Front-seat driving

Set the gas...find the bite...release the handbrake...and...STALL. (repeat fully eight times until every car in London is behind you).

I can now announce, truthfully, that I am a less-than-capable driver. Just now, I went for a spin with my father - generally, and for these purposes, of a calm disposition - which left him wondering whether he had finally gone grey, something his skull has been threatening for years. On the one hand, it is about time, frankly. On the other, I should re-examine my technique and accept that handbreak turns at junctions are rarely, if ever, advisable.

So after lionising driving, maybe it does not matter that much. In any case, backseat driving is more fun. Then again, I might just be saying that.

Backseat Drivers

I often tell people that I am no good at driving. That is a lie. The truth is that I am lazy and never bothered to learn. But, like with most things, you cannot run away for ever. Driving away from them is faster, though a good deal more expensive.

I mention this because, long after I should have, I have started scanning the necessary books for the Theory Test. All I can say is that, to a thick person, driving must seem like bags of fun. Choose obtusely (or, if stupid, naturally), and you come to the most ridiculous set of conclusions about safe practise on roads. You might surmise that driving is a joke, which of course it is not, he said sternly.

I suppose that I am just jealous. Everywhere, I spy (people who, in my estimation, are incompetent half-wits) drivers and am convinced that I should be in their place. Which makes me think, maybe I should take the driving seat for a change.

Not to be sniffed at

If I place a football in front of my baby brother, metres away from a window, and the upshot is broken glass, my parent's response can be easily predicted: you should have known better, they would say. So why, when drug dealers sell mind-altering substances to their clients, knowing full-well that they are increasing the likelihood of criminal damage, are they not held accountable for their actions? Here, I will argue for a change in the law to close this responsibility deficit.

Under the proposed model, claimants - victims of crime - could press claims against the drug dealers - the perpetrators - for damages to their property or person. In other words, dealers would be liable in the civil courts for negligence.

It is insufficient, however, to rely on intuition alone, or to extrapolate principles from isolated analogies, like the one I began this piece with. So I will endeavour to explain and establish the legal precedents which underpin my argument while claiming that, in all regards, this delivers superior victims' justice.

Drug dealers facilitate crime, albeit indirectly, since it is eminently foreseeable that when they sell dangerous substances to dangerous people, many will be inspired to do dangerous things. Hand an unstable person an addictive pill, one which encourages him to disregard social taboos - like not attacking strangers - and it is all too easy to predict the outcome. Added to this, dealers tend to be rooted in a community. Because of this, and because of the incentive know the disposition of the client (making it a less risky transaction, safer in the knowledge that he is less likely to blab to the wrong people), they have a reasonably informed view of their customers. Hence they can anticipate how these people will act both when under the influence, and following the event when desperate for another 'fix'.

Addiction is another thing that dealers understand perfectly well. They actively use it to manipulate their customers. Often, they will initiate proceedings with inexpensive, 'softer' drugs, ratcheting up the price and addictiveness until customers are either totally hooked or unable to pay any more. Meanwhile demand becomes more inelastic and dealers gain greater leverage over their increasingly-dependent customers. In this way, dealers fuel addictions to maximise their profits, seemingly without regard for the consequences of their actions.

What are the consequences? Accumulative crime, in the main. If the addict needs quick-cash to fund his or her addiction, then he will likely turn to crime, for the reasons outlined below. In many cases, were we to chart the path of money, we would not be unduly surprised by the perverse directness of it: addicts steal cash which goes straight into the pocket of the dealer and further up the criminal network. So, by allowing victims to sue addicts, we are, in effect, allowing them to retrieve what was originally theirs. Just as courts ask people to pay damages, so in this case dealers are being forced to give back what they, however indirectly, have stolen from hardworking citizens.

As has been illustrated, dealers are responsible, at least to some degree. 'Ah', I hear you exclaim, 'but what about the real criminals, the ones who actually inflict the damage? Are they now free to walk away?' No more than before, is the answer; nothing mentioned (in this quite separate, civil suit) would downplay the severity of their crime or the sentencing they would expect to receive. This merely confers an additional layer of responsibility, a concept to which there is no theoretical limit. To appreciate why there is no fixed-pot of responsibility, consider the two extremes: In some instances - most notably insanity cases - we apportion no blame; In others - such as involving a getaway driver abetting a murderer - the misdeeds of the driver do not absolve the principle agent; both are charged on separate counts, as if the other were not present at the trial.

Ultimately this model benefits the victims. Under the status quo, they are only able to prosecute the drug addicts. Typically, this is not a profitable or worthwhile venture, since addicts are cash-poor - the sheer cost of drugs, and their deleterious effects take care of that. So why bother? Now, though, they can sue the men with the money, recouping what is rightfully theirs. The addicts may well still be subject to criminal prosecutions but, whereas, once upon a time their victims suffered in silence, now they can attack those beneath the surface, behind the crimes that blight their lives.

Other arguments can be made about how this might reform the behaviour of drug dealers or lead to a crime reduction. The thinking might go that under this model, the risk-reward ratio has changed, encouraging dealers to introduce more stringent filter mechanisms to determine to whom they sell drugs. By selling to more stable characters, they could thereby limit their own exposure to the law. Still, expecting dealers to grow halos overnight seems a bit idealistic. But even if they refuse to change a thing, there will still be more money available for victims. That cannot be too bad.

But as I say, drug dealers are smart; they give candy to babies and then ask for it back. If they can manage that, they can probably outsmart this scheme too.

Settlements

Apparently this lapse in sanity cannot be slept off: I am here to stay, or so it seems. As of yet, the only problem with this new-found addiction is the displacement; instead of reading and absorbing, I am now writing and pontificating, the result being that I feel politically under-nourished. This coming from a current-affairs-junkie.

That aside, I am going to spout some more. This time, more specifically, I will address settlements and their simmering tensions. Mention 'settlements', and people on all sides will rant about their illegality and how they present an obstacle to peace. In this, though, I will concentrate on their potential to be a flashpoint, possibly sparking a third intifada in the worst-case scenario.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, and most obviously, in geographical terms they are on the front line. Indeed, by some estimates, they are beyond the 'front line' and have encroached well into 'enemy' territory (depending on the perspective you share). Moreover and often for religious reasons, their inhabitants refuse to erect borders or physical defences. Rather, to defend themselves, they turn to M-16s and other live rounds. Until now, this has not presented a serious problem (though, since 2007, there has been an uptick in settler violence inflicted on Palestinians and IDF soldiers), not least because there has been little provocation. But if there is an upstart in violence, they are a proximate and vulnerable target.

Second, as was mentioned earlier, settlements have become a popular target for the ire of the international community. Those who seek to 'delegitimise' Israel point chiefly to these communities which, they claim, are built upon 'occupied territories', something in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and international law, as ruled by the International Court of Justice. Palestinians, rightly or wrongly, feel that this is their land. Added to that, they have the sympathies of the world. They might reason, then, that attacks on these settlements would be more justified than elsewhere, and even help promote their cause, either by raising publicity or forcing a temporary settler withdrawal.

Of course, all this is all speculation; more populous targets are generally preferred, and the gratuitous violence would probably alienate their western supporters. Still, I would not want to live there after the UN vote flops.

Middle Eastern Mania

Borders and division of the land; strong emotions relating to the conflict on both sides; Palestinian concerns over Israeli settlements in the West Bank; status of Jerusalem; Israeli security concerns over terrorism, safe borders, incitements, violence; right of return of Palestinian refugees living in the Palestinian diaspora. These minor quibbles are all that stand between the Middle East and peace. Small wonder that it has not been achieved already. Or is it?

In my last post, I made passing reference to the 'deep end'. If anything, that was an understatement, for the following affair is not so much the 'deep end', as the end with no visible bottom.

At the outset, I should say that I am hardly qualified to blog on this issue, still less to speak on behalf of any of the stakeholders. The purpose of this, however, is twofold: first, and crucially, I wish to use this forum as an opportunity to assess and re-assess the quagmire that is the Middle East. Ultimately, I hope to formulate my own opinions, though these will need be as flexible as events. Secondly, I wish to treat this as a political petri-dish. Over the coming months and years, my experiment aims to chart and understand events, eventually allowing me to review the history in a more direct way, without relying on the spin or selective histories which currently flood the market.

Middle Eastern politics has long been a thorny issue. Today as ever, different groups - some living in the region, some not - approach it with different prejudices, interests, and goals. These groups, while attempting to solve the competing claims which have dogged the peace process, have also succeeded in entrenching two increasingly-exclusive narratives. All this leaves an impoverished consensus, arguably the cornerstone of meaningful dialogue, and, by extension, makes peace more elusive.

Every so often, windows of opportunity have arisen, from the Rogers Peace Plan to the latest round of direct talks, through Oslo, Madrid, Beirut, and various other initiatives. In fact, the road to peace has been littered with attempts, most of them sincere, all of them with potential, but none of them, as yet, with the desired outcome.

So far, so bad. But the latest episode, where the Palestinians turn to the UN to advance their statehood, may be another chance to break the deadlock. Many commentators have concerned themselves with the modalities of this vote and whether it will pass through the various organs of the United Nations. Rather than that, though, I will focus on the consequences.

Back to business

I know what you are thinking. He doesn't post for over a year and then, suddenly, he goes crazy, posting on multiple occasions during a single afternoon. Well, I'm all about consistency; consistent inconsistency, that is.

The tone of this post (and hopefully the content too), though, is set to be more serious. But rather than jumping in at the deep end with the big story, I thought that I'd ease me in with a gentler dose of punditry: party conference season.

Whether you are yellow, red or blue, the time has come to spend a week in a claustrophobic town with over-ambitious hacks. For some, that is the ideal holiday. For others, it is a nightmare. Those who thrive in that environment, I always feel, are cut out for the realpolitik of party life. Those who don't are more likely to be consigned to the oblivion of backbench-life, far away from the limelight of government. (Not that this is a dishonourable vocation, but do people still enter politics to be the 'local champions' of old? Do they not all have more grandiose ambitions?).

But for all that, these are not make-or-break events. Most speeches are immediately forgotten, though that it is not to underplay their importance. Sometimes it is because they do not attract unwanted attention that they are successful. (Think Nick Clegg's speech to conference over the past two years, both attempting to diffuse coalition tensions and persuade the party that they had made the correct choice). Some will temporarily revive political fortunes. Gordon Brown's speech (or, more specifically, his wife, Sarah's) to the Labour Party Conference raised his political stock for a while, yet was unable to change the unerring, downward trajectory of his career. Others may serve as a shot to the arm, injecting new ideas into a stale discourse, notably the Conservative Party Conference in 2009 where he discussed the parlous state of public finances and the deficit reduction it would have to entail. Crucially, though, this was not a game-changer on its own. It took commentators and politicians of all hues to cotton onto these ideas (and even then a further year) for the narrative to become an economic one.

Perhaps, then, I understate their potential. What I mean is that they seldom strike a direct connection with voters. Instead, they appeal to opinion-shapers - the political class, the journalists, and those who, ultimately, do play a significant role in determining the way we vote.

Read, yellow or blue, they should be listened to, this time by you (not the bloke who 'translates' their statements).

Welcome home, me

They say that a week is a long time in politics. I don't know who 'they' is, or how 'they' would react when informed that I had deserted political cyberspace for 486 of those revolutionary time-spans. But I am back, hopefully this time to stay provided, of course, that I can stand the sound of my own voice.

So far on this blogging journey, I sense that I have been playing something akin to verbal ping pong with a brick wall; 'playing' because, for much of it, I treated it as a game. First up, it was a competition to out-blog a friend who had started a similar enterprise. His blog actually gathered followers. Then, to distract myself from this blatant defeat, I turned my attentions to sucking up to universities instead. Gone were the days of competing with my peers for competition's sake. I now had something to fight over, something worth fighting for. So I posted another series of contrived entries, this time designed to showcase my perspicacious temperament. As is now evident, this never really took off. All I managed was a feeling of smugness, tempered only by another rejection, this time by the universities.

But enough of this self-pity, because I have not come crying back. I return this time for myself; 'as if', I hear you cry. Well, sort of. I want to hone my writing skills which, as the above passage demonstrates, could do with some honing. A lot of honing even. If I were being particularly pessimistic, I might even hazard that I would be honing until my fingers dropped off.

To hone or not to hone, is a question I can ask, safe in the knowledge that no-one will reply, not even to criticise this appallingly arrogant pastiche. Welcome back, barrington, we have missed you lots.