Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

Mystic Mart

I've just been re-reading my predications for 2008. How do you think I did?

I usually have a rule not to make political predictions but I made an exception for last year's Christmas issue:

The New Statesman does not employ an astrologer and the usual rule of thumb is that political predictions are as useful as a handful of homoeopathic sugar-pills. But this year we have been persuaded to indulge in journalistic crystal-ball gazing, because it looks set to be one heck of a 12 months. By the end of 2008 we will have a good idea whether this government is in any state to win an unprecedented fourth election, or whether the current climate of wintry gloom will prove deadly. Much will depend on whether the Conservatives (or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats) build themselves into a credible force.

Almost exactly a year ago, Tony Blair received a festive visit from Scotland Yard to question him about the "cash for honours" affair, in which campaign payments for the 2005 election were hidden as loans. One near certainty at the time was that Gordon Brown would succeed Blair during 2007, but no one could have predicted that the new Prime Minister would himself be engulfed by a police probe into secret donations. There is nothing more corrosive to trust in politicians than the suggestion of dirty money. The Brown administration is wise to this. Cross-party talks on funding, suspended in October after just five meetings, will have to restart, so look out for a compromise deal within weeks.

Apologies for reheating a prediction from last year's NS Christmas special (just goes to show how tricky soothsaying can be): "It is likely that the first stories about a Lib Dem-Conservative electoral pact will emerge in 2007," we said. There were rumours of talks about talks, but nothing substantial materialised. The trouble for the Tories was that Menzies Campbell was never the man to make the deal, because of a historical loyalty to his old friend Brown. No such scruples need bother the new Lib Dem leader. The Tories will argue that in the event of a hung parliament, the third party will have a moral obligation to opt for a change of government.

During the series of crises that followed the "election that never was", Brown has consoled himself with the plaudits he received for his reaction to early events in his premiership: the failed terror attacks, the floods and foot-and- mouth. Sir Michael Pitt's independent report into ministers' response to the floods will provide the first assessment of the new administration in the face of a crisis. Anything negative in the report will be seized on by Brown's enemies to suggest that the honeymoon was all hype.

One of Brown's first acts as PM, in order to establish his brand, was to set up a series of reviews of Blairite policies about which he had always been less than convinced: supercasinos, 24-hour licensing and the downgrading of cannabis classification. The first of these will be published in January and the last in April. The announcement of the reviews allowed Brown to represent himself as a breath of fresh air sweeping away the excesses of the Blair era. This was the very essence of Brownite new puritanism: designed to be equally attractive to the Daily Mail and core Labour supporters.

But the real test will come when Brown is asked to reveal what he really thinks. Will he actually take on the drinks and gambling in dustries? Will he reverse the downgrading of cannabis and risk boosting the prison population still further? An initial analysis of his decision-making processes suggests that he takes all the available advice he is given, goes into a period of intense self-examination, hesitates and then plumps for the compromise option. This showed itself most clearly over the issue of extending the period that terror suspects can be held without trial from 28 days. Blair and the police had originally wanted 90 days. The outgoing attorney general, the serving Director of Public Prosecutions and the Tories said 28 days was sufficient. So Brown opted for an arbitrary 42 days, guaranteeing his first backbench rebellion of the New Year.

How would that process of consultative compromise work for other policies? Perhaps Brown could announce "midicasinos" (not quite large enough to merit the title "super", but still able to rake in a tidy profit for the gambling industry and provide a modicum of regeneration). With licensing, maybe he could cut the new "Continental" drinking culture to a mere 20 hours, with bars closing between four and eight in the morning. Only on cannabis is compromise more difficult. The increasing strength of new forms of cannabis and new evidence of a connection to psychotic illness suggest a stricter approach is inevitable. But the prisons are already full of drugs offenders and Brown will not wish to add to the problem.

Feel the squeeze

Hovering over everything Brown does in 2008 will be grave worries about the economy. Even if he takes up Vincent Cable's suggestion of nationalising Northern Rock, the fallout from the collapse of the north-east bank will continue to plague the Treasury well into the New Year.

A sustained fall in house prices would eat into the reputation for economic confidence Brown built up while he was chancellor. Every government department will feel the squeeze from the settlement announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. This will prove particularly difficult for Des Browne at Defence, who has already come under sustained fire from retired generals. But here, perhaps, is one cause for cautious optimism. The year ahead could bring the final removal of British troops from Iraq, coupled with a strengthened presence in Afghani stan, which ministers still believe they can turn into a good news story.

After the spring, the Labour Party will be thrown into a London mayoral election in which Ken Livingstone faces a real challenge for the first time. Boris Johnson is no political heavyweight, but he is as recognisable as Ken is, and equally at ease with the media. The contest will have serious implications nationally if Livingstone loses. The mayor has made it his business to cultivate better links with Brown and his circle. The green light for the Crossrail deal to link east and west London is seen as the early fruit of improved relations.

But Brown must be careful not to hitch himself too closely to Livingstone. The London Evening Standard has already published a series of damaging articles about the mayor's race adviser, Lee Jasper. The intense scrutiny of Livingstone's close circle will continue until the poll on 1 May. Brown has been burned by the row over David Abrahams's donations and rightly criticised for not making it his business to be better informed of the party's funding arrangements. He will do well to interrogate the Livingstone campaign to avoid any hidden surprises.

The civil liberties debate will rage, and we will follow developments closely. Growing public concern over plans to introduce identity cards intensified after the loss of 25 million child benefit records. This still has the capacity to end up as Labour's poll tax, and ministers should use the New Year to come up with an ingenious escape route (the vast expense and the fact that Whitehall civil servants cannot be trusted with our personal information should do the trick).

The treatment of refugees, as Alice O'Keeffe reports on page 58, should already be a national scandal. Developing a policy to allow failed asylum-seekers to fall into destitution as a de terrent to others should not be countenanced by a prime minister who claims to be guided by a moral compass. However, any change of policy in this area seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, we will follow with interest the trial of Derek Pasquill, the Foreign Office civil servant accused of leaking confidential documents to the New Statesman and the Observer concerning policy on radical Islam and "extraordinary rendition" - the de facto kidnapping of terrorism suspects for interrogation. As a result of the disclosures, the government's line on both issues shifted considerably; yet ministers still sanctioned shooting the messenger. It is our contention that this is a political trial, designed to save ministerial embarrassment. One safe prediction for 2008 is that this magazine will lead the campaign to drop the Pasquill prosecution.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Clong
15 December 2008 at 13:30

Yea not bad predictions, but unfortunately what you failed to get correct was that there is no proven causal link between cannabis and psychosis. Nor is the cannabis any stronger...infact due to vietnamese gangs flash drying cannabis and selling it sprayed with chemicals and solvents...the only thing stronger is the damage to our healths through inhaling this contamination.

As much as i have faith in humanity, i have lost faith in media for potraying cannabis as evil...yet its the safest of all drugs and has been proven to help in medical application.

Its about time people woke up and realised that cannabis legalisation and education is needed to solve these problems. Not prohibition and criminalisation of our youths.

Speaking as a mother
15 December 2008 at 14:07

very well said Clong.

you can see the lies and spawning misinformation from the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 'Antonio Maria Costa' here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xdOzi2ou2ZY&eurl=http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=153379) when a simple question asked at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs almost got the questioner ejected from the debate because Costa could not answer..

question.

“Why, after more than 30 years of regulated availability to adults over 18 years, is cannabis use in the Netherlands lower than in most European countries and the USA - and not higher, as would be expected if the prohibition of illicit drugs really was effective?”

Winston Matthews
15 December 2008 at 15:52

Seems that you have the Legalise cannabis alliance UK lobby on your case, as this is yet another post about this subject, yet when successive governments, who ask for reports to prove the link between cannabis and madness, (it was called reefer madness, years ago, yet now it is called cannabis psychosis, )yet still no causal link is found.

Reports from the reefer madness days could prove no link, and now when we pay for a team of experts, then ignore there advice, this is social sculpturing of recreational drug kind.

The ACMD said it shouldn't be moved back to B, yet as the high's you get from the drug alcohol, and the rush from gambling are encouraged, by our government with laws to provide for better usage of these addictions.

The old adage cannabis is safer than alcohol and nicotine is well known ( the Berkley report, just lately show this), also, thanks to the power of the internet, I can find reports to suggest cannabis is equally as harmful as the drug caffeine, So our categorisation system is a not based on scientific evidence.

Young people see the damage the legal drugs do, also the artistic license use of the supposed horrors of cannabis, as portrayed by our government body to advice the youth called 'talk to Frank', this group comes up with a spinning brain, or a incorrect use of statistics of brain damage, to mental health, on TV ads that are mocked.

(Spinning brains ever closed your eyes after a drink and had the room spinning? I'm sure most of our youth have.)

Cannabis is the least harmful recreational substance, and I'm tempted to put sugar in that list, just for clarity, yet it could cloud it all.

So until our rules show the categorisation system is no good at all, and when it was constructed in 71 with a criteria of harm, then our laws seem to be doing more harm that the substances prohibition are saving us from.

Prohibition just doesn't work!

Martin Bright
15 December 2008 at 16:31

Don't jump to conclusions. I am anti-prohibition. But I think it would be difficult to argue that there are not stronger forms of cannabis available or that there is not a serious argument to be had about the links to mental illness. I am agnostic on this. I was just trying to second-guess what the PM might do.

Clong
15 December 2008 at 16:46

Mr Bright, thankyou for your reply.

There has always been varying qualities of cannabis.

There are is also many types....Skunk is just a nickname that the police use for all the bud that smells.

Yet the make no distinction between Cannabis Sativa or Indica and its hash derivatives. All of which can have varying THC levels....much like alcohol, tobacco, coffee. But the real secret is, there has always been good weed out there....its just being lucky enough to catch it before it's been adulterated.

If you head over to www.cannazine.pr you will find some interesting reports from Bill Stone and many others. These will help you gain some information.

You should really check out the dvd "The Union - The business behind getting high" infact...... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kMDVveEZjI8&feature=PlayList&p...

Watch that and then come back and tell me what you think.

There are psychological problems linked to everything. Even sugar has been proven to have the same addictive qualities and some of the comedown qualities of Cocaine and Heroin. You can get badly depressed and suffer the cold sweats, even psychological episodes from drinking too much coffee.

Win makes some very good points there, and you will hear those echoed all around the net.

Maybe you could be the reporter to who supported the legalisation and actually reported on the farce that is jackie smiths prohibitionist & puritanical ways.

You do realise that Hitler ordered the persecution of 0.03% of his country.....Jackie Smith is ordering the persecution of over 5% of the UK. Who is the real enemy here?

Cheers.

Chris Long.

EB
16 December 2008 at 18:27

Apart from his own anti-cannabis psychosis, I'm sure Brown's reclassification nonsense has a lot to do with: imminent approval for Sativex (GW Pharma), the drop in alcohol consumption, keeping the police/courts/prisons in a job. Big business, served by greedy vested interests, is keeping cannabis illegal - all for their own greedy ends. Can't possibly have people growing their own weed at little cost and certainly not for medical applications, not when a Pharma company can 'legally' produce weed, adulterate it, then sell it to the people at great cost. Cannabis has been shown to help cancer sufferers or even cure cancer completely but naturally this won't come into the mass media because the cancer Pharma companies would be out of a job. To keep a number of industry sectors happy the people of this country are being persecuted for no good reason. But, hey, let's advertise a much more dangerous pychoactive drug (alcohol), tell the public that it's actually 'good for you' and (more recently) that it's OK for pregnant women to drink some alcohol. That will ensure drinkers out-number cannabis users (Brown's pals kept happy), the persecution can continue (police etc. kept happy) and people can continue to die from cancer being fed a cocktail of expensive harmful drugs that don't work (Pharma companies happy). You couldn't make it up (unlike Brown & Smith who are quite happy to make any stuff up to suit their own ends). We don't live in a democracy and we're not free.

gnuneo
16 December 2008 at 21:47

well, what's next years prognosis?

the lib-dems chuck Clegg, and the Labour Party finally wakes up to its own impending demise at the hands of nuLabour and ejects them lock stock and barrel, the incoming left-of centre leaders then form a red-orange-green alliance and sweep almost unopposed into power, and start regenerating the UK to face the new Millennium?

would be nice.

Mark
04 October 2009 at 13:40

I'm utterly confused as to how strength of cannabis is used as a reason for it to REMAIN illegal - it's actually an example of why it needs to be regulated with THC percentages put on the bag. Like with alcohol and tobacco and caffine.

Like already stated in these comments, there's always been different strengths of weed. Any idiot that says that there's 'new super skunk', just shows themself to be so out of touch, they rely on scaremongering and heresay to conduct their logic.

Logic must be used to judged everything, if one wants to be sensible. If countless scientific evidence shows alcohol is more damaging than weed, which clearly from the number of deaths, violence, and unwanted pregancies, it is, then why the hell is someone who takes a lesser drug (weed), a criminal, yet someone who takes this more vile drug (alcohol), an upstanding member of society.

Last week I received a junk email from Tesco offering me 40% off some wine. Delivered to my door. You couldn't make it up. I'm a criminal if I smoke some weed. Yet a shop is legally allowed to try and convince me to put some alcohol down my neck.

The cannabis law is persecuation. I'm sick of the fact we have to buy random stength weed, depening on what the dealer happens to have. Imagine if alcohol was made illegal and everyone was buying it on the black market. One week they would have some low strengh shandy. The next they'd have some 50% vodka. They'd have to take whatever they could get.

Only a complete idiot would look at the logic of cannabis and alcohol, and decide that alcohol is the safer to be legal, and that the cannabis user is a criminal. I'm ashamed of this country, it's like a horrible cancer, but with the sick twist that the people who like a relatively safer drug such as cannabis, are the ones made to look like we are the scum.

I wish someone would take the government to court over this. If I ever get proscuted for smoking it, I certainly will. Being labelled a criminal because I decided alcohol is too strong and nasty for me, and that I prefer the more gentleness of being stoned, is an utter disgrace.

What makes it unforgiveable, is the government then try and say it leads on to harder drugs, or give us sob stories about how we're contributing to death and misery on the black market. No Gordon Brown, any black market misery can be blamed on hypercritical cannabis laws. YOU are responsible.

Mark
04 October 2009 at 13:49

PS: I'm all for scientific study into cannabis - I want to know about it, I want to know the risk. But whilst the government has their head in the sand over this, who knows what scaremongering to believe?

The damage has already been done by governments that lied to us in the past about how 'bad' cannabis is. So now it's hard to believe any of those idiots.

I want to know the risks - and for that to be properly done, the government need to stop ignoring the issue, and properly research it.

As for research, they can start right away on electronic cigarettes. The last I heard, the government wanted to ban them because we don't know what's in them yet or what harm they may cause.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I think the most simple simpleton could tell that electronic cigarettes do not seem anywhere near as bad as a real cigeretter.

But of course - it's money. The government pretends they tax the cigs so high to encourage us to quit...but if we all did quit overnight, there would be a HUGE tax hole.

Which is why I assume its sticking it's head in the sand over electronic cigarettes. These could save millions, upon millions of lives, and the government should be jumping on them, testing them, and, test permitting, approving them and ENCOURAGING their use.

Of course, it wouldn't get as much tax in...and a cigarette smoker that gives up real cigs, will live longer and have to claim a pension for longer...not a financially sound option for a country that already has a pensions crisis.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

The horror comes home

22 January 2009 09:58

Ken Clarke's return

19 January 2009 16:10

A New Deal of the mind

15 January 2009 09:31

It's a New New Deal

08 January 2009 09:51

A year of ups and downs

18 December 2008 09:44

The two-man show

11 December 2008 09:44

An abuse of power

04 December 2008 09:39

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker