ConservativeHome's Platform

Alexander Deane: The case against legalising drugs

Alex Deane, author of The Great Abdication and a CentreRight contributor, rebuts some of the arguments in favour of legalising drugs.

As a junior criminal barrister, perhaps the majority of my work concerns drug addicts or drug dealers.  I am often asked by friends and acquaintances whether it might be better simply to legalise drugs, circumventing the problems of policing them and potentially making treatment easier.  This attitude is one that is increasingly common. The “Transform” campaign to legalise all drugs is one that has garnered support of late, as Trevor Kavanagh pointed out in a column in The Sun.  Universal or significant legalisation of hard drugs is an increasingly popular policy amongst those on the libertarian wing of the Conservative Party and the right more generally.

I do not claim any particular expertise on the topic.  However, I believe that a number of negative effects inevitably flow from legalisation and I thought that I would therefore set them out here.

Drugs will be more freely available

Whatever the industrial capabilities and marketing acumen of the underground drug business now, they are certain to be dwarfed by those of commercial business conducted openly.  It is often said that it is easy to buy drugs under the status quo– but don’t you think that it will be easier when they are sold by shops on your high street?  Drugs will be ubiquitous in an environment in which they are legal.

Alex Deane: In defence of Simon Cowell

Alexander Deane, author of The Great Abdication and a CentreRight contributor, reviews "Look at Me: Celebrating the Self in Modern Britain" by Peter Whittle, published by the Social Affairs Unit.

The unlikely hero of Peter Whittle’s amusing and sad portrait of mainstream life in our times is Simon Cowell, the star selector (and, moreover, rejecter) of aspirant pop stars on various TV talent shows. Cowell isn’t mean in Whittle’s eyes; he’s just honest about shortcomings and abilities.  For many of those to whom his unvarnished criticism is addressed, it will be the first time that they have received a frank appraisal – the first time that they have not simply been indulged in their desires and urged to “be themselves” and “be all that they can be.”  Put simply, a preference for the former for the latter, and for objective over the subjective – in standards of behaviour, in art, in music, in work – is the point of Wittle’s work.

He goes about his theme by seeing modern society through the eyes of five fictitious “types” – Kayeleigh the wannabe star, Harriet the “Sex and the City” obsessed, urban socialite single, Jason the over-indulged thug and so on.  The device might not be quite to your liking, but it is just that, a device; it in no way obscures the ideas Whittle lucidly seeks to convey.  Indeed, it is sometimes used to great effect. Perhaps his greatest disdain is reserved for Marc and Sue, the Guardian-toting, rocket-munching Islingtonistas, who exhibit at every turn a preference for “The Other” and a contempt for the “established”, for whom “other cultures will have more intrinsic value than one’s own.  The West will always be treated with hostility, shame or scepticism, the motives of its possible enemies as benign.  Black is always right; white is invariably wrong.  New equals good, old equals bad.”  But their problems, Whittle points out, really start “when offence is taken at your very existence – or at least at how you choose to live your life.  Marc & Sue are slowly catching up on all of this; but, for the time being at least, they are managing to stick to their line by not thinking too much about honour killings, burkas and what many Muslims might think of some of the arty gay friends they have to dinner on a regular basis.”

Alex Deane: A letter to Republican friends

Alexander Deane is one of the contributors to CentreRight.com.   His work has also appeared at OnlineOpinion, in The Salisbury Review, The Quarterly Review, The Contemporary Review and The Daily Mail.  He argues that US Republicans should vote for John McCain even though he's an imperfect conservative.

Real conservatives in the UK (and there are some, even in this Europe-ruled isle) appreciate the dilemma confronting our colleagues in the USA at the moment.  John McCain is far from the ideal candidate for the party of my hero, Ronald Reagan.  Many of his stances are only recently anything that can be called conservative, and even after these changes he is too liberal.

But he’s what you’ve got.  Now, what to do with him?

I know that many people I respect – such as Ann Coulter, no less – think of him in… let’s say, negative terms.  I can understand that.  But does that really mean that anyone who would normally vote for the GOP should even contemplate voting for or supporting the Democrats in the fall?

Who do you think is more likely to listen to congressional and gubernatorial Republicans – McCain, whose Presidency would depend on their support, or Hillary/Obama, who could play to their base by snubbing them?  Who is more likely to appoint the right judges – a Democrat, who has to listen to the left, or a Republican, who has to listen to you?

Whilst we would hope that our leaders aren’t just “kind of” or “generally” our way inclined, in the final analysis I think that we shouldn’t hold our own to higher standards than we hold the opposition.  McCain favours tax cuts – the Democrats don’t.  McCain is pro-life.  The Democrats are not.  McCain has never espoused any kind of universal healthcare, unlike the Democrats (or, for the matter, Mitt Romney).  McCain was right on Iraq.  And so on.  Could he be better?  Yes.  Is he better than any Democrat?  Yes.

Alex Deane: Establish a policy group to rethink Britain’s relationship with Europe

Alexander Deane is a Barrister. A former chief of staff to David Cameron MP in the UK, he currently works for the Liberal Party in Australia.

The Conservative Party has been riven for two generations by a single issue – Europe.

Whilst in the current climate it may seem to have dropped from the forefront of the agenda, it has by no means “gone away” – it affects the Cameron leadership profoundly (indeed, in the shape of the unfulfilled promise to leave the EPP, it can be said to have led to it).

What is the Conservative Party’s policy on Europe?  I’m a committed Conservative with an avid interest in policy, and I don’t know.  I bet you don’t either.

One of the best things the Cameron leadership has done thus far was the creation of the six policy groups.  They grant the party’s thinkers space and time to develop policies and ideas and are seen as a serious attempt to contribute to the national social life.  Policies need to be born of conviction and considered analysis, not snatched at late in the game for electoral advantage – the impression that the latter course was being taken enormously harmed the electoral prospects of both Hague and Howard.

A policy group should be established to consider our country’s future relationship with the EU.

There should be no limits placed on its thinking.  If, contrary to experience thus far, our involvement with this domineering institution can be made to work to our advantage, good.  If not, we should be prepared to leave.

Pragmatically, this policy would allow David breathing space on this issue.  It would also be seen as something for the right wing rank and file, of which I’m one.  And it really may help the party’s stance on the issue that still troubles us so much.

NEXT IN THIS 'WHAT DAVID CAMERON SHOULD DO NEXT' SERIES: DANIEL FINKELSTEIN AT 2PM

Alex Deane: Brown and Cameron's backstories

Alexander Deane is a barrister, author and former Chief of Staff to David Cameron.

During the recent Question Time furore over what could and could not be asked of him, Tony Blair spoke about his view of Gordon Brown’s record, and had a pop at David Cameron’s pre-Parliamentary career:

“A record that has delivered, as Chancellor, the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment, lowest interest rates in this country's history - that has managed the strongest growth of any major industrial economy.

And as a result delivered record investment in the NHS - is a rather better recommendation than having spent some time advising Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday.”

It’s pretty cheap stuff, isn’t it?  Voters will go on a party’s and a leader’s platform of policies, and their judgment of the qualities of those leaders – not their activities before they entered Parliament.  But I was surprised by this line even beyond its shallowness – because on its own terms, it’s something on which Blair and Brown lose.

Whilst training for the Bar, I would watch cases conducted by more senior barristers.  I therefore watched the evidence unfold in a case of brutal and unprovoked murder in court last year.  The case was solved solely by CCTV evidence.  I have no qualms in admitting that watching that evidence was the most upsetting thing I’ve ever had to do, and I simply cannot imagine how upsetting it was for the relatives of the victim.  But I know that they must have been comforted by the conviction of the killer.  I also know that in that pre-Parliamentary incarnation Tony Blair mocked, David Cameron was instrumental in the introduction of the network of CCTV cameras.

You may or may not agree with CCTV cameras (indeed, before working in the criminal justice system, I was less than sure myself).  But regardless of your position, I think it’s difficult to casually dismiss the work David Cameron did whilst working on such policies.  Compare it with the pre-Parliamentary political activities of Blair and Brown – Brown was writing pamphlets calling for the nationalisation of supermarkets, and Blair was marching for CND.  And remember that Cameron and Co don’t call them on it, don’t seek to make an issue of such fundamental wrongheadedness – but if Labour choose a fight on that ground, they’re making a serious mistake.

Alex Deane: The case against euthanasia

Alexander Deane is a barrister, author and former Chief of Staff to David Cameron.

Because public debate about the “right to die” is always prompted by undeniably tragic high-profile cases, those of us who oppose euthanasia are usually on the back foot.  We let those who favour the legalisation of euthanasia frame the discussion in terms that are very favourable to their position – terms that avoid the reality of an environment in which the deliberate ending of life is part of the medical apparatus.   

The debate about euthanasia isn’t about “letting people die.” It’s about doctors actively taking part in killing them.  To ask if euthanasia should be legalised is therefore not merely to ask whether an in-principle ‘right to die’ exists in moral terms. Proponents of euthanasia are also asking the state to take part, through its laws and its representatives, in the actual act of terminating life. 

The state and society are therefore entitled to a moral stance, and to weigh up the importance of those things that undoubtedly support the case for euthanasia – such as human dignity and relief from suffering – against the importance of preserving life and the clarity of a “bright line” rule on this most fundamental issue.

In order to protect all of us, I believe that the state must say that whilst there is a right to life, there is no right to death. People die.  But the state shouldn’t kill them.  In a euthanasia society, the state is asked to make decisions about whose life should continue, and whose should not – to draw up criteria, perhaps.  As said by the House of Lords: directly or indirectly, the state should never say – should never be able to say – that a person’s life is not worth living:

"The message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death, and instead, should assure them of our care and support in life."

Great dangers might follow any relaxation of the strict rule against medical killing; changing the law encourages more change.  Pro-euthanasia campaigners argue that an absurd contradiction exists under the status quo: individuals able to reach for the pill bottle and swallow can engineer their “exit,” but those who are not able to, cannot: the current law, they say, penalises those who are most impeded.  Ensuring that the latter can die at will as the former can is but a small change, they say.  It equalises the positions of those whose situations are substantially the same but have radically different options due to an unfeeling law, they say.

Alex Deane: We need Fox News

Alex Deane is a barrister, author and former Chief of Staff to David Cameron.

America’s conservative movement is nourished and sustained by a TV network that’s relentlessly on its side - Fox News.  That media bedrock ensures that the other side of the debate is always being put, even when the weight of liberal media opinion is united against.

On British television, the stories of the day are approached entirely from a liberal perspective.  The family, immigration, taxation, the NHS, education – on all of these vital issues, TV in the UK doesn’t even reflect the fact that an alternative view exists; when it comes, media criticism of the Government generally suggests that it’s not left wing enough.  Internationally, news programmes on all the domestic channels always do our own country down and always apologise for those that hate us.  It is rare that a Eurosceptic or pro-Israeli or pro-Iraq war position is even glimpsed. 

The soft left wing liberalism that permeates our national broadcaster is obvious to us.  Indeed, it’s documented on a number of websites.  But some of the rocket munching Islingtonistas that staff it would be genuinely surprised by the idea that there’s a problem – for they don’t realise how far leftwards their centre of gravity is (as documented by former Beeb man Jeff Randall). 

The pundits supposedly put up to “debate” the issues on our behalf reflect this “centre.”  They’re not on the right; they’re on the right of the consensus.  The “sensible” Tories are those that are asked on again and again – the Portillos of this world.  The fact that such people are hardly Conservatives (or conservatives) is ignored.  The fact that many such people ingratiate themselves with the media world from which they make a living by kicking and ridiculing the right themselves is appreciated.

The conservative perspective on the family or on proper teaching or on immigration is one that many people feel.  But when every voice on the box in the corner of your living room disagrees, you think you’re on your own.  And when the message from the all-powerful media is all in one direction, the parties lamely, tamely follow the “centre” line. 

But the centre is what we make it.  A FOX News UK would be a voice for the all-but-silent majority.  It would be unashamedly conservative, patriotic, supporting the national interest.  The channel would show the public the other side of the argument.  It would demonstrate to the political elite that there’s a market for properly conservative beliefs.  And it would pressurise the party to move towards us, constantly reminding the PCP of the grassroots, popular conservatism that got them elected.  It would act as a melting pot for new ideas, encouraging creative thinking in a rightwards direction.  It would shift the centre of political gravity significantly in our direction.  FOX and its companions have done all of this in the USA (and turned a tidy profit, too: so if a donor’s reading this, have a think).

There will be some that complain that to do this is to politicise British television.  Given that it’s completely politicised already, and it’s currently 100% left, this argument can’t count for much.

Millions of pounds have been poured into the Conservative Party since the election.  This is wonderful: the party must be properly funded, and God willing it will win the next election.  But the party will continue to find it difficult to voice a truly Conservative perspective until there is a heavyweight media voice supporting it.  We must build one.  So come on Wheeler et al – back it.  It’s good for the public and it’s good for you – and unlike most political investments, there’ll even be a return (though not a backhander peerage).

RELATED ARTICLE:
EU SERF'S FINDING THE COMMON GROUND.

Alex Deane: The dominant narrative of the political left

Alex Deane is David Cameron's former Chief of Staff.

How many people have you seen wearing Che Guevara t-shirts?  How many do you know that have a poster of him blu-tacked to a wall?

As is immediately apparent to any who look into it, as Andrew Sinclair has illustrated and Daniel Wolf has made absolutely plain, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara was a vile man.  He urged his followers to become ‘effective and selective violent cold killing machines.’  He founded a system of concentration camps in Cuba in which dissidents, aids victims and homosexuals were imprisoned until death.  He frequently personally carried out executions of those that denounced the Communist cause. His fanaticism as ‘prosecutor’ of those involved in the old regime after the Cuban revolution saw him order the killing of hundred upon hundred.  Che railed against Kruschev’s reluctance to launch nuclear holocaust on the Americans during the Cuban missile crisis.

I’m sure that the popularity of this image doesn’t mean that its wearers support what Che (Che means ‘pal’ in Argentine slang) stood for.  I imagine they wear a picture of this unpleasant man merely because they are ignorant, and are attracted by the commercialised appeal of an apparently dashing rebel whose image has been used to sell a hundred products and whose early life has been glamorised in an absurdly romanticised revisionist movie (an accurate review of which was written by Paul Berman).  Perhaps they don’t even know that this famous picture is of a real person, and not an image conjured up by an artist.

But the fact that this ignorance can exist is revealing. One can’t imagine Nazi memorabilia being mass marketed with such equanimity, or the swastika being such trendy t-shirt fodder as is the hammer and sickle. It’s impossible to imagine clothes depicting fascist leaders or symbols being popular as the Che t-shirt, or the flag of Communist Vietnam (a gold star on a red background) which appears on backpackers by the thousand.

This fondness for the giants of the Communist era is quite common. It extends even to Mao, and to Stalin.  It is descended from the follies of those such as Edgar Snow (author of Red Star Over China, a hagiographic work on Mao).  It ascribes to these men motives of fundamental decency.

This is very wrong.  These men were evil.  They were every bit as evil as Hitler and everyone should know about it. The extremes of the political spectrum are equally abhorrent.  It is absurd and unhealthy that whilst one is rightly acknowledged as such, the other is viewed in many quarters with such affection.