Hyper-injunctions threaten the liberty we should hold dear

At the risk of appearing to display a naive and fundamental misunderstanding of what drives the tabloid press, my initial reaction to the story leading most of today’s red-tops was simply “why print a story missing crucial information?”

I am aware, of course, that the incident in question contains perhaps the perfect ingredients for these publications. “World famous actor in sex romps with Rooney’s vice girl” splashes the Daily Express; “Roo hooker’s romps with a married actor” reveals the Daily Mirror; the Sun, meanwhile, leads with the relatively restrained “Rooney hooker bedded married actor”.

The headlines are intriguing, and naturally invite the reader to further investigate the story. Buy this newspaper, the front page implores, and your insatiable thirst for celebrity gossip will be at least temporarily quenched.

Except, of course, that the headlines tell as much of the story as anyone is allowed to know. The actor involved in this case is protected by an injunction that prevents the press from revealing his identity, in turn denying readers the juicy details of the “scandal”.

Not being particularly interested in such celebrity gossip (although rather perversely perhaps, I did eagerly await last season’s encounter between Manchester City and Chelsea, where the former’s Wayne Bridge came up against John Terry, who had been revealed as having “bedded” Bridge’s ex-partner), I cannot get too wound up the injunction. Indeed, I was more drawn to the adjacent front-page story in the Express, another hyperbolic rant about the European Union.

The increased frequency of such injunctions has become ever more evident. More disturbingly still, however, were the recent revelations of far more powerful court gagging orders. Known as hyper-injunctions, they are so far-reaching that they may even prevent members of the public from speaking to their MPs about the issues to which they refer.

Fortunately for our democracy, parliamentary privilege, which prevents MPs speaking in the House of Commons from being taken to court for what they say there, has been invoked to get around these scandalous measures.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming should thus be commended for bringing one such issue into the public domain. The High Court passed an order five years ago, Hemming revealed, in which the full weight of legal power was used to close down every route that a constituent could potentially take in order to broadcast his claims.

And what is this issue, one that apparently justifies unelected judges from deciding that its very existence should not be revealed? It concerns the paint used on ships, which, it is alleged, reacts with sea water to produce toxic by-products.

Does this really justify the full weight of the English legal system being enacted to deny an individual a platform upon which to detail his accusation? Is it morally acceptable for him or her not even to be able to discuss the matter with “members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers”, as the High Court order makes plain?

Of course not. Hyper-injunctions represent a new threat to the values of liberty that we should hold dear as a nation. We cannot, surely, tolerate a society in which a citizen is denied the right even to speak to his or her elected representative. It is almost laughable that in this case the individual was even handed a two-week suspended jail sentence merely for consulting a lawyer about whether or not to bring the case to court.

Perhaps the most dangerous facet of this affair is the fact that the judge’s orders prevent any chance of appealing the verdict. There is literally no authority to which the recipient of the injunction can legally turn, and only the constitutional quirk of parliamentary privilege has allowed the sorry episode to become a matter of public knowledge.

It is a good thing that it has. This is a matter that puts no less than a basic right – that of free speech – at risk, and represents, too, a threat to the elected democratic system in which we place our trust. A worrying precedent has been set, one that is overwhelmingly more disquieting than not being able to identify the latest cheating celebrity.

A Letter from Durham

This appeared in my school alumni's magazine, The Breconian.

Durham, with its rolling hills and the meandering River Wear, is quite a sight to behold at any time of the year, but is particularly attractive in autumn. Carpets of brown and orange line the cobbled streets while Oxbridge-style colleges are beacons of warmth for students wrapped up against the cold in their Jack Wills blazers, contrasting uneasily with local residents.

The relationship between Durham’s students and the city’s year-round citizens has long been awkward. Neither could happily live without the other, but neither is readily willing to admit this. The university has one of the largest proportions of students educated at public schools out of any higher education institution in the United Kingdom; meanwhile the North East lags in nearly all indicators of prosperity in comparison with the rest of the country.

Generally, though, the two groups stay well apart, for better or for worse. Students reside in distinctly separate areas of town, or in colleges. There are fourteen colleges in Durham (plus another two on a separate campus, in Stockton-on-Tees), which act rather like glorified boarding houses. College rivalries are fierce yet good-natured – one college has a football 9th XI, so it is hard to take all competition too seriously. The obvious drawback to this system is that, typically, there is little social interaction between members of different colleges. Apart from lectures, the vast majority of university activity is undertaken within the college system.

One of the most popular college-initiated activities is the increasingly-infamous Newcastle night. That this has become so popular betrays a distinct lack of variety of entertainment in Durham itself. (Indeed, one satirical student publication listed Durham’s main attraction as its close proximity to the Toon.) With a population of less than 30,000 (around one fifth the size of Cambridge and Oxford, and one tenth of that of Cardiff), this can hardly come as much of a surprise. Indeed, rather more excitement is generated than can be justified at the prospect of a trip to Big Tesco; on the other hand, the recent closure of the ten pin bowling centre has left a definite vacuum in the skimpy list of Durham amusements.

Yet despite its shortcomings, autumn and winter in Durham is almost unbeatable. Certainly there is a need for a copious amount of fleece-lined clothing, and car headlights have to be illuminated seventeen hours a day. But it is a stunning, historical city (the Cathedral, labelled by the university’s outgoing Chancellor, Bill Bryson, as the ‘greatest on Planet Earth’, was completed in 1133) that impresses everyone who is new to it, despite its diminutive size.

Being six hours from Brecon, it is hardly a surprise that OBs have failed to swarm to Durham in the same way as southern universities. It is no less of a shame, though, that this city, tiny but beautiful, flawed yet wonderful, has not been considered by more Breconians. So long as you leave your Jack Wills blazers at home, Durham will welcome you warmly.

Green Bay Pack a Mighty Punch

Green Bay Packers 31-25 Pittsburgh Steelers

The Green Bay Packers took the Vince Lombardi trophy back to Wisconsin after triumphing over the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV.

The Packers won their first championship for fourteen years after a hard-fought battle at Cowboys Stadium, Texas.

Two first half passing touchdowns for Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers, complemented by a defensive score, had given them a comfortable halftime lead, and they withheld a second-half rally to secure their fourth NFL championship.

Pittsburgh at one stage trailed by eighteen points, and despite their second-half recovery, they had left themselves too great a margin to overcome.

The game began relatively slowly, and, after the teams traded early punts, the Packers got on the board first when Rodgers connected with wide receiver Jordy Nelson, who clung on to fall into the end zone for a 29-yard score.

The lead doubled moments later when a wayward throw from Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was returned 37 yards for a touchdown by safety Nick Collins, who could barely believe his luck as the throw fell into his hands.

Pittsburgh cut the deficit to eleven points at the beginning of the second quarter with a short Shane Suisham field goal, but the offence once again cost the team as, on their next possession, Roethlisberger threw his second interception of the half. Green Bay’s Jared Bush, under intense pressure from Pittsburgh wide receiver Mike Wallace, expertly held on to Roethlisberger’s attempted pass.

The resulting field position led to a 21-yard touchdown pass from Rodgers to his veteran receiver Greg Jennings. Pittsburgh, sensing the importance of reducing the deficit before the Black Eyed Peas-led half time show, drove quickly downfield. Roethlisberger tossed a short touchdown pass to Hines Ward with 39 seconds before the interval, but the task facing the six-time champions – an eleven-point deficit – remained great.

It was, however, a rejuvenated Pittsburgh that emerged from the locker room for the second half. Green Bay were held by some determined Steelers defence on the opening possession of the period and – assisted by a dubious facemask penalty on the Packers – Pittsburgh was able to drive downfield. Running back Rashard Mendenhall capped the drive by powering over for an eight-yard score, reducing the Packers’ lead to four points.

The pattern continued on the following Green Bay drives, with Rodgers unable to find a way past Pittsburgh’s intimidating secondary. Forced to punt on all four of their third-quarter drives, the Steelers appeared to be very much in the ascendancy. The very first play of the fourth quarter apparently shifted the momentum right back to the NFC champions, however.

The powerful Mendenhall, who had an excellent game otherwise, fumbled following a crunching hit by the Packers’ inspirational Clay Matthews. For the third time in the game Pittsburgh paid the penalty for a turnover by giving up a touchdown following the takeaway, with the Packers marching downfield and Jennings’ second score restoring his team’s double-digit lead.

Still, though, the Steelers refused to give in. Roethlisberger threw a touchdown to Wallace before Antwaan Randle El scampered in for the two-point conversion, and with less than eight minutes to go, Pittsburgh was just three points in arrears. But the Packers padded out their win with a short Mason Crosby field goal, and they repelled one final Pittsburgh drive to crown a glorious night for Mike McCarthy’s men.

By-election provides potential troubles – and opportunities – for party leaders

Thursday sees the first electoral test of this parliament, with voters in the constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth going to the polls to choose their new MP, following the disqualification – via a rarely-convened electoral court – of Labour’s former immigration minister Phil Woolas.

With national opinion polls giving Labour a slight lead over the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats apparently stuck at around 10 percent support, the by-election gives the parties the first hard evidence of public opinion on the coalition government and its efforts to reduce the deficit, including controversial measures such as raising the cap on tuition fees.

The vote in May gave victory to Woolas by the exceptionally narrow margin of 103 votes, out of the nearly 45,000 that were cast. The defeated Lib Dem, Elwyn Watkins, successfully argued to the election court that Woolas’ electoral literature, which suggested that Watkins was in league with Islamic extremists, was untrue and slanderous, and the result was voided.

The constituency’s ability to act as a political barometer is further enhanced by the fact that Conservative candidate Kashif Ali, despite coming third in May, was still only 2,400 votes, or 5.5 percentage points, behind Woolas.

With Ali and Watkins both standing again, challenging Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, the election will indicate how the fortunes of the parties have changed in the last eight months. The stakes are high for all three party leaders, but particularly so for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

Miliband has failed to stamp his authority on his party, and despite Labour’s strong polling, his personal ratings have steadily declined. One recent YouGov poll for the Sunday Times suggested that his net approval ratings stand at a lowly minus 21 percent, compared to David Cameron’s 2 percent. The net level of satisfaction among Labour voters is, at 33 percent, perhaps Miliband’s biggest headache – in comparison, the PM has a massive 92 percent net approval from Tory voters.

For Miliband to lose the seat would be a damning indictment of his leadership so far. Although it would be, in all probability, much too early for his position to be challenged, it would certainly weaken him, provide a further stick for his opponents, both within the party and without, to beat him with, and boost morale within the government.

Clegg has, potentially, a much bigger problem, however. If the Liberal Democrat vote collapses on a scale indicated by national opinion polls, his days as leader of the party – and almost certainly, as Deputy Prime Minister – may well be numbered.

Lib Dem MPs, heading towards electoral oblivion, may prefer to be led by a figure less personally and politically attached to the Tory hierarchy. With elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and local councils coming up, a poor Lib Dem showing in a seat they came within a whisker of taking last May could provide the party with the motivation they needed to ditch Clegg.

The prospects of a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming referendum on whether the UK should adopt the Alternative Vote system – a flagship Lib Dem contribution to the coalition agreement – would also be threatened if the unpopularity of Clegg’s party makes Lib Dem campaigning for its adoption toxic. If Clegg himself, and his unwavering support for the coalition, is seen as an electoral liability, he may be forced out even before the AV referendum.

Indeed, because the coalition would be put under threat if Clegg was ousted – and in turn because of a crushing defeat for Watkins – David Cameron has apparently deliberately undertaken a low-key Conservative campaign in the constituency.

Some from within his party have complained that the Conservatives had a legitimate chance of winning the seat, or at least pushing the Lib Dems into third, which has been scuppered by the PM putting loyalty to the coalition above party partisanship.

Nevertheless, Cameron’s preferences are justified. The Tories, even if they have maintained their levels of support since the general election, would find it very tough to take the seat from a resurgent Labour Party. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, have shed support, but tactical voting from Conservatives could make it a tight race.

In any case, Cameron needs to keep the support of the Lib Dems in the House of Commons. Clegg is his key asset in this regard, so Cameron needs Clegg to be reasonably successful, and a seat in which the Tories are third gives the PM scope to shore up his coalition ally without – seriously – undermining his own leadership.

As the campaign enters its final few days, two opinion polls of the constituency have suggested that Labour holds a comfortable lead, with the Tories a poor third. It is the job of Watkins and his activists to attempt to persuade Conservatives to support him as the only option that could lead to a Labour defeat.

A convincing Labour win would give them a boost to go on the attack and put real strain on the coalition, which would be shored up by a strong Lib Dem showing, especially if Watkins is catapulted to victory on the back of support from nominally-Conservative voters. Potentially, the very political direction of the country may be determined by the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth on a chilly Thursday in January.

Obama bloodied as Republicans snatch House of Representatives

When John Boehner, the Ohioan Republican representative who is expected to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, addressed cheering crowds last Tuesday night, he burst into tears.

On a night which saw Republicans gain control of the lower house with a number of spectacular victories, his were not tears of disappointment, even if the Grand Old Party did fall short of also seizing the upper house, the Senate.

Boehner will become the third most powerful politician in the United States, after President Obama and Vice President Biden, after the Republicans routed House Democrats, gaining 60 seats to split control of Capitol Hill between the two main American parties and deal a severe blow to Obama’s hope of implementing his agenda.

Boehner insisted, however, that this is no time for Republican celebration. This may be seen as a surprise considering the dramatic turnaround in GOP fortunes after their poor showings in 2006 and 2008. However, there may be a tinge of Republican regret stemming from the fact that although the party managed to trim the Democratic Senate majority to four seats, from eighteen in 2008, the results perhaps should have been even more positive for the party.

It is the Tea Party which has caused these Republican headaches. The Tea Party, a phenomenon that has dominated this electoral cycle, is a pressure movement which is opposed to central government interference in the lives of ordinary Americans. The nascent political movement, which competed in GOP primary contests and whose darling is Sarah Palin, may well have cost the Republicans a majority in the Senate.

The Republican mainstream candidate in Delaware, Mike Castle, lost his party’s nomination to an eccentric extremist backed by the Tea Party, Christine O’Donnell, who was even forced to deny rumours that she was a witch. Castle, the moderate former governor of the state, had polled consistently ahead of the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons by appealing to centrists. O’Donnell nullified this effect after her defeat of Castle, allowing Coons to win the state with some ease.

What would have been the most high-profile Republican scalp was the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who hung on to his Nevada seat. His challenger, arch-conservative Sharron Angle, committed a number of faux-pas on the campaign trail, including her declaration in support of the US withdrawing from the United Nations, in part to protest against the UN’s tendency to promote “fraudulent science such as climate change”. As with O’Donnell in Delaware, Angle isolated moderates and managed to snatch defeat for the Republicans from the jaws of victory in a contest against a very poorly regarded incumbent in Senator Reid.

There were some successes for the Tea Party, most notably for Marco Rubio, tipped as a future GOP presidential candidate, who was elected to the Senate candidate in the crucial state of Florida, comfortably defeating his former Republican colleague and incumbent senator Charlie Crist.

Nevertheless, the movement has had a polarising effect which may prove to be toxic to the Republicans’ chances of regaining the White House in 2012. O’Donnell, Angle, Joe Miller of Alaska (who was defeated by a write-in candidate, incumbent Republican senator Lisa Murkowski) and other right-wing politicians may have benefited amongst traditional conservatives, but have not endeared themselves to moderate Americans.

It may have been that Boehner’s tears betrayed a sense of apprehension at the looming prospect of a civil war for the soul of the Republican Party. That the GOP failed to pick up states that they might have been expected to win had there not been a divisive Tea Party-backed candidate instead of a moderate may have actually pleased the Republican establishment. Time alone will tell if the Tea Party proves to be a busted flush, but Republicans must hope that its influence and its polarising tendencies will have been severely blunted by its failures.

A further difficulty faced by the GOP is the distinct lack of credible, unifying challengers to Obama in 2012. Moderate Republicans such as Mitt Romney may be more appealing to Middle America, but the GOP base is far more enthusiastic for more conservative figures such as Palin. Tea Partyers – Palin was outspoken in her backing for Angle, Miller and O’Donnell – will have had their credentials weakened, however, by last week’s disappointments.

But if the generally positive results were tinged with some frustration for Republicans, then the Democrats find themselves in rather more trouble. Just two years after his triumphant and historic victory, Obama faces the prospect of political deadlock on Capitol Hill.

What will have pained – not to mention worried – the Democrats is the loss of a number of traditionally liberal states to Republican candidates. Perhaps most notable of these was Illinois, the state Obama himself represented in the Senate prior to 2008. The Prairie State, with a population of thirteen million and which gave Obama 62 percent of the vote two years ago, elected Mark Kirk, who won relatively comfortably in spite of allegations that he partly fabricated his military record, to the Senate and came within a whisker of taking the Governor’s mansion.

Obama’s approval ratings have been consistently below 50 percent, and among registered independents – a voting bloc which launched him into the White House – numerous polls have shown less than 40 percent approve of his presidency. Even Democrats have taken issue with their president. In the Democratic bastion of Rhode Island, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate told Obama to take his endorsement and “shove it”. He came third; the victor was an independent liberal.

Indeed, some Democratic victors may prove to be a challenge for Obama and the party hierarchy to work with. Joe Manchin, elected to the Senate to represent West Virginia, is a self-depicted conservative Democrat who has made a great issue out of the fact that he opposed President Obama’s plan to incentivise the reduction of carbon dioxide production.

Yet, in what may be seen as a blessing in disguise, Republican control of the House of Representatives may take some of the pressure off Obama and the Democrats. Obama may well attempt to pin the blame for political deadlock on to a stubborn Republican-led House. In addition, through worsening economic times, Republicans will not be able to wash their hands of responsibility and will have no choice but to share some of the blame. The anti-incumbency wave ridden by so many Republicans may not last now that they are part of the establishment.

In spite of the apparent torrent of bad news for Democratic strategists last Tuesday, the midterm elections still provide Obama and his party with hope. They will know that, but for the influence of the Tea Party, they may well have lost both Houses of Congress. Obama will also be warmed by the slim possibility of a unifying Republican candidate being selected following the long and divisive primary season, which starts in just fourteen months time.

Perhaps it was the thought of the hurdles ahead that drove Boehner to tears. Tuesday’s results were a great success for his Republican Party; but he as much as anyone is aware that there is little scope for celebration.

As the Browne Report is unveiled, Durham students express their views on the issue of tuition fees

AW, 4th year, St Aidan’s, Chemistry:

I think it’s really terrible – I don’t know how my brother is going to pay for his education. I’m glad I have got through before the changes are implemented. If Durham had cost more than other universities, I wouldn’t have been able to come here; my sister has ended up staying at home because of the cost of university.



CL, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Archaeology:

It might work in a purist economic world, but the education of the individual is of value to society as a whole on more than just an economic level.



DCC, 3rd year, Grey, Politics:

I think that the Browne Report would represent an irreversible change in the affordability and the social mobility of our education system. The changes will create a tiered higher education system, with the debt burden caused by going to a prestigious universities being potentially off-putting to students from poorer backgrounds. I hope that Durham will strengthen its bursary and outreach programmes in order to mitigate against this.



CT, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Politics:

It reduces education to a personal investment. It puts the entire cost of education onto an individual and neglects the role of both society and industry in funding education. I am very concerned about the idea of variable fees.



MV, 3rd year, St Aidan’s, Law:

The ever-expanding format of the country’s university system is weakening the quality of our institutions and courses. Therefore an uncapped tuition fee is one way of reducing the numbers in the university system and return quality to British education.



Not everyone is concerned though:

Anonymous, Van Mildert:

I haven’t heard of the report. Is it written by Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code?

Labour prepares to enter a new era

Perhaps the 2010 general election will go down as being a good one to have lost. There is a widespread acceptance that whatever complexion the resulting government would have been would have had, as a matter of urgency, to deal with the stunning level of national debt. How hard, indeed, did Labour try to win?

Their last year in office was marked by a series of debacles, including botched leadership challenges, Gordon Brown’s hapless attempts to interact with the electorate and rumours of his temper paralysing the workings of inner government. To say that the previous government followed a scorched earth policy would probably be to take it too far, though Liam Byrne, Labour’s last Chief Secretary to the Treasury, appeared to allude to his government’s reckless spending habits when he left a note to his successor advising him that “there’s no money left”.

It is very hard to imagine a Labour government wishing to face the problems now encountered by the coalition government. One party staying in office for three terms naturally makes the public weary and increasingly attracted by the prospect of change (though the Conservatives failed to fully capitalise on such feelings during the campaign).

Yet the issue of cuts would still have needed to be addressed, in a Labour fourth term, whatever some Labour leadership contenders might pretend. As we are beginning to see, a conflict with the unions would become inevitable, and while this might be seen by some as a predictable result of a Conservative in Downing Street, for a Labour government to be presiding over general strikes might be seen as civil war.

Admittedly, Labour would have been less likely to have been quite so harsh to implement cuts, but the legacy of the winter of discontent, which brought down James Callaghan’s government and brought about eighteen years of Tory rule, still haunts Labour’s relations with the trade unions.

As it is, Labour is now on the verge of choosing a leader who may well be the next prime minister. Unlike the post-1997 Tories, who had three unsuccessful leaders (William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard), Labour has a realistic chance of returning to office relatively soon, and therefore realises that it must choose wisely.

For the government, it may all seem a little unfair. They have no choice but to reduce the public debt, something which Labour failed to address – (perhaps intentionally) – whilst they were in government.

The problem is the issue of how savagely expenditure should be cut. Public sector workers, perhaps eyeing developments in Greece and France, are naturally very worried about austerity packages, and scorn the Conservatives’ insistence that “we are all in this together”.

Unfortunately there is very little choice. We cannot continue to spend beyond our means. Unfortunately, some services will have to go, or else the situation will continue to be exacerbated for future generations. The sooner the clichéd ‘tough, long-term’ decisions are taken, the better. The later these cuts are left, the closer Britain will get to joining the economic graveyard of the GIP countries.

The previous Labour government, which endowed us with the majority of the problems, including giving bankers such as Fred Goodwin a free rein to borrow far beyond their means, will hope to appear as an innocent party in the sorry tale of the current problems we face. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have started the attempts to clean up this mess, and have been predictably pilloried for it.

It is to be hoped that their decisions shall, in time, not be seen to have been taken out of a particular desire to slash public services, but out of an unfortunate forced necessity.