Legal Torture

It's well accepted among sane people that George Bush was a moron of the highest proportions, and that he should never have been able to hold the most powerful job in the world. But sometimes even morons can do something that surprises you in its stupidity, and he's decided to demonstrate this point in a beautiful way, and we should never misunderestimate old George's ability to do just that.

Today's big cover story in The Times proclaims that 'Waterboarding Saved London from Attacks', going with a story from George Bush that he allowed waterboarding to take place, and he thinks the information gleaned from this saved many lives from terrorist attacks.

Now in the much glamourised world of spies, the likes of Jack Bauer go running round all day chasing bad guys and it's only through the use of force that anything gets done, then all of a sudden the day is saved. Bush seems to subscribe to this view. That isn't how it works.

First of all Bush tries to claim that waterboarding isn't torture because it 'didn't leave any permanent damage'. I understand that George has his own dictionary, and a very 'special' way with words, but this has never been the definition of torture, and so it shouldn't be.

The real definition, if you're interested, is that torture is defined as "...any act by which severe suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person".

For those who don't know, waterboarding is essentially a way of slowly drowning someone, so that they are put in such pain that they will tell the people torturing them absolutely anything. Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be waterboarded to see what it was like, and to show just how horrifying it is. If that isn't torture, then nothing is.

As a country we should never participate or condone anything like this, or any form of torture whatsoever. There is the argument that the ends (getting information) justify the means, but I don't think that stands up at all. If you justify waterboarding then why not beating up the prisoner, or putting them on the rack? We realised long ago that torture is immoral and not helpful, justifying a new form of torture on the grounds that it doesn't cause 'physical damage' is abhorrent.

To use the ends justify the means argument you're making a lot of assumptions. You assume you have the right person. You assume that they know everything you need to know. You assume that they will tell you the right information in time. I think that's a lot of assumptions to make to justify inflicted horrendous suffering on someone, and indeed there's plenty of evidence which shows that torture is a terrible way of getting accurate information from people.

And on that other point, I said the prisoner would tell the torturer 'anything', and I meant exactly that. They will say absolutely anything to get out of that situation, not just the truth. You could end up with a whole load of false leads because someone is so understandably desperate to get out of that situation that they will say whatever they think the person wants to hear.

Torture doesn't work, and is indefensible morally. Whatever benefits George may now claim it bought (which are very dubious indeed) it cannot justify the means. I've said before, if security services need to break human rights laws to get their job done, then they should find another way to do their job.

How can we as a people criticise human rights issues in other countries when we are complicit in torture? We can't. It makes no difference whether it's a pensioner, a schoolchild or a terrorist, human rights apply to everyone. If human rights aren't universal, then they aren't worth a jot.

Like Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both."

Edit: A writer at ConservativeHome has applauded George Bush for his 'decisiveness' and claimed he will be seen positively in the future. I've said before why I think being decisive is a very overrated attribute, and would much rather have someone in power who occasionally changed their mind after seeing new evidence than a leader like Bush who went charging all guns blazing (quite literally in some cases) without any thought for consequences or changing situations.

Yes to AV, yes to fairer votes.

On 5th May 2011, there will be a referendum on changing the voting system in the UK, from the current First Past the Post, to the Alternative Vote. Here's why I think it's time for a change.

It seems bizarre to me that there is even a serious movement that would be opposed to the change in this referendum, but it seems as though there may be a serious fight on the cards to win a change in the voting system. So here's why I think the 'Yes' vote really has to win.

The first idea to quash is that we shouldn't have this referendum because people don't care, and there are other more important issues to deal with than the way we vote people into parliament. Quite how the No2AV campaign can use this as one of their main objections baffles me, we're having the referendum anyway, why would you vote 'No' just because you don't think it should be held? Surely your vote should reflect what you feel on the subject, the question on the paper won't be 'Do you like that we're having this referendum?' Just because there are other more important issues doesn't mean we shouldn't address it, I'm sure that the world won't implode into anarchy because for one day the people of Britain have to go out and put a cross on a piece of paper.

The system we have right now is broken, unfit for the size of the country and for multi-party politics. Whichever way you look at it First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) is unfair. Millions of people up and down the country didn't get a vote at this last election. They may have dutifully gone down to the polling station and filled in their slip, but it was a wasted effort. FPTP means wasted votes, any vote for a losing candidate counts for nothing.

Too many people couldn't even vote for the party that they wanted, because they knew there was no chance of that candidate winning in their seat, they might have been Labour in a Lib Dem-Tory seat or Tory in a Labour-Lib Dem seat, either way they were effectively kicked out of the whole process. They had to vote 'tactically' to try and block the other major party from winning, meaning their own candidate suffered even more. Never again should someone be told that to vote how they want to would be a wasted vote.

With AV you are guaranteed that the winning candidate has a majority of at least 50% of their constituents, something far too many failed to achieve in 2010. There is no need to break the constituency link and it eliminates tactical voting.

Because in AV you rank your candidates, it will often be second preference votes which allow a person to be elected. This will mean they have to appeal to a broad range of people outside their traditional base and rely on picking up second choice votes from them. We will be rid of some the disgusting negative tactics epitomised by Phil Woolas (though he isn't alone, all parties engage in it) because insulting another party will instantly mean losing all their second choice votes. Finally, votes will be cast for policy, not out of fear of the alternative.

So, what could people possibly object to? These are a few choice ones from the No2AV campaign, and are frankly laughable.

• It will let extremist party supporters (i.e. BNP) have more than one vote - It will give everyone a choice to vote in ranking, yes, but will actually make it harder for extremist parties to get support because it's unlikely that they'll be many people's second choice. Their appeal is very narrow. Score one for an own goal to the 'No' campaign there then.
• It will 'muddy the debate' in marginal seats - No, what it will mean is that in marginal seats you won't be able to bash the other candidate in a desperate grab for power, you'll have to set out policies which appeal to a broad spectrum of the constituents. 
• AV is a compromise no-one wants - I know that there are plenty of people (myself included) who think that AV is not enough, we should reform the voting to be much more proportional. But AV is a step in the right direction, and crucially, whilst its not as far as some want, it's infinitely better than what we have right now. A 'No' vote won't be interpreted as a vote for 'AV doesn't go far enough'. It will be seen as a vote for 'we like things how they are'.

But, for the pièce de résistance, this is by far the most condescending, ridiculous and insulting objection of all:

The AV system (i.e. putting numbers from 1 to 5 in a box rather than a cross) is too confusing for people.

Now I'm not sure who exactly many of my readers are, but I'd like to hedge a bet here. I'm willing to put a significant amount of money on the fact that pretty much everyone reading this is capable of not only counting to 5 (in order as well!), but of writing those numbers down in a box.

Vote 'Yes' for AV, yes for fairer votes.

Maybe I give people too much credit, but it doesn't seem like much of a jump from a cross, to numbers.

The No2AV campaign has nothing positive to say because there is nothing positive about the FPTP system they try to defend. So instead, they resort to this condescending negative attack which doesn't even look at the real issue of which is the better voting system, and they end up suggesting that most people would find counting to 5 far too difficult. Utter buffoons.

There are many more reasons to vote for AV than I could mention in one blog, some of which can be found here and here. And there are many more reasons why FPTP is dead, which you can find here. In six months time everyone gets a vote, and for the sake of a fair democracy I pray to whichever God/s you might or might not believe in that you vote Yes.

Letting emotion rule the roost.

Sometimes in Medicine people let their hearts overrule their heads, and it inevitably ends up hurting patients. I have a feeling that this is exactly what's happened with the decision to take away the power from NICE to decide which drugs should be paid for on the NHS. Instead we'll have a postcode lottery, with a real probability of money being wasted on popularist treatments that aren't actually as effective at what they do and drain money away from where it is really needed.

I've written before about how NICE gets undeserved scorn from some areas of the press, and perhaps that's inevitable given that their job involves denying the funding of drugs to patients. But the fact of the matter that while people might not think it in good taste to look at aspects of health care from a cost-effectiveness point of view, that is what you have to do when there isn't a limitless budget. You have to prioritise treatments, and that means that some people will inevitably lose out. All you can do is make sure the smallest amount of people lose the smallest amount possible. In fact, despite it's reputation for negative decisions, NICE has approved 83% of all new treatments it's had to consider funding.

You don't have to look far to see that people won't always be able to see what the best treatments will be for themselves. The very fact that the NHS spends £4 million a year on Homeopathy, a treatment which has been thoroughly debunked and shown to have no positive effect beyond that of a placebo, is proof enough that people will happily shell out hard cash for worthless treatments.

That is why NICE is so essential, it takes out the political and business influence from something that should be purely based on rigorous clinical assessment of its cost/benefit. Of course government's are going to want to provide the drugs that give the most positive headlines, and the pharmaceutical companies are going to want to claim every drug they produce is worth spending fortunes on, but we can't let those vested interests get in the way of giving patients the best care we can with the funds available.

We shouldn't give in to the powerful lobbying of the big pharma companies, who will benefit massively from this new supposed 'value-based pricing' which will take out the ability of an independent body to just say no to these companies. When you have a body that can simply say no, this isn't worth the price you're charging, it forces pharma to up their game and provide value for money.

Of course, this isn't the only time I've suggested reform of pharmaceutical companies, and it's not that I want to damage them, but I think reform is needed so that they serve he patients interests before they serve their stockholders.

If you want to see what happens when pharma holds all the cards and claims that this is in the interests of the patients, then look to the USA. Admittedly, their problems run deeper than simply the drugs companies, but they are a major reason why their health care costs have increased exponentially since the 1980's, to the point they pay the most per capita anywhere in the world. Yet, for all this money being spent on the top drugs, they have some of the worst health outcomes of any developed country. Lots of money spent on health care is only beneficial if it's targeted in the right areas.

Andrew Lansley is playing political games with the NHS, and so far its fallen on unsympathetic ears from all areas of health care. This is the latest in a long line of failures. Let's keep providing money for treatments that are shown to work, and provide the best care possible. Let's keep NICE.

What's the point of the monarchy?

We have a country full of pomp and tradition, and in its place that can be welcome. But as much as it may excite the tourists to head to London and see the changing of the guard, why exactly in the 21st century do we still have as our Head of State someone who did nothing more than be born from one particularly lucky womb?

It really is quite bizarre when you think about it that we still give so much money and status to someone based on their class when we live in one of the most developed democracies in the world. We long ago decided that no-one's bloodline should mean that they are given more power than someone else, but we forgot about the monarch.

We all pay for the grace and favour lifestyles of people like Prince Charles, who without the ability to piggyback on the position of Prince would never be able to function in a normal society. The idea that this man could one day be King should frankly be terrifying.

The man had the most prestigious education money can buy, and yet came out with a B and a C in his A-levels. With those grades you'd laugh at most people if they applied to Cambridge, but no, he used his position to get into one of the world's best universities where he again spectacularly failed to live up to his position, scraping out with a 2:2. Now, many people come out with hard-earned 2:2's from university, but not only did he only scrape this despite the UK's best possible education, but this is the man who claims that when he becomes King he will speak up for the country's interests? I'd rather you stayed out of it Charlesy boy.

So what are these views that he'll be 'standing up for'?

Well, he's an ardent critic of modern science, saying it lacks a soul. As such, his charity, The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health (now closed as of this year due to accusations of fraud), were fervent supporters of 'Alternative Medicine', and huge lobbiers trying to force the NHS to pour ever more wasted funds into these quack treatments. They spent money on teaching medical students to 'embrace complementary approaches to medical care. You could replace the word 'complementary' with 'bogus' and it would make much more sense. (For more on why I hate Alternative Medicine with such a passion, other than the fact it doesn't work, read here.)

He also claims to be an environmentalist, standing up against GM crops and warning of climate change. Whilst its a rare positive that he's standing against climate change, and I applaud that, it'd maybe be a little more convincing if he didn't undo all that good work by taking private jets for all manner of trivial visits.

But even if he wasn't an idiot, the argument would be no weaker for scrapping the monarchy. It's a bygone from an age that has passed, and we should be rid of it.

Right now as our Head of State we have someone who was unelected and who is totally unaccountable. The monarch may not have as many powers as they once did, but don't presume they have none. It's through the Crown that some of the most undemocratic aspects of our government are allowed to remain.

• The royal prerogative allows the Prime Minister to start wars and sign treaties (amongst other things) without having to ask parliament. Laughing in the face of democracy.
• The privy council, senior politicians who act as advisors to the monarch, can enact laws without having a vote in parliament.
• The power of the monarch to appoint whomever they likes as Prime Minister. In reality, this goes to the leader with the majority in the commons, but it is not impossible for this to be unclear, (as in 1957) and the monarch could have the deciding vote.

What we need is a change, a change so that we can elect our Head of State. The campaign group Republic have an excellent example of how this could be introduced, with us keeping the power of parliament, whilst gaining an elected head of state who would have the limited powers that are needed to be held outside of government. By being elected that person would be accountable, and finally we could rightly claim that we truly live in a democracy.

We can't afford the Browne review.

The final lie has been given to the idea that we need land students in ever larger mountains of debt because of the country's finances. The change will cost us more, not less. Not only is it unfair, it doesn't even make sense in the warped economic policy vision of the government.

Clegg's pledge, the one he abandoned in exchange for his ministerial car.

Some brilliant number crunching by Andrew Harding at 2me2you has shown that rather than us needing to increase tuition fees to save the country money, it will do the opposite. Implementing a doubling of the tuition fee cap will actually cost the taxpayer an extra £3bn a year, thus quashing the very last defence of all who support it.

We'd been led to believe that that Lib Dem's had been 'forced' into changing their policy due to the need to cut the deficit. As Alan Johnson neatly put it, "Somewhere between the ballot box closing and his ministerial car door opening, Nick Clegg changed his mind". Never mind that their arguments made no sense (for the bazillionth time, we are nothing like Greece! As confirmed by a Nobel laureate.), we had to raise fees because the country couldn't afford it.

I'd like to see if they change their minds now that it's come out that increasing fees will cost the taxpayer more in the short-term.

Because the government will have to cover the fees up front, and then be paid the money back in the long term, the cost of the Browne review per year in the short term is up £3 billion, and that's after you include the £6 billion cut to core funding that universities receive. In short, the whole things a bloody mess, pushed through by people who have taken no effort to listen to the people who actually frequent these universities, the students.

Annual government spend on HE funding   Current Browne Core funding £7,478,145,985.80 £1,637,700,686 Fees maintenance £10,824,313,850.00 £19,740,390,000.00 Total (core + fees) £18,302,459,835.80 £21,378,090,686

Not only will we have this extra burden on the taxpayer, but you'll at the same time land student's with massive debts that will leave those on the middle incomes paying more than those on high incomes. And whilst they may claim to have made provision's to keep attracting poorer student's, the reality is that the insecurity about possibly being landed with a lifetime of debt will put off those from the poorest backgrounds. We should be attracting the best, not the ones with the best childhood.

I am glad to see the Lib Dems telling us there won't be a free market in the university fees, which would inevitably lead to a two-tier system, but it really is a tiny bit of silver lining on the edge of a hurricane. It's the equivalent of them telling someone they'll shoot them in the head, and then deciding they'll just kneecap them instead. It's better, but not exactly good.

Let's move on from this calamity, and actually have a serious discussion. And I don't mean the kind where people simply say, 'Oh, you want a pure graduate tax, how quaint, it won't work.' Nobodies arguing for a pure graduate tax, but there are other variations out there that we should be looking at. If the argument for not tweaking a graduate tax is that it doesn't work as it stands, then how is that different to the Browne review, which patently doesn't achieve any of its objectives.

Time for a serious debate, and this time round, let's include the students yeah?