limit which simply cannot be judged. And once they're a few pints down the line, at several times the legal limit, and with their judgement substantially impaired, they're much more likely to think to themselves "I've only had a few - I should be fine."

A limit of 50mg, or even 20mg, would send a very clear signal: just don't do it, at all! The limit isn't there to let people have bit of a drink and still drive. It's there to protect sober people from being arrested because of a small amount of leftover alcohol in their system; that's literally all it should do.

As things stand, we send a badly mixed message. All those taxpayer-funded public safety adverts say "Think! Don't drink and drive", whereas our legal system says "Have maybe one, then see how you feel." With a setup like that, is it any wonder that we breed drivers like McCormick?

A kick up the arse from Jonathan Calder

2008-10-02T21:27:00.002+01:00

Contrary to what some are saying, I've not been eaten by David Cameron. I've just been unforgivably lazy for the past month, and not done any blogging. (I've also done a couple of weeks of legal placements, dashed off to conference for a few days, then started my law conversion course, but none of that's an excuse.)

Normal service resumes as of now, anyway. If my textbook on tort law doesn't send me to sleep, I'll try to stay up for the US Veep debate tonight, and write something about it ...

Into the belly of the beast ...

2008-08-25T10:39:00.002+01:00

Today, I am in Witney!

A British Bill of Rights?

2008-08-10T11:55:00.000+01:00

MPs are calling for a British Bill of Rights, which would go further than existing human rights law. The cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights wants to include greater protections for vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly.

Currently, our main protection in law comes from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - an international treaty - and the UK's own Human Rights Act (HRA), which makes the ECHR into a part of our legal system, and says that UK law has to be compatible with it.

My initial reaction was worry. Are we talking about legislation to supplement the HRA, or to replace it? This might seem like a trivial point - if the new Bill of Rights replaces the HRA, but contains all the same rights and more, what's the problem? But in fact, it's an absolutely crucial detail.

Most countries have a written constitution to protect their citizens' rights, which has sacred status, and which the government of the day can't just amend at will. But in Britain, any Act of Parliament has the same status as any other. A purely British Bill of Rights could easily be messed around or repealed a future government.

The ECHR, on the other hand, is an international treaty. Although it's now become a part of our legal system, the actual text describing our human rights is contained in that treaty, which puts it beyond the day-to-day reach of MPs. Our politicians can't modify, edit or repeal it. In that sense, the ECHR fulfils the same role as the German Grundgesetz or the US Constitution - it creates a red line which politicians can't cross.

If we were to follow David Cameron's policy of scrapping the HRA and completely replacing it with our own British Bill of Rights, we'd throw away an important safeguard against a corrupt or malevolent government in future.

So I was relieved to see the following paragraph in this latest report:

"In our view it is imperative that the HRA not be diluted in any way in the process of adopting a Bill of Rights. Not only must there be no attempt to redefine the rights themselves, for example by attempting to make public safety or security the foundational value which trumps all others, but there must be no question of weakening the existing machinery in the HRA for the protection of Convention rights."

Thank goodness, really. As long as we remain protected by the European Convention, I can't see a problem with a supplementary set of rights. With that caveat, I'm broadly in favour of this report and its findings.

The biggest problem for human rights law, however, is the problem of perception. There's already a mistaken belief that human rights benefit criminals and terrorists more than the law-abiding citizen. It's not helped by the lurid reports in the gutter press every time a prisoner or deportee launches a legal challenge under the HRA. The most important thing the government can do right now is to stick up for their own legislation - to say that the HRA is a fundamentally good thing, and that it protects everyone equally under the law.

George Carey on Max Mosley: "strip kinky people of their legal rights"

2008-07-27T14:57:00.003+01:00

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, has a particularly dreadful comment piece in today's News of the World. It's about Formula One boss Max Mosley and his recent victory in court against the same newspaper. I thought I'd go through it briefly with a few comments:

"A dangerous precedent has been set this week in the victory of Max Mosley over the press. The first major victim is Free Speech itself. Without public debate or democratic scrutiny the courts have created a wholly new privacy law. In itself that's bad enough."

As a student about to embark on a law course, I read through the judgement in full (homework, you understand, not voyeurism!) and it most certainly doesn't involve the judge creating new laws. It involves him enforcing Mosley's existing right to privacy, under Article 8 of the European Convention.

It's interesting that Carey capitalises Free Speech. Was that his idea, or News of the World's? Because this legal case has nothing to do with some great ideological battle in defence of free speech. It's about a tabloid prying into people's private lives in order to shift product. And if he'd bothered to read the judgement, he'd know that Mr Justice Eady spent most of his time looking at the clash between two equally important rights - Mosley's privacy and NOTW's freedom of expression - and came to a very reasonable and nuanced conclusion.

"But, as a Christian leader, I am deeply sad that public morality is the second victim of this legal judgement. Unspeakable and indecent behaviour, whether in public or in private, is no longer significant under this ruling."

As a Christian leader, who voted for you? Where does your mandate come from? And why on earth do you get to sit in our parliament passing laws that we all have to obey, whether we're Christian or not?

As for this argument about public morality - come off it. Are you saying that as a result of the Mosley case, people will start queueing up to have BDSM sex with each other in public?

This entire case is about privacy - a concept you don't seem to have grasped. It's about people having the right to create a little sphere for themselves where they can do what the heck they like. Whatever happens in that little sphere is supposed to be completely detached from the public. The only reason why Max Mosley's unconventional sexual tastes have had any public impact whatsoever is thanks to the trashy newspaper you're writing for and defending!

"And in our celebrity-obsessed age this is a hazardous route to take."

Presumably, as a Christian leader, you're not a fan of our celebrity-obsessed age. Why are you giving the tabloids carte blanche to stick cameras into celebrities' bedrooms, and splash the gory details all over the web? An ex-archbishop encouraging the press to make money by appealing to people's worst instincts! Shocking ...

"In the past a public figure has known that scandalous and immoral behaviour carries serious consequences for his or her public profile, reputation and job. Today it is possible to both have your cake AND to eat it.

But a case can be clearly made for a direct link between private behaviour and public conduct. If a politician, a judge, a bishop or any public figure cannot keep their promises to wife, husband, etc, how can they be trusted to honour pledges to their constituencies and people they serve?"

If you were talking about an elected politician here, you may have a point. If it were an MP who had sounded off about truth, honesty, integrity; who had lined up his wife and kids for publicity photos; who had voted conservatively on moral issues in the Commons; then you might have a point. But Mosley isn't elected and doesn't hold public office, nor does his job have anything whatsoever to do with public morality. He's in charge of organising a sport where jet-powered lumps of carbon fibre go round in circles at 200mph. I can't see what public interest is served by blowing open the lid on his private sex life.

In his judgement, Eady agrees that when he had prison-themed sexual roleplay with five dominatrices, Mosley had an expectation of privacy. NOTW argued that although they breached that privacy, it was justified by the public interest - because Mosley was engaged in dangerous and violent behaviour (which can be a criminal offence even if it's consensual).

The judge disagreed with them - in quite memorable terms, I think:

"As Woman D accepted, it was painful – 'but in a nice way'. Although no doubt interesting to the public, was this genuinely a matter of public interest? I rather doubt it."

Mosley vs. News Group Newspapers Ltd, §114

(It's important to note that this judgement doesn't remotely affect the right of the press to claim a public interest defence in future privacy cases. It merely states that in this case, the public interest defence wasn't applicable, since Mosley's sex life wasn't a matter of any public concern. I can't see any ongoing threat to the freedom of reporting.)

George Carey continues:

"Max Mosley claimed that what consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors—however depraved, brutal and repugnant—is both private and harmless. I think that is deplorable. And I believe most people would ridicule his claim."

Again: come off it. Of course it's private and harmless. It happened behind closed doors, between adults, and in the long run, nobody was hurt - at least, if people were hurt, then it wasn't serious, it was with their full consent, and they were clearly enjoying it!

Carey is trying to apply a Christian view of morality here, where there is a divine arbiter - God - who gets to decide what's morally acceptable and what isn't. The problem is, Britain is made up of people of all beliefs and of no belief. Many of them will disagree with Carey's views on morality, and those people shouldn't have to live under a legal system based on one man's (or one religion's) take.

The only appropriate way to construct our legal system is to criminalise things that harm others, and permit things that don't harm others. Yes, it would create a morally relative society, where actions are good or bad based on their consequences, rather than on anything inherent. Yes, that might sound unpalatable to absolutists like Carey. But the truth is, it would give everyone the greatest possible freedom to decide for themselves what moral code to follow.

"This is a bleak, deeply-flawed 'anything goes' philosophy. It is also dangerous and socially undermining, devoid of the basic, decent moral standards that form the very fabric of our society."

In the whole of Carey's total car-crash of an article, this is the bit I have the biggest problem with. Surely the most basic, decent standard that underpins our society is a fair legal system which applies equally to everyone. But Carey is calling for judges to selectively refuse to enforce people's legal rights because they happen to be into kinky sex. Denying people justice because you disapprove of their private behaviour is, to me, far more depraved than a bit of harmless roleplay with a bunch of hookers.

Mr Justice Eady puts it far more eloquently than I could hope to manage:

"It is not for journalists to undermine human rights, or for judges to refuse to enforce them, merely on grounds of taste or moral disapproval. Everyone is naturally entitled to espouse moral or religious beliefs to the effect that certain types of sexual behaviour are wrong or demeaning to those participating. That does not mean that they are entitled to hound those who practise them or to detract from their right to live life as they choose."
Mosley vs. News Group Newspapers Ltd, §127

Carey goes on (and on ...):

"The new High Court ruling prevents press investigations into matters of clear public interest. It needlessly shackles the press and removes the right of the public to make informed moral judgements."

This strikes me as pretty rich. He's spent the whole article so far asking for a particular moral code - his own one - to be granted special recognition by the law, and forced upon everyone. And now he's pleading for the right of the public to make up their own minds about moral issues.

Partly, this is the desperation of a someone whose argument is slipping away from him as he writes it - but mainly, it's the confusion of someone who doesn't know what he stands for in the first place. Carey claims to have a deeply-rooted, firm moral viewpoint, but this article demonstrates that his views are all over the place. There's only one consistent thread running through this litany of self-contradictory arguments: the desire to use the law of the land to hammer people that he personally doesn't like. The rest is just desperate scrabbling around for any reasonably-sounding argument that might justify this bigoted selfishness.

"Judge Eady's ruling may have made legal history. But I, for one, fear the consequences."

I say again. Why, oh why, is this man in our parliament making our laws for us? Sometimes, I despair of Britain.

Drink-driving: how to send completely the wrong message

2008-07-14T11:54:00.005+01:00

The government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has urged ministers to cut the drink-drive limit to zero - but only for young drivers. For anyone older than 20, the current limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood will still apply.

At first glance, it seems like a good idea. Fewer young people will drink and drive, and we'll all be much safer.

But there's a very serious flaw in the plan. Even with the current 80mg limit, it's impossible to judge how much you can safely drink and still get behind the wheel. Every single piece of official advice says the same thing. I quote this from the Department for Transport's own website: "... the only safe option is not to drink alcohol if you plan to drive ... You can't calculate your alcohol limit, so don't try."

Unfortunately, if you have two separate limits in force, what you're doing is sending the message that it's somehow possible to tell between them. So whilst the under-21s might start to avoid alcohol completely when driving, older drivers will get the impression that it's alright for them to drink a little bit, so long as they stay within an 80mg limit which they can't possibly judge with any accuracy. Sir Liam may have his heart in the right place, but his comments seriously undermine the government's own campaign against drink-driving.

Just imagine the slogan - "Think! Don't drink more than a pint (give or take, depending on your height, weight, sex, ethnicity and personal alcohol tolerance) and drive."

Surely the right strategy would be to set a nominal but very low limit, perhaps half of the current one? It would be impossible to have an alcoholic drink worthy of the name and still be allowed to drive, but it would also protect people from getting arrested for having a trace level in their blood from a drink they'd had hours before. You could then send out a strong and consistent message to drivers of all ages: don't get behind the wheel unless you're completely sober.

This sort of thing happened during the debate on the smoking ban, and we're seeing it again. Government medical advisers may well be good at explaining the science to ministers, but they're extremely bad at coming up with actual policy!

Talking at cross-purposes about Sharia

2008-07-12T13:24:00.002+01:00

When our most senior judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said about a week ago that British Muslims should be able to use Sharia law to settle legal disputes, he provoked a storm of controversy. "We've got a perfectly good legal system (or more accurately, set of legal systems) in Britain," people said, "and if Muslims don't like it, there are plenty of countries governed under Sharia law that they can go to instead." Many scared Britons seemed to think that a Sharia Act was on its way through Parliament, burkhas would become compulsory, and stoning introduced for capital crimes.

So much for the knee-jerk, gutter press reaction. The truth is a lot more mundane, and a lot less controversial.

What Lord Phillips is talking about is the use of Sharia to settle civil disputes. If two Muslims get into a civil case - an argument about money, perhaps - they have, like anyone else, three choices. They can settle it using the civil courts, costing themselves and the taxpayer vast sums of money. They can come to some sort of personal agreement outside of court, and let matters rest. Or they can go to a mediator, someone they can both agree on, who will look at the dispute and come up with a compromise settlement which both sides are then required to accept.

That third-party mediator could be anyone. Usually, it's a dedicated organisation or profesional problem-solver. But it could be anyone that both sides are happy with. And if both parties are practising Muslims, and if they both agree, then why shouldn't they ask a Muslim religious expert to resolve their case using Sharia principles? It's perfectly legal as things stand. So when you think it through properly, the Lord Chief Justice's comments aren't particularly radical - they're just calling for formal recognition of something which people are quite entitled to do already.

So why, if all of this is so mundane, has it sparked such a poisonous and heated controversy? The main problem in debating this issue is that we're talking entirely at cross-purposes when it comes to the word "law". To most people, a law means a legal rule, which everyone has to follow. As soon as you float the idea of Sharia law in the UK, people get the impression you're proposing actual legislation, which would affect all of us, whether we follow Islam or not. Or even worse - legislation which would only affect practising Muslims, creating a parallel legal system.

But a religious "law" is something quite different to a normal law. It's a personal, voluntary commitment made by an individual. For example, it's against the Jewish law (known as Halacha) to eat pork, and thousands of British Jews, including myself, follow that law. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that we're living in a parallel legal system by avoiding certain kinds of food. It's not really a law; it's more of a personal lifestyle choice.

One of the beauties of English Law is that, unless you're doing something that's actually illegal, you can do what the heck you like. That means that British Muslims are free to make the personal decision to follow whatever religious "laws" they wish, as long as it doesn't bring them into conflict with the actual law of the land. I don't believe Lord Phillips has said anything more radical than that. Unfortunately, the argument he has sparked off has degenerated into a comedy of misunderstandings, rather than a meaningful debate.

Licensed to discriminate: Jewish school wins controversial court case

2008-07-06T18:52:00.000+01:00

The JFS, a Jewish school in North London, has just won a significant court case over admissions. They'd refused a place to an 11-year-old boy, because they didn't consider him to be Jewish, even though he'd been brought up and raised in the religion. The father took the school to court on the grounds of racial discrimination, and has just lost.

I think this is a very significant case, which people outside the Jewish community need to pay attention to. It throws up some very major questions about the relationship between the State and all kinds of religious groups.

A bit of background. There are around 250,000 Jews in Britain, and the majority belong to Orthodox Judaism. The other main group, Progressive Judaism (which splits into Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism), is still a pretty significant denomination, with about 50,000 members. Orthodox Judaism is in a dominant position, however, because it runs most of the key institutions, like the religious courts and the office of Chief Rabbi.

Orthodox Judaism generally cooperates fairly well with the two Progressive movements, but there's one big area where they can't agree: people converting to the faith. If you convert to Orthodox Judaism, you're recognised as a Jew by everyone, no problems. But if you convert to Progressive Judaism, the Orthodox community won't accept you as a Jew.

It's this little theological spat which has landed the JFS comprehensive in the dock. The boy's mother had converted to Judaism, but in a Progressive community. From the Orthodox perspective, she's not Jewish at all, and therefore her son isn't either. That's why the school wouldn't accept him, and that's why this whole argument has ended up rather messily in court.

I have some sympathy for Justice Munby, who made the ruling. A British secular court isn't the place to decide religious questions like "who is a Jew?". I'm sure he just wanted to get the issue out of his courtroom, and pass it back over to the community. What he's actually done is handed total control over Jewish status to one particular, theologically very conservative Jewish denomination. So perversely, whilst trying to avoid making a religious decision, the judge has come down on the side of one main Jewish group, to the exclusion of the other one.

If you're going to have state-funded Jewish schools, they ought to be open to anyone who practises the Jewish religion, in any of the Jewish denominations. I'm really uncomfortable with a movement that represents 80% of British Jews being able to force its views on the other 20%, and to hijack state funding away from members of Progressive communities. I'm even more worried to see this happen with judicial approval. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and people of all religions and none should take notice.

Hugs all around!

2008-07-04T21:32:00.003+01:00

I got my degree result today. I now have (well, technically, am entitled to claim at some point) a BA (Hons) in Modern Languages, class 2:1. Really pleased with it.

Now I know I've done fine, I'm off to celebrate as befits a ginger Liberal Democrat - with copious alcohol.

And then, on to the next great adventure ...

David Davis resigns from Parliament

2008-06-12T13:26:00.001+01:00

In an unprecedented decision, Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis has announced he plans to resign as an MP, trigger a by-election in his constituency of Haltemprice and Howden, and stand in that by-election. According to his press conference just minutes ago, he's planning to campaign on the issue of 42-day detention, and give the people an opportunity to vote against the erosion of our civil liberties. The BBC suggested that the Lib Dems (in second place in the constituency) had agreed not to stand against him.

Right now, it's very hard to analyse what's going on. The announcement seems to have come as a bolt out of the blue, and Davis refused to say whether or not he'd discussed it with David Cameron. Since Davis lost out to Cameron in the Tory leadership election, he might be trying to grab a bit of attention, but this resignation seems too committed and too drastic, to me, for that to be the sole reason. Maybe, coming up to his 60th birthday, and a senior frontbencher, he feels he's reached the pinnacle of his career, and has nothing to lose by risking his job on an issue he clearly cares about a great deal. Or maybe something more sinister: a massive argument behind the scenes. It's all speculation right now, but I'm sure it'll all come out over the next few hours and days.

One slightly (no, very) anoracky point about the resignation. I'll keep it brief:

MPs technically can't resign, because of archaic rules that go back to the 17th Century. The way they get around this is by asking the Chancellor to appoint them to one of two official positions (in Davis's case, it'll be Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds) which no longer exist in anything but name, but which technically disqualify you from being an MP.

Here's the problem: Davis will be appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds. He'll be barred from sitting in Parliament, and thus deemed to have resigned. There'll be a by-election, and he'll stand in it. But as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, he'll be barred from taking his seat if he's re-elected. Presumably the Chancellor will have to agree to appoint someone else to the role in the interim, to let Davis stand again - something he's under no obligation to do, as I understand it, and given that Davis is planning to clobber the government, Darling may be less than pleased to have to jump through hoops to help him do it. I don't think there's any precedent here. Should be interesting!

A bit of restraint ...

2008-06-05T16:40:00.003+01:00

The leader of the Conservative Euro MPs, Giles Chichester, has resigned over a serious error with his expenses.

The leader of our own Euro MPs resigned for making anti-Semitic comments. And then had the cheek to stand for re-election.

I suggest we keep very, very quiet about this story.

The intolerant left: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown goes bonkers

2008-06-02T05:34:00.005+01:00

Like all liberals, I think of myself as being on the progressive side of British politics - but you've got to choose your allies carefully. Every once in a while, an article comes along that reminds me that the "progressive" left can be every bit as dangerous as the "conservative" right. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has an article in the Independent which strikes me as one of the most ill-judged bits of commentary I've ever read - from someone who's allegedly on the same side as I am when it comes to civil liberties, foreign policy and social justice.

Her basic thesis is that the right is on the rise, the left is in freefall, and it'll take another generation for progressive politics to come back. Not only does she manage to completely misread the significance of the Tories' recent successes, but along the way, she comes up with some arguments which border on the offensive:

"The sun now rises on the right and those of us on the other side are left despondent as we anticipate a prolonged winter of discontent. We, who believe in fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, are of no consequence."

This sort of attitude really does hack me off. Nobody of a conservative bent remotely cares about fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, do they? I may not agree with people on the centre-right on much, but to say that right-wingers hate human rights and justice is ignorant and simplistic. We don't live in a cartoon world of goodies and baddies. Do my Conservative friends really get up in the morning thinking "Haha, how shall I undermine social justice today?"

From experience, most people who get involved in politics, whatever their political persuasion, do so because they genuinely want to work for the common good. We may disagree about how to create a better Britain - or even what a better Britain would look like - but that's the whole reason for having a political debate in the first place! This sort of attitude, branding one's opponents as haters of fairness and justice, does nothing but promote cynicism towards the political process as a whole.

In Yasmin's world, like in any good cartoon, the normal rules of logic don't apply:

"Local election results show the country lurching right, in some parts even embracing the BNP. Instead of condemning the scum, Britons are instructed to 'understand' why these voters are 'driven' to vote for neo-Nazis. We are simultaneously warned to show no such understanding of young Muslims who are seduced by hate-filled Imams. White resentment of 'foreigners' is no more respectable than Muslim hatred of Westerners. Yet in our unequal world it is."

Please, please, tell me how we're ever supposed to beat the racism of the BNP unless we engage with the people who vote for them? How can we possibly win people back to the political mainstream if we refuse to understand what's made them drift away in the first place? It's bonkers. We help the BNP immensely by the hysterical way we react to them: condemning as "racist" anyone who tries to debate against them; accusing politicians of "pandering to racism" when they try and understand what motivates people to vote BNP. How else, pray, are we supposed to campaign against them?

The biggest problem with this argument, though, is that both halves of it are mutually exclusive. Either you can say that BNP voters and radicalised terrorist sympathisers are both "scum" to be hated and ignored, or you can say they're normal people with legitimate concerns who are exploited by extremists. But you can't have a paragraph that simultaneously condemns attempts to engage with the one group, yet calls for greater understanding of the other!

"The coup was complete when Boris took over our London ..."

Again, it's this breathtaking cynicism towards the whole democratic process! Look, I may not like it any more than you do, Yasmin, but Boris was elected legitimately by the people of London. He didn't march into City Hall with guns and tanks; he won the popular vote. What's the point of having a democratic system in the first place, if you're going to cry foul play the second it produces a result you don't approve of?

I think this is how most dictatorships start out, you know. An initially well-intentioned belief that the people sometimes make the wrong choice, and that they need to be controlled for their own good.

But then Yasmin moves on from cynicism to something far, far worse:

"Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean 'leaders' who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks."

Yasmin is effectively saying "If you come from an ethnic minority, you should vote for a left-of-centre party". I think this borders on outright racism, and it's equally insulting to both ethnic minorities and to white people. Why should your ethnicity have any bearing on how you vote? I'd like to live in the sort of tolerant and neutral Britain where people's ethnicity isn't an issue. The sort of Britain where we make up our mind on how to vote by reading the parties' manifestos and making our minds up, rather than on the basis of our skin colour.

Conservatism, whether you love it or hate it, is an ideology based on economics, on a particular social model, on a particular philosophy. If a person happens to agree with that philosophy, surely they're justified in voting Conservative. Exactly the same goes for Liberal Democrat and Labour voters. There's something very distasteful about putting emotional pressure on someone to vote against their intellectual viewpoint on the basis of their skin colour.

The comment about "following the wind blowing the Tories to victory" is pretty distasteful, too. It's suggesting that people are only voting Tory because it's somehow fashionable; Yasmin can't get her head round the idea that someone might make a positive choice to vote Conservative for reasons of principle. When people vote Lib Dem or Labour, fair play to them, we respect their views; but if they vote Tory, they're apparently doing it for spurious reasons rather than from genuine political belief. That's an undemocratic attitude.

As a Lib Dem, I believe in trusting the voters - and that means respecting them even when they make the "wrong" decision. The correct response to recent Tory successes is not to insult, patronise and emotionally blackmail the voters. It's to accept the people's decision, to work hard, campaign hard, and do our best to win the national debate in the future.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is supposed to be from the same end of the political spectrum as I am, but this article makes me feel every bit as far removed from the left as from the right. I may share her views on many of the key issues of the day, but when it comes to fundamental and underlying attitudes, I think she's on a totally different planet. Choose your allies carefully!