Ed Miliband: “Justice secretary should not be in his post at the end of today”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9488000/9488907.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

During last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions, leader of the opposition Ed Miliband took his first opportunity to speak to refer to a radio interview justice secretary Ken Clarke had earlier that day in which the government’s policy on rape convictions was discussed. In the interview, Clarke defended the government’s consultation on an expansion of sentence reduction for pleading guilty from one third to a half. At one point in the interview the secretary had to be told the average sentence for rape is five years, he was surprised it wasn’t more than that. Clarke then went on  to talk about different categories of rape, mentioning in particular “serious rape” and “date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds”.

According to Miliband the justice secretary “cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that” and “should not be in his post at the end of today”. Cameron simply said he hadn’t heard the interview and refused to respond to what Miliband told him the secretary had said. Instead he switched the discussion to what he said to be the major issue, namely that only 6% of all rapes are reported to the police and end in conviction. He didn’t specify how he wants  to tackle this other than stating an increase in sentence reduction for pleading guilty is a considerable option. He did not respond to Miliband’s point that the government cut the number of police officers by 1200, leaving the question how the government is going to increase the prosecution rate of rape offenders with less police force.

Apocalypse not right now: 'Rapture' end of world fails to materialise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8527582/Apocalypse-not-right-now-Rapture-end-of-world-fails-to-materialise.html

Today will be The day, judgement day, apocalypse, Armageddon, the end of the world. A calculation has been made based on biblical data that god will pass judgement on all human beings and end the world on the 21^st of may 2011 at 6pm local time all over the globe. Eighty-nine-year-old tele-evangelist Harold Camping has taken the duty upon him to warn those willing to listen to his prophesy and followers from all over the planet have spread the word.

As I’m writing this word has arrived from New Zealand, which would be the first country to be swallowed by the ocean, that god has at least slightly delayed his judgment on the kiwis. 6pm precisely apparently was slightly inconvenient for him, or maybe the prediction was slightly off and he will select one moment to deal with the whole planet at once.

One might wonder why on earth I’m writing this blog when at most a few people might read it during the last day of their lives. Well, just between you and me, I must admit I’m a little skeptical. Predictions like this one have been made before and Mr. Camping himself has already stated that today might just be the beginning of a state of pre-damnation for all none believers and the world will end no earlier than October 21 this year. It could be seen as slightly peculiar that Camper does these predictions at an age at which one is generally unlikely to live for all the much longer.

Infinite mocking jokes could be made about such predictions, but instead I’d like to leave you with a question to think about: What is this difference between people predicting judgment day and those stating that, just to mention an example, homosexuality is a sin because god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?

Those still wondering where I’m going I’ll leave with a quote that is so universal it’s impossible to trace who first uttered it: “Live and let live”.

Drug laws and bans on legal highs 'do more harm than good'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/drug-laws-bans-legal-highs

The UK drug policy commission warns that the current 40 year old Misuse of Drugs Act is outdated and made increasingly redundant by the rise of “legal highs” and increasing availability of drugs on the internet. In its report, Taking Drugs Seriously (the name is either pun intended or unfortunately chosen, or both), the commission points to research sources that indicate that legislating legal highs (soft drug) automatically leads to a decrease in the use of more dangerous substances. The report therefore suggests the government shifts from a drug control legislation to a consumer protection legislation. This new policy would mean that drug vendors will be compelled to prove that their substances meet certain standards and to provide information on dosage and side effects with the drugs.

The government, having always favoured prohibition, is reluctant to contemplate the suggestions uttered by the report.

I don’t have an opinion as to whether drugs should be legal under certain conditions or not. I think the focus should  be on the problems caused by drugs and how to minimize them, and minimizing problems with anything I think is not by definition done best by attempting to shield people from any potential harm. Key to solving any political or sociological problem I think is to start with being open to all sides of the argument. Ironically, I think the government should be more open minded when it comes to drugs.

Coalition commits Britain to legally binding emission cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/14/historic-climate-change-deal-agreed-chris-huhne

An agreement has been reached among cabinet ministers to accept a legally binding “green deal” that will commit Britain to strongly reduce its carbon emissions over the next two decades. The green deal was recommended by the independent Committee on Climate Change, which was led by David Kennedy. The deal will, if carried out successfully, fulfill Cameron’s promise of leading the greenest government in history.

The target is to have reduced carbon emissions by 60% in 2030 compared to 1990, which will also set Britain on a course to have emissions reduced by 80% in 2050. In order to meet this target, multiple policies will be enforced. 40% of UK’s power should come from natural sources and 31% of new cars should be electric, part of carbon emission still made will be stored underground.

Before reading this article I had the image of the fight against climate change that it was a process going extremely slowly as a result of the huge interest worldwide in energy production that does produce carbon emission. The changes that according to the article will be the result of this green deal seem very significant to me and do inspire hope.

As with Cameron’s commitment to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of national income to be spend on official development assistance, I think this a wonderful plan and I’m surprised to see these changes being made by a conservative led government. I would be interested to see Labour's, or specifically Ed Miliband's  response to this.

Liam Fox challenges David Cameron foreign aid policy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-challenges-cameron-foreign-aid-policy-2285114.html

David Cameron's plan to set a statutory minimum of 0.7% of the national income to be spend on official development assistance (ODA) has encountered resistance within both his party and his government. Defense secretary for the conservatives Liam Fox has written Cameron a letter expressing his disapproval with this proposed amendment, he thinks the plan is likely to cause the government legal challenges in the future. Fox prefers an alternative in which a target is recognized in legislation and reflected upon in an annual report

According to a source close to Fox, he is in favor of a 0.7% target, but disapproves with Cameron on how to legislate this. Currently this target is not met, in 2009 the percentage of national income spent on ODA was 0,52%.

Some conservative MPs go further in criticizing Their prime minister and party leader by saying it is not wise to increase spending on ODA in times where domestic priorities, like defense, are at stake.

I consider it nothing less than a duty for any wealthy country, like the UK is, to have aid for less privileged countries amongst the top priorities at all times, providing the way it's spend is closely looked after and controlled. In this perspective, 0.7 per cent seems quite small to me, but considering it was only 0.52% not too long ago, legally insuring a 0.7% minimum seems a good start to me.

It surprises me that this proposal is made by a conservative prime minister and my estimation of David Cameron has altered positively by this, especially considering the resistance he encounters.