The Bewilderness

The Socialisation of Public Health

The government wishes to increase the impact of disturbing images on cigarette packets, or maintain their effect.

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, unveiled the move as he conceded that the written warnings on cigarette packets, which were introduced in 2003, were beginning to lose their impact.

There is no information on how their impact was measured or what this "loss" entailed. Yet, we can infer that measurement probably involved the rate at which smokers were giving up their purchase and enjoyment of cigarettes. This is given as the reason for the move towards graphic imagery, although the drive to prohibit smoking is based upon EU Directives:

By the end of next year, every cigarette packet must carry one of 15 stark images on the effects smoking can have on the human body. Every other tobacco product will be covered by the directive a year later.

One image shows a pair of healthy lungs next to diseased organs, with the warning: "Smoking causes fatal lung cancer."

The pictures were selected in a public consultation from 42 images developed by the European Commission in line with the 2001 Labelling Directive.

Johnson insisted that the move was necessary and invoked other dubious statistics, such as 85% of all smokers wished to give up. The other reason was promoted by Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, who invoked National Health Service costs as a primary driver for public health. As always, the abolition of this public sinecure, whose authority and independence has been removed as the beck and call of political masters though the veneer remains for public spin:

Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, praised the move. "This will help promote better awareness of the damage that smoking does - an essential step towards reducing the number of people who start," he said. "It will also free NHS staff and facilities to treat conditions that are harder to prevent."

The powers of the state are used to prohibit and regulate smokers in an upward ratchet of rules and policies, whilst the concept of 'public health' is extended under socialised healthcare to smother individual freedom of action. Wine, sugar, dangerous sports, and foreign travel are all vulnerable to this elastic approach.

The Pied Piper of Holyrood

Alex Salmond has managed to achieve what no other political leader ever did: drive the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats together as the pro-Unionist parties. Why the Tories would wish to subsume their distinctive voice within the failed devolutionary tactics of the other two parties is beyond me. Whatever their agreed programme, Salmond will profit from pointing out that they are following his initiative and that they are unwilling to give the Scottish people a say on their own future.

Moreover, if devolution is so well-received, why didn't the coalition government petition for further devolved powers prior to their defeat at the polls? Neither the Liberal democrats or Labour have learned their lesson from their time in power. The Scottish Labour Party looks very tired when its leader is returned unopposed in a mockery of the Broonite succession. When a party is a set of fiefdoms and oligarchs, little wonder that the electorate lose faith in its powers.

Samlmond remains ahead of the curve, adapting his tactics to the opportunities presented and ready to take credit for any further powers given to the Scottish parliament. If Labour threaten that they will only allow further devolution upon regaining power, what will stop Salmond threatening a staging referendum on proper home rule, rather than the indecent shack established in 1999. This national conversation has one pied piper and three reluctant rats.

Strong statements mask Brown's dithering nature

The revelation that Gordon Brown has had no contact with the United States since his meeting with Dubya Bush at Camp David is the first and strongest sign that the 'special relationship' is now entering a period of permafrost until the election of a new President. Miliband's declaration that there will not be a timetable for withdrawal from Basra was directed at a number of constituencies: attacking the Liberal Democrats and their opportunistic casting for votes in the Basra scuttle; flanking the Ministry of Defence that is trying to avoid the problems of overstretch; and, most remarkably of all, quashing any thought of co-operation with the UK's only ally in Iraq, the United States.

The irresponsible statement that the withdrawal will be undertaken primarily for Brown's political convenience (tarted up as the 'national interest'), rather than in lockstep with his ally or at the behest of the Iraqi security forces, brings us to the heart of the dilemma. The government is very conscious of the unpopular price being paid by the armed forces with a knock-on effect in the polls, yet they cannot abrogate their responsibilities to Iraq or the United States. All they can do is shiver, dither, and watch more soldiers die due to underfunding and an uncertain exit strategy.

Dan Dare returns....

Dan Dare has returned and will be written by Garth Ennis. Virgin are using their space venture to boost the dormant career of our original comic hero. It also seems a fitting tribute to Massimo Belardinelli who illustrated Dan Dare in 2000AD and passed away recently.

The Virgin Comics’ version will be set a few decades from the present. Colonel Dare is energetic, courageous and retired. He is in self-imposed exile, reflecting his disgust with the political manoeuvrings and postnuclear warfare that have destroyed North America and much of Asia – leaving Britain as the world’s last remaining superpower.

Another imperial dream that doesn't coincide with our current reality.

Basra: All in a day's work for Nulab

The government has found that its plans to withdraw from Basra could not be drawn up by management consultancy. The city of Basra descends into lawless violence whilst the army is overstretched by an incompetent administration that commits to two fronts. Now Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has whined that Britain will leave Basra as it sees fit, in the "national interest".

Whitehall would be able to take the decision to withdraw independently of Washington because "we will always take British decisions in the British national interest", he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Our decisions about Basra are about the situation on the ground in Basra, not the situation on the ground in Baghdad," he added in reference to America's zone of control.

Mr Miliband also said Iraqi forces were competent enough to take over security.

The phrase, 'national interest', can cover many policies, and usually means that the government is unable to produce a convincing rationale. This catch-all fig leaf cannot conceal the two salient facts: that withdrawal from Basra has an effect upon the US forces since this is a corridor to exit the country and that Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to take control of security.

The government was attempting to scuttle away from the mess that it had made of Basra without acknowledging the dreadful security situation or deferring to the needs of their ally. This was to save money and prevent the news from impacting at home. By placing spin before strategy, they have traduced the army's reputation, placed our alliance with the United States under unprecedented strain, and brought home needless corpses. All in a day's work for New Labour.

Transmission Interrupted

Message begins. Transmission interrupted by Ghoulash and Tokaji. Normal service will be resumed next week.

Only drink or death will stop me from blogging...

Gaza's Gay Beach

Little Green Footballs has one of the many examples of BBC bias in regard to Palestine. No matter the rights or wrongs of the conflict, the unwillingness to identify Hamas minders was poor journalism. Is this written into BBC guidance on news presentation.

I was tickled by commentary that identified Gaza as a new Sharm-el-Sheik. Minutes later when the reporter visited a beach, the camera panned across a scene that would not have looked out of place in Brighton. It was men only. An idyllic scene except that real gays would probably have been shot.

Knifing the Public: No government does it better

The Telegraph reports that police community support officers [PCSOs], that cut-price innovation to waste money and appease demands for crime prevention, have proved utterly useless.

But despite their role as the "eyes and ears" of the force, PCSOs in half of the forces surveyed failed to detect any crimes. The 644 PCSOs in the West Midlands, in Northumbria (248), Nottinghamshire (217), Staffordshire (203), Dorset (122) and Dyfed Powys (77) failed to spot any offences.

The figures were slightly better for Leicestershire's 216 PCSOs, who detected six crimes in 12 months, and Northamptonshire's 129 PCSOs, who spotted 20 offences.

The PCSOs' record on issuing fines was just as unimpressive. The figures show PCSOs handed out on average just one fine every four months. In the past year, 27,711 fixed-penalty notices were handed out by 9,923 community officers from 29 forces. That is the equivalent of 2.8 fines each a year.

With the increase in real crime experienced by the public, as opposed to the virtual falling crime that appears on the government's radar screens, PCSOs are a waste of money. They could be usefully scrapped. As knife crime has doubled in two years, reported yesterday, the knee-jerk government resonse was clear: dazzling initiative, outlaw bread knives, avoid actual problem, revisit in two years when worse. No wonder those who grapple with the issue despair:

But Richard Garside, director of the CCJS, said ministers had taken the wrong approach to the issue.

"The Government has embarked on endless law-and-order initiatives, yet knife-related robberies appear to be increasing if the latest figures are to be believed.

"This challenges the notion that there is a policing or punishment solution to this problem. Success in tackling knife-related violence will require a concerted strategy to deal with the causes of violence, of which the social antagonisms caused by poverty and inequality are key," he said.

Don't remind them that prohibition fails. Prohibit guns, gun crime goes up...I might start examining tasers to defend myself.

Afghanistan: How high a price?

The Conservatives have accused the Ministry of Defence of manipulating statistics and underreporting the number of soldiers injured in Afghanistan. There is some dispute as to whether such reports inclued minor ailments, but the main point thrust home by Liam Fox was that the government could not be trusted to provide proper information. They had already declined to do so. The response was interesting:

On the same programme Bob Ainsworth, the Armed Forces minister, hit back. "What possible motive would there be for anyone in Government to hide casualty figures?" he said. "It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest that we do. We are not hiding casualty figures for Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else."

He added that the MoD released a comprehensive list on the internet every fortnight of casualty figures for those wounded in action or suffering illnesses.

Doctors would rather do their job than the "bureaucratic nonsense" of recording every time someone suffered a minor injury or illness, he said.

The answer is that the political motives for distorting these figures can be considered: to avoid further accusations that medical infrastructure is inadequate; to avoid further debate on whether the armed forces are ill-supplied or over-stretched; to avoid the possibility of debate on whether Afghanistan is worth the 'price'of a high number of casualties.

When you have form on politicising statistics, people can rightfully question your figures and motives.

Afghanistan: How high a price?

The Conservatives have accused the Ministry of Defence of manipulating statistics and underreporting the number of soldiers injured in Afghanistan. There is some dispute as to whether such reports inclued minor ailments, but the main point thrust home by Liam Fox was that the government could not be trusted to provide proper information. They had already declined to do so. The response was interesting:

On the same programme Bob Ainsworth, the Armed Forces minister, hit back. "What possible motive would there be for anyone in Government to hide casualty figures?" he said. "It's complete and utter nonsense to suggest that we do. We are not hiding casualty figures for Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else."

He added that the MoD released a comprehensive list on the internet every fortnight of casualty figures for those wounded in action or suffering illnesses.

Doctors would rather do their job than the "bureaucratic nonsense" of recording every time someone suffered a minor injury or illness, he said.

The answer is that the political motives for distorting these figures can be considered: to avoid further accusations that medical infrastructure is inadequate; to avoid further debate on whether the armed forces are ill-supplied or over-stretched; to avoid the possibility of debate on whether Afghanistan is worth the 'price'of a high number of casualties.

When you have form on politicising statistics, people can rightfully question your figures and motives.