The next American Presidential election is shaping up to be quite interesting. It appears likely that it will take place before the next General Election here in Britain – I note that there has been some speculation of late that Gordon Brown ‘will go short’. However, if he ‘goes long’, as I suspect he will, the Presidential election of 2008 is likely to influence our following election. Influence it in both style and substance.

Today in the Times, Gerard Baker discusses a possible Giuliani Presidential run. Previously, this blog and others have discussed Barack Obama running for the White House. It is possible that these two men will fight it out for the Presidency a year in November. Their campaign approaches, in particular that of Giuliani, will be interesting to follow.

Barker suggests that by championing “libertarian conservatism” Giuliani may tap into the American people’s frustration with state interference in their daily lives. This philosophical point resonates with me. I am of the opinion that if the average Briton was asked the primary role of government he would reply that it is to provide security at home and abroad. After that, he would prefer to be left to get on with his own life unfettered by government diktat.

In America in recent years authoritarianism has actively been propagated by evangelical conservatives. Here at home, the Labour Party, traditionally more authoritarian than libertarian, has pushed through legislation that adversely affects our daily freedoms. These changes to people’s freedoms here and in the US have been justified as a response to the threat of terrorism. But what of the other acts that have encouraged excessive prying into our lives? Government legislation in the areas of health and education have increased unnecessary data collection. How does that protect us from terrorists? What purpose does possession of this data serve?

The average Briton is, I feel, fed up with being asked questions. Maybe the Conservative Party should advocate a Giuliani-esque approach to policy at the next election. I think there will be votes for us if that strategy is adopted.

I am not too proud to say that a lot of it went over my head but some of the things they mentioned were the things I think about all the time, mainly mass immigration, crime and increased taxes. I paid my £25 there and then -Simone Clarke

The furore surrounding the revelation that a leading dancer with the English National Ballet (ENB) is a British National Party (BNP) member has been interesting to follow for two reasons. Firstly, the media response, particularly from the Guardian (who broke the story), has been very critical, implying that being a ballerina is not consistent with having far-right political views. Secondly, the calls for her to be removed from the cast of the up-coming ENB production of Giselle at the London Coliseum, appear to suggest that freedom of expression is fine for the stage but not when it comes to political views, however extreme.

I think the problem for the media, and the wider public as a whole, has been that Simone Clarke is not someone who people would expect to be publicly supporting the BNP. Her profession and appearance serve as uncomfortable reminders of how prejudice can transcend all social groups. It is much easier for all of us to presume that BNP supporters are working class, white men with bull-dog tattoos on their arms. The image of a delicate and beautiful ballerina from Belgravia holding such political views is difficult to accept.

Because of Ms Clarke’s support for the BNP there have been calls for her to be sacked from the ENB. This I cannot support. I despise all that the BNP stands for, its policies, its image and its distorted view of the Britain in which I live. The difficulty is, however, the Britain I cherish (and would determinedly defend) is based firmly upon the principles of an individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech. It is those very freedoms that allow us to witness Ms Clarke dance beautifully. The same principles underpin our free media which allowed the Guardian to publish their story in the first place. Furthermore, I can write these comments without fear of attack or state censorship because British law on the basis of those principles defends that right. Simply because she holds abhorrent views is no reason to sack and muzzle Ms Clarke. To do so gives her, and her ilk, the very publicity they crave. More effective in the longer term would be to engage Ms Clarke in public discussion, so as to highlight to the wider electorate how ignorant and ill-conceived the policies she supports really are. Public humiliation is always more powerful than censorship.

The Suffolk murders have highlighted the powers and consequent dangers of a ’24-hour news media’. Within hours of the arrest of the suspect one could obtain a remarkable amount of detail about him. Like many people, he had a My Space site (now removed). The details from there were posted swiftly on major national news websites. We now know his age, sexuality and appearance. We even know his favourite cartoon character and the fact that he enjoys listening to Canon in D Major by Johann Pachelbel. What we do not know is whether or not he is guilty of the murders of the five women in Ipswich.

Yesterday’s Sunday Mirror led with the following headline. In fact, even now you can still listen to the interview. Today, the BBC made the decision to broadcast an audio recording of an interview the suspect voluntarily gave to them on December 11th. He gave it to them confidentially as ‘background’ information for their reports on the horrific crimes. Last week, ITN chillingly interviewed Paula Clennell just 48 hours before she went missing and was murdered. Have these media organisations behaved responsibility? Are they prejudicing any future court case? Do they care?

All news outlets are under pressure to get the scoop, to get the different angle, the different picture, the different interview. The pressures to do this have become much greater since the advent of ’24 hour news’ programming. By one measure, the BBC and Sunday Mirror have been successful. However, I am not convinced that their decisions to run with these “scoops” were as influenced by legal ramifications and the good of society, as they were by ratings and sales. It must be in the best of interests of British society that British justice is seen to be done. I cannot see any ‘public interest’ in a trial collapsing because of insensitive and mis-guided journalism.

This suspect is presently innocent. The man is on record as having strenously denied any involvement in the Suffolk murders. Indeed, there are reports this evening that other prostitutes are unconvinced that the police have the right man. Whether this suspect is guilty or not misses the point. When a person (or persons) is charged with the murders of these unfortunate women he (they) should be allowed a fair trial. The ‘Fourth Estate’ has a responsibility to ensure that this happens. Part of the foundation of our society is the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We should cherish and defend that principle twenty-four hours a day.

Killing dissent

….is a sign of inherent weakness

Today is the seventieth anniversary of the first publication of Life magazine. A remarkable magazine that is primarily known for its photographs. In particular, it is known for its iconic front covers. The first edition had a rather dull cover, a picture of a new dam in America. Instead of that I have chosen the front cover of the third edition. It depicts a pursuit close to my heart.