Something lighter to end the week.

The recent furore over Channel Four’s decision to include a photographic image of the late Princess of Wales dead in her Mercedes car in Paris, as part of a documentary about her death, has raised a number of issues. Concerns have been aired about the appropriateness of showing her dead (or close to death). Indeed, my own Party has called for Channel Four to change its decision and remove the offending image from the final cut of the documentary, citing concerns over the adverse impact upon Princes William and Harry.

On June 8th, 1972, almost exactly 35 years before the date scheduled for the showing of the Channel 4 documentary about the death of Diana, the picture above was taken by Associated Press (AP) photographer, Nick Ut. It earned him the Pulitzer Prize. The photograph showed Phan Kim Phúc, a naked 9 year old girl, running towards the camera fleeing a napalm attack near Trang Bang during the Vietnam War. Phúc sustained third-degree burns to half her body (mainly her back) and was not expected to live. But thanks to the assistance of Nick Ut, and after surviving a 14-month hospital stay and 17 operations, she became an outspoken peace activist. Interestingly, an editor at the AP initially rejected the photo of Kim Phúc running down the road without clothing because it showed frontal nudity. Pictures of nudes of all ages and sexes, and especially frontal views, were not then allowed at the Associated Press. Eventually, after much argument, the New York photo editor, Hal Buell, agreed that the news value of the photograph overrode any reservations about nudity. This chilling, yet impressive, photograph encapsulated the awful reality of the war in Vietnam. It was taken at a time when public opinion had shifted firmly against continued American involvement. Undeniably, it contributed further to the deep unease felt about the military engagement. On reflection, to have not published the photograph would have been a further crime.

The power of this photograph to change minds in a pre-24 hour news media age was truly remarkable. It is that very power that can lead to photographic censorship. There are many arguments against showing images of the dead Princess of Wales. The most persuasive have concentrated on respecting the privacy of her death. Those pleas to protect her family are, sadly, less convincing. Neither Kim Phúc herself, nor her family, were asked about the use of Ut’s photograph. Arguably, it was more intrusive. However, to have not published the image would have been to sanitise the reality of that dreadful incident. And this is the nub of the issue. Who decides whether the publication of a particular picture is justifiable? Who determines the public interest? Who can predict the impact of a photograph upon public opinion?

I, for one, wish that images of Princess Diana trapped in her car did not exist. They do and are easily accessible on the net. An argument could be made that they were taken in an attempt to satisfy the public’s insatiable demand for images of this woman. For those that had chased her to her death to have taken such photos is difficult to stomach, however, before we become too morally judgemental about the paparazzi’s behaviour, we must ask ourselves why there was such a demand for pictures of her with her new boyfriend? What does it say about our society?

Censoring the images may be more about assuaging our own collective guilt for her death than about protecting the Princes from the awful reality of their mother’s end. By airing the images, Channel Four may aid those of us who want to see more decency, respect for individual privacy and less emphasis on celebrity culture. Rather like the awful photograph of a burning Vietnamese child, the terrible images of the last moments of the Princess may bring about positive change through a re-evaluation of our society’s moral standards.

The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. – Thomas Jefferson

The on-going grammar school debate is about much more than a few academic state schools in Kent, Buckinghamshire and elsewhere. Judging by the anger and frustration shown by Conservative MPs across the spectrum of the party, it would appear that access to good education, in particular, access to a selective academic education for those children from more modest backgrounds, is an important defining issue for natural Conservatives. And this is because social mobility matters to people who are Conservative by experience. The BBC’s Political Editor, Nick Robinson, in his blog a few days ago, neatly encapsulated the present tensions within the Conservative Party generated by the recent education policy announcement.

It is widely believed that Margaret Thatcher’s electoral success was firmly based upon appealing to the ‘aspiring class’, to those people who believed that merit and hard work should be rewarded with success in life. Mrs Thatcher’s political gift was realising that a large section of the British electorate agreed with that famous American politician, Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favour of a ‘natural aristocracy’. For Jefferson believed, that the development of such a social framework would benefit not only those that had the ability and application to succeed in life, but would also greatly aid the ‘common good’ by improving the overall governance of his country.

I have written previously on my own views about grammar schools. The “do we, don’t we” argument about grammar schools, however, should not be the real issue for us Tories. It should be more about our views regards the value of meritocracy in society. Jefferson felt strongly that an “artificial aristocracy” founded on “wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents” was a “mischievous ingredient in government”. I believe that for the Conservative Party to be electorally successful, it needs to re-establish its meritocratic credentials. Our education policy goes to very core of that task. If we allow ourselves to be charactured as appealing solely to those who are already successful in life, we will only guarantee ourselves electoral defeat.

Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence. – Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.

This evening David Cameron is to announce future Conservative Party policy on sport. At the weekend, he described sport as “Vital to our sense of belonging and national identity”. He is right. When John Major introduced the Lottery in the mid 1990s, he did so to improve funding of sports, arts, heritage and charities. In 1998, the Labour government announced that Lottery funds were also going to be used for other social needs, thereby reducing funds available for sport. Last year alone saw a cut in sports funding to one third of that provided in 1996. And this is at a time when we are hoping to assemble the best ever British Olympic Team for the 2012 Games in London, our cricket team has under-achieved at the World Cup and our football and rugby teams are failing to inspire. Should we (in Catherine Tate terms) be bothered by all this? I think we should be.

Sport matters for so many reasons. It matters because it instills confidence in our young. It matters because it improves people’s fitness. Above all, it matters because this country and its people come together to share in the ‘ups and downs’ of our sporting teams and heroes in a way that helps define our national identity. At a time when we are wrestling with what constitutes being British, sport allows us all to be patriotic, to share being British with each other. For that reason alone, David Cameron is right to give greater priority to supporting sport in a future Conservative manifesto.