In the next week or so, there will be political changes on both sides of the Channel. One change will be achieved by popular vote, the other by succession. Opinion polls in France over recent weeks have consistently pointed towards a victory for Nicolas Sarkozy, in front of Segolene Royal, the glamorous Socialist candidate. The former Finance Minister has made no secret of his desire to liberalise the French economy, and it would appear that the French populace have belatedly realised that their economy is in dire need of such up-dating. For Conservatives in this country, the decision on who to support in the French Presidential election is easy. For the Labour Party, it is less straight forward. Blairites will no doubt voice their support for Sarkozy. Brownites, however, may be less enthusiastic, maybe feeling that they should show more solidarity with their French comrades.

Even though Gordon and Nicolas have shared dinner in the company of their partners, it is less easy for the Chancellor to be allies with a man who welcomes favourable comparisons with Margaret Thatcher, hardly a darling of the British Left. The problem for the Chancellor is that Sarkozy promises economic liberalisation and a simplified EU constitution, two policies that Brown claims to support. He is, however, against Turkey’s membership of the EU and publicly more Atlanticist than his Socialist rival. Being seen to be pro-American is not electorally popular at present in Britain, particularly amongst the Labour grassroot membership.

Brown will probably fudge his position. Centre-Left politicians in this country now appear rudderless when it comes to foreign policy. The Iraq debacle has bruised Labour confidence in the field of foreign affairs. Indeed, the elevation of Margaret Beckett suggested that it was an area that Labour policy-makers felt was less important in the short to medium term. Having trumpeted an ethical foreign policy on their arrival in Downing Street, the Labour administration have since been left to lick their wounds. The dilemma over the French Presidency is just the first that the future British Prime Minister will have to deal with. What happens if he gets another Republican President in the White House next year? It would appear that foreign policy may become Mr Brown’s Achilles’ Heel during his hopefully short premiership.

When the world saw the images from the DVD sent to NBC by Cho Seung-Hu, the natural reaction would have been of shock and revulsion. The killings were appalling and seemingly impossible to explain, so to see a video of this young man attempting to justify his actions prior to executing them was a very difficult concept for the general public to comprehend. The reality was, however, that he was an ill young man, suffering from a psychotic condition, and consequently was in need of acute psychiatric care.

The decision to broadcast the video and selected images was controversial. However, much as it would have been ideal not to have shown the footage, the sad reality is that in today’s interconnected world, the images would have made their way into cyperspace at some point in the near future. Humanity has a strong craving for knowledge, particularly that of macabre events. Where the media did have a responsibility though, was to show these images in context. For example, a psychiatrist should have been interviewed by the BBC during the Newsnight programme on the day the images were released. No such interview was undertaken. Cho Seung-Hu was clearly unwell. The viewing public should have been made aware of that fact.

My concern, however, is not about the decision to air the video. It is more about the ‘care’ this mass murderer received (or maybe not), and more importantly, the care and protection someone like him would have received in this country. Mental health has long been regarded as a “Cinderella” speciality in the UK, as dealing with waiting times and lists has always been politically more important. Consequently, funds have not been very forthcoming. Ask any GP about their local acute mental health service and you will more often elicit a look of despair. Most services now operate ‘Crisis’ teams staffed solely by nurses. When I try to refer a psychiatric patient in acutely, I now no longer speak to a qualified psychiatrist. Reason: cost.

The way in which the mentally ill are treated is a measure of any society. When I saw the image above, I did not just see the face of a killer, I saw the face of a young man who needed help and treatment. I have no doubt that British psychiatrists endeavour to offer the best service possible. There are limits to their efforts, though. I do not believe that the standard of treatment of mental illness in this country befits a caring and decent society. The government urgently needs to make psychiatric care a priority. Not just for the sake of the psychiatrically unwell, but also for the good of communities up and down this country.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

It is nothing short of a national disgrace. This is in the 21st century, not Victorian Britain. – David Frost, Director General, British Chambers of Commerce

My 2005 General Election campaign in Blaenau Gwent taught me many things. One experience I did not anticipate, however, was to be harangued by constituents about the absence of a grammar school in the valley. In what was then the safest Labour seat in Wales, I did not expect to be ‘button-holed’ about selective education. And it did not just happen once. On my many visits to markets throughout the constituency, I met people who were fed up with the lack of opportunity for their children and grandchildren. The general feeling could be summed up as being: “none of our kids have a chance now, with a grammar school at least some of them would have”.

Yesterday, David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, accused the education system in this country of “creating two nations – of haves and have nots”. Speaking in the opening sessions of the Chamber’s annual conference in London, he reported that half of Britain’s youngsters were leaving school without five decent GCSEs. He emphasised the need to tackle the “national disgrace” of young people leaving education without decent qualifications. As part of this drive to raise standards, he called for the re-introduction of grammar schools, institutions he described as “the escape route for the working class in post-war Britain”.

In his speech, Mr Frost quoted recent figures showing that more than one million young people were not in work, education or training while one in five were facing a lifetime on government handouts, double the figure in Germany and France and still growing. I saw many young people in Blaenau Gwent whose futures were that bleak. With the arrival of many workers from Eastern Europe, often with better skills and an impressive work ethic, I fear for their future. As there are now over 600,000 people from Eastern Europe working in the UK, the development of an unskilled “underclass” cannot be far off.

Increasingly, ‘average’ families are making sacrifices to send their children to private schools. Middle-class disillusionment with local state education services is often illustrated by “postcode spikes” in property prices near respected schools. These parents understand that life can be tough and that school should be about preparing their children for the realities of adult life. Competitive sport, academic streaming and proper discipline are all important parts of an education system. For me though, the key attribute that a private school education provides is self-confidence; the belief that if one has talent and applies oneself that there is no limit to success in life. Grammar schools once provided the same ethos.

I am a product of a grammar school (pictured above), and have no doubt that it was that sound academic base that provided me with the opportunity to become a doctor. The school motto,‘Te digna sequere’ (Follow things that are worthy of you), summed up the educational approach within the school. I fear that if I had been at a comprehensive school, I would not have gone on to study medicine. It is not that I needed an ‘escape route’ per se, more that I, and people from my background, would not not have had the opportunity to progress in life without the benefit of a grammar school education.

Clearly, in an ideal world the educational needs of all children could be provided under the same roof. Sadly, none of us live in an ideal world. With increasing movement of people across continents, competition for work will only become more intense in the future. In the light of that, Mr Frost’s candid comments yesterday are to be welcomed. Going to school should be about nurturing and supporting talent whilst engendering a good work ethic. It should not be about political ideology.

Houston, we’ve had a problem. – Jim Lovell, Commander Apollo 13 (uttered on April 13th)

I wonder how many people have adjusted their plans today because it is Friday 13th? Paraskevidekatriaphobia (an irrational fear of Friday 13th) is a well-documented psychological problem. Indeed, a British Medical Journal article from 1993, titled “Is Friday the 13th bad for your health?”, mysteriously found that there were more traffic accidents associated with that particular date. Personally, I am not one who believes in superstition. Apart from the Stevie Wonder song of the same name, I tend to dislike any association with the word.

Some on-line research reveals that superstitions surrounding Friday 13th date back to the early 1900s. Many hypotheses have been proposed, ranging from associations with the sacking of Constantinople on April 13th, 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, to the simultaneous arrest of the Knights Templar by agents of Philip IV in October 1307 (à la Da Vinci Code). Socialists would no doubt point to the fact that Margaret Thatcher was born on Friday 13th as evidence of the day’s association with bad luck. However, that finding is easily dismissed as Mrs T shares the same honour with Fidel Castro. It is more likely that paraskevidekatriaphobia stems from a combination of a fear of the number 13 (Nordic mythology) and a Christian fear of Friday (Crucifixion).

Today happens to be Friday April 13th. Not only is that the anniversary of the sacking of Constantinople, it also happens to be the thirty-seventh anniversary of the oxygen tank on Apollo 13 exploding. The thirteenth Apollo mission had lifted off at 13.13 CST on 11/4/70 (total of digits =13!!). The disaster that befell that fateful attempt to put man on the Moon for the third time most certainly contributed to the curtailing of the Apollo programme.

Despite the ‘facts’ outlined above, the superstitions surrounding Friday 13th are bogus. It certainly should not be used as a reason for not putting man once more outside the orbit of the Earth. I believe that going back to the Moon, and eventually on to Mars should become a major goal of the human race. The Americans have recently announced an intention to go back to the Moon by 2020, with a view to using it as a launch-pad for a manned trip to Mars. Britain, or at least Europe, should offer to play a major part in this next exploration of Space.