This month the new Supreme Court took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords, a role which had previously been exercised by my Law Lord colleagues in parliament. Is this progress or prejudice, against a system which some say had been working perfectly well for centuries?

 You might ask yourself: when did the government make this decision, affecting the UK’s most powerful court? Why can I not remember the debate about it? Do not worry, you have not lost your memory. There was hardly any discussion about it. So why the change?

 The main argument for reform was to separate the House of Lords’ role as a legislator from its judicial role. It is said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair was concerned that our unified system did not conform to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Some critics believe that a judge who exercises both political and legal power cannot truly be seen as impartial when dispensing justice.

 We were one of the few democracies that did not have this separation of powers, between law and politics. The United States’ Judicial System has that divide. It appears to have created more transparency.. The judges of the American Supreme Court have a  high profile. When a new Supreme Court judge is appointed in America, the process is covered extensively in the media. By contrast, our top judges have very little public profile.

 The new UK Supreme Court hearings are far more accessible to the public and are available for television broadcast. However, I suspect it will never rival Strictly Come Dancing or The X Factor in viewer ratings. The reality is that the Law Lords have been transported to a building that is about 5 minutes walk away from the House of Lords, to what used to be Middlesex Crown Court. The Government say the cost of the whole project was 59 million pounds. The Opposition claims it was more like 100 million pounds. Who ever is correct, it is still a lot of money. But the new Court has now started and we are where we are. Only time will tell whether it was a sensible change or a supreme waste of money.    

 John Taylor,

Lord  Taylor of Warwick

12 October 2009

But when did the pin-thin look become fashionable? In Victorian times, larger silhouettes were seen as a  sign of fortune, health, and prosperity. In the 1960s,  a stick thin young girl from London named Twiggy shook the fashion scene. Her thin look quickly personified chic. This style developed into the heroin chic look of the 1980s, which sadly persists today. Presently, most Fashion designers believe that tall, skinny, and non-curvy bodies bring greater appeal to their artwork.

 As I understand it, the flow of the fabric when in motion allows the eye to capture the garment, rather than bring attention to a hint of swaying, curvy hips. These designers like the way the clothes hang off the body rather than be interrupted by the shape of a woman’s body. Models are trained to walk and they have coaches who instruct how to stride down the catwalk with confidence. The term Catwalk comes from a cat’s apparent lack of fear of heights. The Catwalk is a  walkway so perilous that only a surefooted cat would walk on it. None of the models smile, because designers do not want to show the slightest hint of vulnerability.

 Recently, German designer Karl Lagerfeld of Chanel criticized  Heidi Klum at 8 stones for being too big for the Catwalk. This year, Vogue UK editor Alexandra Shulman has fought back. She wrote a letter to top designers including Karl Lagerfeld, asking for clothes that fit realistic body types. Shulman made a point that the clothes being sent for photo shoots did not even fit the slimmest of models.

 This year, one event at London Fashion Week struck cords with the catwalk audience. Mark Fast, a young designer from Canada, premiered his portfolio of tight knitted dresses worn by three, larger12-14 sized models. By fighting this discrimination against larger models, Fast pulled a fast one.

 Medical professionals have been highlighting the dangers of eating disorders and the promotion of these ultra thin bodies for years. We are aware of the dangers of anorexia and bulimia, but that has not stopped promotion of the thin image.

As fashion trends keep changing, hopefully they will prioritize health. The rise in role models for healthy shapes has optimistically risen in the last few years. Dove’s beauty products Self Esteem campaign emphasizes real beauty, real age, and real sizes. This has been supported by some Hollywood entertainers such as Scarlett Johansson. I believe that healthy is the best look. By using women who look like real women, Mark Fast took a step in the right direction.

Yesterday, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain, were convicted in a retrial for planning to blow up passenger jets in suicide attacks. The plot, caught in its final stages, was to detonate liquid bombs on 7 airliners whilst flying from Britain to America. It could have killed 10,000 people, so would have exceeded the 3000 killed on 9/11.      

It was alleged the plan was directed from Pakistan, by the Al Qaeda mastermind behind the July 7^th suicide bombings in London. Obtaining a conviction in this case was critical. An acquittal would have damaged the credibility of the government and security services, concerning their warnings about the dangers of the terrorist threat. Had the jury failed to convict these men, it would have been more difficult for us to take seriously security warnings. It would have been easier for Muslims to have claimed the government were simply scaremongering, and targeting their community.

It is three weeks since Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, announced the release of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. But the row concerning the circumstances of his release is still raging. Had the three men not been convicted, the anger over the Lockerbie release would have increased. It would have been seen as a further failure to deal firmly with terrorism.  

The enormous surveillance operation involved with this latest case, cost about £40 million. Scotland Yard was under pressure to stop the investigation and has cost the aviation industry huge sums to increase security. One could argue that the terrorists have already achieved one of their objectives, by damaging our quality of life. This case has demonstrated the close links between the young British Muslim extremists, Al Qaeda and the terrorist organisations in Pakistan. It is significant that, although America has about 10 million Muslims, it does not have the same problem with ‘home grown’ Muslim radicalism. This may be because the Muslims in America feel more a part of mainstream life there, than is the case in Britain. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, stresses that the war in Afghanistan is being waged to make Britain safer. But there are others who argue that it is conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has radicalised some Muslims in Britain. Whatever is the truth, opposing foreign policy cannot be an excuse for terrorism.

Some want even stricter anti-terrorism laws and increased surveillance, to combat terrorism. But the real war is that against hearts and minds. Violence and terrorism are symptoms, albeit extreme, of a broken society. This will never change unless people change. Here in Britain we have a number of Mosques where the Imam leaders preach a message of hate and not love. This message targets young men who feel disaffected and separated from mainstream society. The majority of Muslims in Britain want to live a peaceful life. It is time for their voices to be more prominent. The media also has a responsibility, in focusing on the factors which bring our communities together and not divide us.

There was widespread anger about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Al Megrahi is now back in Libya and there are questions being raised as to whether the Scottish Government was duped into releasing him on compassionate grounds. It is claimed that the medical evidence that he would live only three months is highly suspect. There is even talk of him writing a book. As for the three men convicted of the bomb plot this week, the taxpayer is going to bare the cost of looking after them in prison. Some argue that real justice has not actually been done. But the Bible says there is a ‘day of reckoning’ for everyone after death, even for those who seem to have been treated leniently for wrongs committed during their lifetime. Hebrews 9:27 “everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God”.

 The problem with these statements and the sentiment behind them, is that Harman is both right and wrong.  Traditionally, women earn less than men, even when they do the same jobs.  Sometimes this happens in the guise of modified job titles.

 We hope this will continue to change.  Women and minorities should not be discriminated against simply because they are not white males. 

 Harman is suggesting that we actively encourage women and minorities in leadership, almost to the point of preferential bias.  Hiring a woman exclusively because she is a woman is still discrimination. 

 In fact, it is demeaning to give a woman a promotion without the demonstrated merit, purely on the basis of her gender.  Tokenism does not add prestige, it patronises.  It is saying we should have pity on the female and promote her because she is unable to earn it for herself.

 Women in leadership can add valuable input and skills.  They can change the way this country runs.  The banking crisis may have been avoided if we had more women running the banks.  History records powerful women who have made a difference: Margaret Thatcher, Queen Elizabeth I, Emmeline Pankhurst, Mother Theresa, and Golda Meir, just to name a few.

 The point is for women to get the same opportunities to develop and use their skills.  The proverbial playing field is certainly not level, yet.

 If men consistently earn more across the country, this earnings disparity means that women are less economically independent than men. The fact that women give birth to the children, this also effects their career path and working future.  Until men start giving birth, this problem is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

There are 192 countries in the United Nations, but only 24 have female leaders.  It is interesting that the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, has elected a black President before a female one. 

 This week on her visit to the Congo, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by a student her husband’s views of the Chinese loan offer to the Congo.  Clinton “bristled” and responded saying, “If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channelling my husband.”  Clinton was probably a little harsh but she was reacting to the notion that, as a woman, she would not have her own opinion.

 There’s a saying: women can do anything men can do, but backwards and in heels. Never underestimate the impact of a woman with a cause.  Hats off to Harriet.

 Recently, the Dream has been rudely interrupted.  Global financial distress has altered spending and saving habits.  The US federal government has bailed out huge companies like General Motors.  Federal and state governments have huge debts.

 Some states are in danger of going bankrupt.  California is the most prominent example.  Issuing IOUs has not helped Schwarzenegger’s heroic image.  The Terminator may have his reputation terminated by all this.  The Boston Globe reported less than a year ago up to 22 states are facing serious financial budget gaps.

 With huge government and corporate debt, the individual citizen is left the most vulnerable of all. 

 The golden opportunity of early American history and the industrial revolution is becoming less of a reality.  We must not forget that the Joad family, when they eventually reached California, found that it was not the “Golden State” in reality.

 Americans will never rid themselves of their sense of immense possibility.  I have friends who live in wealthy rural Virginia.  They are proud of the fact that, less than 10 years ago, their first home was in a trailer park.  You can start as a poor child in a log cabin, and end up the President of the United States, like Abraham Lincoln.  There’s also a guy named Barack Obama, who did quite well.

 Most Americans also don’t see their place in the global order slipping.  Some of the more politically informed will acknowledge that the European Union is rising in importance. Others understand that China and India are fast rising economic forces.  However, most ordinary American citizens still view their country as the world’s policeman.

 The American work ethic is a vital factor in the American Dream.  American folk tales make hard work a necessary part of being American.  John Henry, in the famous American folk song A Steel-Drivin’ Man, “hammered his fool self to death”.  Going to work everyday in a job they simultaneously love and hate makes up part of the character of a US citizen.  Working hard contributes to a sense of ownership, a sense of pride. 

 The American Dream has not become a nightmare, but it has had a loud Wake Up Call.  The Americans still want to be John Wayne, who always wins at the end of the film.  We wait to see if there is a happy sequel.

 However, this past presidential election saw a change in communication tactics.  Social networking sites took an prominent role in influencing the minds of many voters. Emails and other methods were used, but Facebook and Twitter took the lead.

 The Obama campaign had its own Facebook application.  Users could share news stories, chat about events, and read posts made my Obama and his campaigners. 

 Twitter updates were fast and furious during the campaign, spreading messages and campaign information amongst supporters worldwide.  These tactics proved amazingly effective.

 President Obama and his campaign managers tapped into a new market.  He was looking for people aged between 18 and 30.  There may be social drawbacks in losing in face-to-face contact because of social networking sites, but they certainly work for mass communication.

 Young voters in America are often apathetic about voting, thinking their votes won’t change much.  Their cynicism gets the best of them, and they are a hard market to reach.  However, they do know how to use the internet effectively.

 Obama reached out to this important group of voters.  Young professionals, university students, and other active internet users could all easily keep up with the Obama campaign.  Regular Facebook updates, Facebook applications, and Twitter updates are easy to access for a generation that already spends a large amount of time on these social networking sites. 

 Previous great Presidents have all changed the way candidates campaign.  Abraham Lincoln was made famous in the Lincoln-Douglas debates for a highly contested seat in the Senate.  He used his speeches to produce a book.  His increased visibility led to him becoming President.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt had his fireside chats, that made campaigning more personal and relevant to the individual or family, instead of the masses.  Obama was simply changing the strategy to fit the game.

 Even now, President Obama is using technology to his advantage. All of his weekly addresses are put on YouTube, instead of just given on the radio.  His Twitter account is still active and updates several times a week.  Hundreds of Facebook groups have emerged, supporting him and providing places to discuss his objectives and policies.  The White House even has its own separate Twitter account, as does Number 10 Downing Street.

 However, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown showed during his disastrous performance on YouTube, the personality must fit the medium.  YouTube works for Mr. Obama, but it certainly does not work for Mr. Brown.

 Maybe our future Prime Ministerial candidates should take note.  President Obama figured it out: if you want to reach the young voter demographic, use the tools they use.  Obama was not only the first black President, he was the first Blackberry President.

 It takes celebrity attention.  Let me explain.

 Earlier this year, two American journalists from California were imprisoned in North Korea.  They had entered the country illegally from China.  For this offence, they were sentenced to 12 years hard labour. 

 The US State Department immediately got involved.  They spent weeks trying to negotiate a bargain with North Korea, treating the issue as completely separate to the most recent nuclear testing. 

 After all this hard work by the State Department, the only thing lacking was a face: Who would make this exchange actually happen?

 North Korea wanted someone famous and influential.  They wanted to be able to say that the US had spoken to them through a celebrity.  Kim Jong-il wanted to show he was worth enough to the US to have them send someone important.

 But who to send?

 The inspired choice, in the end, was former President Bill Clinton.

 Clinton is well-known enough to attract huge amounts of media to North Korea.   He also has a personal charm and charisma that can disarm even an obstinate dictator.  

 Also, the journalists in question work for a news company owned partly by former Vice-President Al Gore.  Gore had offered to go to North Korea himself, but they said no: they wanted Bill.

 So, the State Department did the preparation and Bill swooped in to make everything happen with his trademark glamour.  There were also the vital TV and press pictures.

 However, I think this means something more to North Korea.  They used the occasion to say that President Obama sent a personal message to Kim Jong-il, which the White House continues to deny.  The photos appeared on the evening news across North Korea, albeit after a story about cleaning up a biscuit factory.

 North Korea feels cut off.  They are left on their own, not included in global talks, unable to function the same as many other East Asian states.

 For North Korea to be visited by a former President, suddenly North Korea is cast into the limelight.  All attention focused on them.  This kind of publicity is also better than news stories about the abject poverty of its citizens.  It’s a chance to make North Korea look good in the global spotlight.

 Since Bill Clinton’s visit, North Korea has asked the US for bilateral talks, but the US has said that bilateral discussions will only resume as part of the six-nation consultations on disarmament. 

 I believe Kim Jong-il has begun to realise the predicament in which he has placed himself.  he has reached an impasse in talks with the US  his people are starving, and he himself is possibly dying.  He has alienated almost the entire globe.  The US has stated this episode does not change their demands regarding North Korea.  But, this meeting with Bill Clinton may have been Kim Jong-il’s first step in the reconciliatory direction.

 I am referring, of course, to the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr. last month in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 Gates, arriving home from China, found his door jammed.  He and a friend had to use their shoulders to force their way into the house.

 A 911 emergency call followed. The woman who called told police that she could not see if they had a key, but two men used force to enter the house and had suitcases. 

 Sgt. Crowley was the first to arrive on the scene.  When he arrived, he asked Gates to show identification proving that he was the resident of 17 Ware Street. 

 This is the most questionable bit: the argument.  Sometime in the course of events, Gates accused Sgt. Crowley of racial profiling.  Gates had his say loudly enough for Crowley to charge Gates with disorderly conduct.

 The charges were dropped the following week.

 But the story is not that simple. 

 Of course, a reporter asked President Obama about the situation.  Obama answered too quickly and without all the facts.  Obama accused the Cambridge police of “acting stupidly”. 

 His remarks are not wholly without merit.  The history of race and police work in the United States is grim.  Racial profiling is still a widely-practiced policy, even if not written in the books. 

 However, Sgt. Crowley teaches a class on avoiding racial profiling and how to deal with sticky race situations.  He would, theoretically, be the person in the department least likely to accuse someone based on race or ethnic background. 

 On the other hand, ‘Skip’ Gates, who I have met, is an intelligent and  widely respected Harvard professor.  I doubt he would have accused a police officer of racial profiling without a good reason. 

 President Obama later amended his statements, but did not retract the previous comments.  He stated that Crowley and Gates both “overreacted” and that “cooler heads should have prevailed”. 

 That sounds more reasonable.  That is the statement he should have given at the beginning.

 To smooth things over, Obama invited both men to have beer with him and Vice-President Biden in the White House.  I think this was an attempt to bring closure to the news outbreak.  With Obama pushing his health care agenda, this story about Gates only serves as a temporary distraction.  The media focused on the Cambridge row and not on Congressmen trying to filibuster the health care bill.

 Still, taking the “beer summit” as a serious discussion on race, at least everyone is headed in the right direction.  Regardless of its significance against Obama’s economic challenges, the matter of racial profiling demands our attention.

 The place to begin with changing race relations is dialogue.  Even the end of slavery began with heated discussions drawn out over several years.  

Interestingly, Crowley and Gates are making plans for lunch. I suspect they will find a few cameras watching them.

I thought Shadow Chancellor George Osborne’s approach to financial regulation was a bold and courageous one. Despite what the critics say about instigating ‘turf wars’, someone has to pick up the pieces of the failed tripartite system, introduced by Gordon Brown 12 years ago.

Responsibility for financial stability in the UK is shared by HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority (FSA). They constitute the “tripartite authorities”. However, the system failed to foresee, or protect against the financial crisis. Hence, Mr Osborne had no choice but to suggest radical reforms in order to regain trust and confidence, which has been hit hard since the recession.

The government’s approach has been lacking in substance. Its proposals for a Council for Financial Services lacks the rigour and executive power it would need to be effective. It would just be a ‘forum’ for debate and would still rely on the tripartite system. Same old government, same old system.

The Conservatives on the other hand have real meat on the bone. They have explained the sort of tools regulators will have in order to fulfill our economic objectives. Accordingly, there are proposals for caps on leverage, capital requirements and limits on interbank lending.

But what really sets the Conservatives apart is their policies on banking competition. They believe that competition must be restored as soon as possible. The UK, which so heavily relies on its financial services, can ill afford to be uncompetitive in the international banking arena.

What we need to survive this crisis is a competitive, but accountable banking industry. This is something which is at the core of George Osborne’s proposals. He suggests breaking up the banking monopolies and encouraging the formation of smaller banks. This is why the Conservatives plan a new Consumer Protection Agency.

This is no time for policymakers to play the nice guy. What we need is not more regulation, but more effective regulation. The governments proposals simply move the financial furniture around. This is no remedy for long term recovery.

Soon, the G8 will most likely begin to incorporate other nations, creating a new G14 or G24.  Nations like China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico are increasingly important to any global decision-making process.  Global climate and large trade deals cannot be made without the G5 and other rising nations.  The economies of the G8 are shrinking, but the up-and-coming nations are just that: up and coming. 

The economic clout of the G8 has decreased, and they needed a way to emphasise their power in a very visible setting.  The chosen ‘setting’ was food security. 

In this case, Food Security Aid serves two obvious purposes.  First, aid money is an alternative to raising tariffs.  Tariff policies tested in the 1930s are inappropriate in today’s global market.  Instead, Food Security Aid encourages the production of more goods: bigger supply, smaller cost. 

The aid money serves a second purpose: sustainable agricultural development.  President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development Kanaya Nwanze told the BBC that “food security is not just food aid.  It is the ability of people to produce food locally and for them to be able to have access to local markets.”  The development of Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) provides economic stability and worldwide growth.  

But the decision to donate to food security can be seen another way. Giving money shows the supposed strength of the G8 as one body, perhaps for the last time.  In addition, behind everything said about the need for a stronger global economy is the added bonus of publicity. 

The world’s media speculated on figures to be given to food security to be about $15 billion.  A few days later, news sources gallantly reported the good intentions of our leaders and the increased amounts of aid money to about $20 billion. 

But can we really say that any aid money has been given at all?  

In 2005 at the Gleneagles summit, nations made an agreement and pledged to double the amount of aid going to Sub-Saharan Africa and bring the new total to $25 billion.  This commitment has not yet been met.  Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is still asking “the G8 to live up to their commitments.”  Prime Minister Berlusconi may blame the lagging economy, but the real question is whether these governments mean what they say and say what they mean.  

The leaders made a big fuss about the aid money.  President Sarkozy emphasized that “things are progressing” and President Obama stated that “there is no reason that Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food”.  A lot of talk with no money behind it. 

I would not want to accuse any nation of giving money exclusively for the sake of appearances.  Confidence in the market is an important step in recovery.  However, exorbitant amounts of pomp and circumstance were given to the generosity of the large nations.  Perhaps the aid money was an exercise in muscle-flexing, after all.  

Showing off the ‘super powers’ of the G8 nations is great for public opinion.  But rhetoric does not help the hungry.