Monday, 30 March 2015

Why anti-SNP tactical voting may not work

Recently, we have seen widespread appeals for non-SNP supporters to unite behind the party best placed to defeat them in the forthcoming General Election.

There are online campaigns, instructing people in various seats how best to use their vote to thwart the SNP. On twitter, there is a politically illiterate movement, using the hashtag #SNPout (quite odd, as they're not actually "in" government in Westminster), suggesting we vote for either the Lib Dems, Labour or the Conservatives to keep the dreadful nationalists out. I'm not sure I could countenance a tactical vote for the Tories simply to keep out a party whose policy standpoints have far more in common with my worldview than the Conservatives do, and I'd imagine many Scots feel similarly.

As a feature of the flawed First Past the Post electoral system, tactical voting is a phenomenon likely to stay with us for some time. However, we have to ask the question: will tactical voting keep the SNP from a significant role in UK government?

The latest opinion poll from The Guardian gives the Conservatives 277 seats, Labour 269, the SNP 53 and the Lib Dems 25. This would mean the Tories remain the largest party, but unable to secure a working majority with any single party other than the SNP. A Tory-SNP deal is hugely risky and difficult for either party to sell; a Tory-Lib Dem-UKIP-DUP alliance is impractical on so many levels. The combined total of 322 for the Labour and SNP combined is just short of a majority (326) but could be workable.

Let's take a look at the current state of play. Prior to the dissolution of Parliament this week, Labour had 257 seats, with the SNP 6. This gives them a combined total of 263, of which 46 are Scottish seats. Focusing on Scotland, let's say for the sake of argument that the SNP does as well as polling suggests and take 36 seats from Labour, leaving them with 4. That still gives a combined total of 46. The seat currently held by "independent" Eric Joyce will assuredly be won by either the SNP or Labour, taking the total to 47.

Admittedly, the SNP are also likely to make gains from the Lib Dems - even if they were to take all of our seats that gives a combined Labour-SNP total of 58. This could be telling. But would anti-SNP tactical voting really prevent the SNP holding the balance of power?

Let's take the 11 Lib Dem held seats out of the equation and focus on the 47 currently held by Labour or the SNP. Neither the Lib Dems nor the Conservatives are seriously targetting these. Voting Labour to keep the SNP out may well prevent the return of an SNP MP in that constituency, but it will do nothing to influence the overall combined total of Labour and SNP seats. It will not diminish the arithmetical probability of a Labour-SNP deal being the most liekly and workable option after the election.

From the pespective therefore of diminishing the potential of the SNP involvement in the next government, voting Labour to keep out Nicola Sturgeon's party is relatively futile. Even if Labour somehow managed to keep two-thirds of its seats in Scotland (about 26) the SNP still look set to reduce the Lib Dems' seats - even if they took only 6 of the 11 that would give them 26 seats - still possibly the third largest party at Westminster.

The seats currently held by the Lib Dems are of greater significance to the overall arithmetic. Any gain by Labour or the SNP will add to the core of 47 seats inevitably won by one or the other, making a deal between those parties more likely. In these seats I can therefore understand the principle of tactical voting to some degree, although I note at least one pro-tactical campaign is suggesting voters in Michael Moore's seat of Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and Alan Reid's Argyll & Bute constituency vote Conservative - which could allow the SNP to come through the middle. I appreciate that Alex Salmond is clearly a love-hate figure and that Gordon will inevitably see a great deal of tactical voting, but in many other Lib Dem seats Labour will also fancy their chances of unseating our incumbents (e.g. East Dunbartonshire, Edinburgh West) which complicates the picture further.

What will actually determine whether an SNP-Labour deal is workable is not the strength of the SNP in Scotland but that of Labour in England and Wales. That is the key battleground. The Labour-Lib Dem and Labour-Conservative marginals will prove decisive. The SNP and Labour in Scotland will have a combined total of around 50 seats, but whether they will have a combined strength of anything near to 326 MPs across the UK depends on how well Labour performs - and whether they can persuade people to vote tactically for Ed Miliband.

The Conservatives realise this, hence their anti-SNP rhetoric looking to scare English voters into voting anything but Labour. The evidence is that, while an unintended by-product is the strengthening of the SNP in Scotland, that tactic is working with those it is aimed at. The majority of voters in England, apparently, find a Tory-Lib Dem coalition more palatable than a Labour-SNP one.

There does remain the tantalising possibility of Labour emerging as the largest party with something like 295 seats, and being possible to work with either the SNP or the Lib Dems to achieve either a majority or something very near to the required 326. This is less likely, as it requires both Labour and the Lib Dems to exceed expectations. Even in such circumstances, however, would Labour's instincts be towards the Lib Dems or an SNP whose policy positions are probably more closer to their own? Would they opt for a more formal coalition (as the Lib Dems would prefer) or a looser agreement (which would suit the SNP)? As many within Labour clearly dislike the notion of coalition, I'd put my money on the latter.

No doubt tactical voting will have a huge impact on the UK election - in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals especially - but the idea that any pro-union Lib Dem voters should seek to support either the Labour or Conservative parties (especially in seats where they have an incumbent MP) is an absurd one. There also needs to be a sense of proportion - amongst all the scaremongering about what the SNP, the Greens or UKIP might want to do - about what they can actually achieve. Minority parties cannot simply impose their will upon government - if that was true we'd have had a proportional voting system, an elected House of Lords and a mansion tax introduced in this parliament.

I'm not one for tactical voting, as I prefer to see the General Election in terms of 650 local contests. That said, we all vote with a view to the national picture, and I for one see many worse possibilities than the SNP working with the Labour Party to ensure workable government. But, even if you perceive that as the ultimate nightmare scenario, the real threat to that eventuality is Ed Miliband's inability to project himself as a real alternative to David Cameron.

Sunday, 29 March 2015

SNP and Labour remind me why I'm a Liberal Democrat

I'd be lying if I said there haven't been times when I've asked myself why I'm a Liberal Democrat.

Even with a well considered philosophical liberalism, frustrations with party messages, elements of coalition policy and strategic mistakes can be very testing. I know many good Liberals who have left the party in recent years, and I understand perfectly why they have made their respective decisions. I know how difficult it has been for some of them to leave a party they have served for decades, and naturally I have reflected more than once on my own future within the Liberal Democrats.

But the simple reason is that, in spite of some our parliamentarians acting (in my view) with poor judgement at key times, I am still a Liberal and a Democrat. I'm a member of the Lib Dem family and, like many families, relationships can sometimes be fraught and challenging. But there's a real respect for individuality within the Liberal Democrats - something I value highly.

There's much that I can commend my party for - especially in policy areas of huge personal significance such as mental health, drug law, LGBTI rights, and Europe. But it isn't merely distinctive policies that convince me to remain a member - sometimes other parties remind you why you're a Liberal Democrat.

This week Labour have proudly advertised the fact that they want to be tough on immigration. I'm not really sure what kind of pride it is that drives Labour to enter an absurd race to the bottom with UKIP and the Conservatives, each of them using divisive language while playing the populist anti-immigration card. You can even buy an anti-immigration mug from Labour's online shop - something that Diane Abbott has labelled "shameful". Taking to twitter to express her anger, Ms Abbott wrote: "This shameful mug is an embarrassment. But real problem is that immigration controls are one of our 5 pledges."

That today's Labour Party has taken such a stance is testament to its current predicament. No longer the champions of freedom of movement, Labour's policy of banning EU migrants from receiving benefits for the first two years of residence is the brainchild of shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves. Reeves is so keen to outflank the Tories (and even UKIP) on immigrant benefits and welfare more generally, that she has effectively become the Echo to Iain Duncan Smith's Narcissus.  Whatever she might have meant about reducing benefit dependency and tackling the vilification of claimants, the "not the party of people on benefits" and "working people" rhetoric is not accidental. It is part of Labour's psyche, pointing to its "us and them" mentality in setting different social groups against each other.

And that's just one reason of many. I haven't even taken a look at Labour's self-inflicted predicament in Scotland.

In the last four years, I have been asked many times to join the SNP. I can understand why, and I know that most of those doing the asking are decent, reasonable people who feel that I could be an asset to their movement. They are wrong, because I am not and never could be a nationalist, but I appreciate their motivations.

I do not deny the many positive policy positions of the SNP, but it's not so much policy perspectives that have proved the most powerful dissuasive factor but the culture of that particular party. Dissent is practically unheard of; individuality almost indiscernible. Recently, I was speaking to friend of mine who is an SNP supporter (and an "out" supporter of LGBTI equality) about various Lib Dem policies. He agreed with us on some key issues - most notably the danger of the SNP's super-database. But to him these were all a price worth paying. "The specific policy doesn't matter", he said. "The main thing is to get as many pro-independence MPs to Westminster." To which I quipped: "OK, so if the SNP promised to bring back the death penalty and make homosexuality criminal you'd still vote for them?" I wasn't sure what I expected him to say, but it wasn't "Yes, of course, we need to be free". It's clearly futile debating policy with such attitudes. What was even more obvious was his discomfort at being even asked to consider ideas that could appear critical of the SNP or its leadership - something that I believe is widespread among his party's supporters.

At the SNP's conference the party has passed a motion introducing new rules requiring strict loyalty from MPs. These rules are as tough on individuality and dissent as Labour's proposals are on immigrants' benefit entitlements.

I understand the need for collective responsibility and professionalism, especially in advance of a General Election that could yield significant opportunities for Nicola Sturgeon's party, but the motion strengthens party control to a degree that would, at aone time, have been unthinkable and allows for the introduction of disciplinary procedures to ensure all MPs toe the party line. Not only this, but "no member shall, within or outwith the parliament, publicly criticise a Group decision, policy or another member of the group".

You have to wonder why the SNP feels such a motion is necessary. I would ask if I could ever join a party that had conformity and authoritarianism written into the heart of its being. As a general rule, I accept that professional standards and respect for colleagues should debar negatively briefing against them, but there are also times when expressing disagreement is necessary and actually aids democracy.

Imagine if such a stance was formally adopted by Labour or the Lib Dems. No doubt Simon Danczuk would be up for expulsion from the party - as would, in all probability, Diane Abbott. Dennis Skinner would have gone years ago. Nye Bevan would have never been a minister. Severe punishments would no doubt have been handed out to the Lib Dem MPs who either voted against tuition fees or spoke out against the way the issue had been handled. As for this blog - it would surely have been suppressed at the moment I suggested a cartoon of Alex Salmond was, to put it midly, ill-advised.

This has also got me thinking about whether an SNP MP's first duty will be to their constituents or their party.  The interests of the party and those of the constituency are not necessarily aligned. The public appreciates those MPs who go against their party line either on issues of principle or to champion local issues - it is, in fact, not altogether uncommon. I can promise that, if ever elected to public office, I will be nobody's yes-man - I could never be a tribalistic politician adhering to an imposed rigid orthodoxy. As George Orwell observed, "orthodoxy is unconsciousness". That should not be taken as suggesting I would be reckless and dismissive in my relationship with colleagues, but I recognise that ultimately I am accountable to those who elected me. I also respect others' individuality and would hate the idea of curtailing their freedom to speak according to their consciences.

I am pleased I belong in a party in which individuality is not dangerous. For all our current difficulties, I am proud to carry a party membership card that reminds me that the Liberal Democrats exist to, amongst other things, ensure "no one shall be enslaved by...conformity." For all the merits of other parties, I have yet to find the Liberal Democrats' culture of openness, respect for diverse views and acceptance of everyone as an individual (as epitomised at our conferences) anywhere else.

We may be an anarchic lot with a rebellious and anti-authoritarian streak that has frustrated several party leaders, but I wouldn't change that for anything. It certainly beats the culture of conformity and control.


Thursday, 26 March 2015

Clegg defends Prince Charles' privacy

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has said that Prince Charles' letter to government ministers should not be made public - less than half an hour after the Supreme Court ruled they should be.

Speaking to LBC this morning, Clegg said "Do I think that when Prince Charles sent those letters he's entitled to assume that they would remain private? I think he probably is. I think there's a perfectly legitimate role to say at a certain point that correspondence like that, since it was intended to be private, should remain private."

However, minutes prior to this, the Supreme Court decided that letters written by Prince Charles to MPs and ministers between 2004 and 2005 should be released in the public interest. The letters were requested by The Guardian newspaper in 2005, under the Freedom of Information Act, and a decade-long legal dispute followed.

The Supreme Court's decision follows the Attorney General's Office challenging a ruling by the Court of Appeal that it unlawfully stopped the release of the letters.

Nick Clegg's position is interesting because it assumes that anything intended to be private should stay so; however, quite clearly there are times when the public interest is best served by bringing what was intended to be secret into the open. In this case, allegations have been made that Prince Charles attempted to use his influence and privilege to lobby ministers - the principle of privacy should not trump the principle of democracy.

The Supreme Court ruling is actually an excellent constitutional judgement that underlines the fact that Royals should not be immune from transparency - the kind of transparency Nick Clegg so often insists is vital to open, accountable government.

Perhaps, instead of supporting Prince Charles' right to privacy, it might have been more fitting for a Liberal Democrat leader to instead congratulate The Guardian on its outstanding 10-year campaign and recognise the significance of this ruling from the perspective of both transparency in public life and Freedom of Information.

Councillor Mathew Hulbert, Co-Ordinator of Lib Dems For A Republic, says ''I'm really surprised to hear Nick Clegg defending Prince Charles's letters to Ministers remaining private. Charles isn't writing as a private person to his local MP, he's writing to Ministers in his capacity as second in line to the throne. We, therefore, should have a right to know what he's been saying and what his views are. If these letters display an obvious political bias, then all the more reason they should see the light of day, so people can see that their future Monarch is anything but an impartial figure floating above politics!''

My views on fracking

Julian Huppert: "Meeting our climate targets needs
to be at the forefront of our energy policy"
In recent days a number of would-be constituents have asked for my views on fracking.

My opinion on this, as with many other complex policy positions, is to follow the lead of the evidence.

For some time I've had an open mind on this - while being instinctively suspicious and harbouring serious concerns about the safety and environmental impacts of fracking, I've been eager to engage with the proponents of hydraulic fracturing. I'm always willing to listen to expertise.

I'm also willing to listen to our energy minister, Ed Davey. In 2013 he suggested that fracking "is not evil" and "would not endager UK climate targets", suggesting that the "fracking debate has been marred by exaggeration". That said, while Davey is in principle prepared to consent to it providing that stringent safety requirements can be met, he's also expressed criticism of the Conservative Party's belief that fracking has the power to transform the UK economy.

I understand the case for fracking, but after a great deal of consideration I am not convinced by it. Clearly the economic case seems to be a product of political wishful thinking. It is unlikely to be a fabulous route to cheap energy. Also, in relation to my concerns about the safety of fracking, these have actually increased after reading a report from Public Health England, which (while challenging some widely perpetuated myths) demonstrates a definite potential impact on public health.

As a member of the Green Liberal Democrats, I believe our focus should be on greener forms of energyrather than fossil fuel extraction. Julian Huppert MP, recently writing for Lib Dem Voice, argued that "as shown in Nature, a boom in shale gas extraction would likely squeeze out the development of the renewable energy sector. The government’s own report on ‘Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Shale Gas Extraction and Use’ says 'we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates'...Meeting our climate targets needs to be at the forefront of our energy policy." Huppert adds: "future generations will never forgive us if we make a choice that increases carbon emissions and destroys our most important landscapes."

They are my concerns too, and for these reasons - as well as the potential safety risks - my considered view is that I am unable to support fracking.

Lib Dems remain somewhat divided on this, with many (including Tessa Munt MP, who resigned from the government on this issue) openly expressing criticisms of fracking while others are more supportive. In a liberal party, with research into impacts ongoing, that is not too surprising. However, on the basis of the evidence I have seen, I would personally not be seeking to introduce fracking - and I'd like to voters of Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill to be aware of that.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Jim Hume's Member's Bill wins government backing

Jim Hume MSP
(Picture: www.libdems.org.uk)
The Scottish Government has backed a Member’s Bill by Liberal Democrat MSP Jim Hume to outlaw smoking in a car while children are present. 

Mr Hume's proposal, which have received cross-party backing and the support of a number of charities, would see violators charged with a £100 fine in the event of being caught smoking in their vehicle with an under-18 present.

Speaking to Holyrood magazine, Mr Hume said: "I am over the moon. This Bill is about guaranteeing that children in Scotland can have the freedom to go on and lead healthy lives if they choose to. I look forward to working with MSPs from all parties as the Bill progresses." He is optimistic the new legilation will be in place early next year.

Supporters of the bill include the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK and ASH Scotland, the national anti-smoking charity, which aims for a "tobacco-free generation" within 20 years.

Mr Hume's bill will bring Scottish legislation in line with that in England and Wales, where smoking in a vehicle with children present will be illegal from October.

There have been the predictable criticisms of nanny-statism and of any law being impossible to enforce in practice (the latter is true, as are many other laws such as those governing the use of mobiles while driving, but that isn't in itself an argument to do nothing) - this represents one further step on the path to a healthier Scotland. The new legislation, when implemented, will not in itself provide the solution, but will undoubtedly lead to a change of culture and ultimately better self-regulation by motorists. It is not a question of an overbearing government chipping away at personal freedoms, but rather one of protecting the freedom and health of children. I fail to see why anyone would believe they should have a right to make children inhale their smoke.

Mr Hume deserves credit for championing this cause, and for highlighting the public health issues related to it.

Nursing Counts - and deserves recognition

In the run-up to this year's General Election, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is asking parliamentary candidates to support its manifesto, Nursing Counts, and to commit to supporting the following priorities:

1.    Improve patient care by ensuring safe staffing levels; giving nurses access to training and; listening to the concerns of staff.
2.    Value nursing by paying a fair wage; stopping the downbanding of nursing experience and; investing in nursing so that future generations aspire to become nurses.
3.    Invest in health and care by guaranteeing no more cuts in the nursing workforce; increasing resources for the community and; implementing workforce planning that reflects the needs of patients. 


It's not a difficult manifesto to sign up to, and the RCN's priorities effectively amount to a request for politicians to give the nursing profession the respect it so obviously deserves. Who does not want fair pay for nurses? Who would argue against creating a sustainable NHS, equipped to meet the needs of patients?

As someone who spent 16 years working in the NHS, some of it at Monklands Hospital, I am more than aware of the importance of the NHS, the efforts of those who work within it and the regrettable effect that government decisions can often have. I am a former UNISON representative (health sector) and have been involved in a number of health campaigns in recent years - crossing swords with Patricia Hewitt and Andy Burnham over their misguided pro-private sector agenda. I am a believer in empowering health professionals rather than in burdening them with centrally-driven political objectives (remember Labour's NHS targets, many of which were utterly ludicrous?).

It shouldn't surprise anyone who knows me that I'm happy to endorse the Nursing Counts priorities, but it might be useful to deal with each of them in turn:


1.    "Improve patient care by ensuring safe staffing levels; giving nurses access to training and; listening to the concerns of staff."

This is absolutely vital. it's so simple and so obvious - yet I know the reality to be very different.

Staffing levels are often unsafe - I say this on the basis of experience. I worked in acute mental health for many years and often situations arose which may have been preventable if staffing levels had been more adequate to the need. If we are to move towards a patient care system that is truly responsive to patient need then we need to have the staff in place - as well as the flexibility to adjust to changing clinical priorities.

Access to training is vital - but it needs to be access to the right training. Again, if we are to respond to patient need, clinical staff need to be able to access the kind of training that will allow them to be more effective at delivering the right care. Nurses have a set number of study days per year, and often this is self-directed study - there are obvious advantages to this. However, non-qualified staff are often overlooked in regards to personal training needs and this needs to be rectified.

Listening to the concerns of staff - as a former UNISON rep this is something I used to actively do. Some of this I would feed back through the relevant channels to hospital managers - who clearly had little interest in acting on those concerns. There need to be better processes for staff to express their concerns, and a more transparent system for them to see if and how their ideas are taken forward.

I'd personally add that far more has to be done to prioritise the concerns of nurses, whose views are so often relegated to being of secondary importance behind those of consultants and the medical profession as a whole. I'd like to find ways of ensuring that nurses have a louder voice; the NHS has given disporportionate significance to the BMA's agenda for too long. And not only nurses, but other allied professionals who are so often overlooked - when David Cameron talked up the benefits of having those with health expertise commissioning NHS services, he predictable was referring predomiantly to doctors (each Clinical Commissioning Group has one registered nurse on it, but the balance of power is clearly skewed towards GPs). Any culture that reinforces the patriarchy of a single profession needs to be radically changed.

2.    "Value nursing by paying a fair wage; stopping the downbanding of nursing experience and; investing in nursing so that future generations aspire to become nurses. "

It's a scandal, isn't it? There have been headlines comparing MPs pay to nurses' pay - but you don't need to go that far to see how little nurses are paid for what they do. Simple comparisons with jobs in the banking sector, the civil service, the police and the armed forces show that nurses are earning less - and these are often unqualified professions.

Unfortunately we live in a society where people are valued largely by how much money they're able to make - as reflected in the financial industries. The next government has to think seriously about how it values the work our nurses do, and I agree that asking for a "fair wage" - i.e. in line with police, armed forces and the civil service is not unreasonable. It's a question not of affordability but of justice. Can we afford not to pay nurses a fair wage?

A fair wage, to my mind, means taking into account the unsociable hours that nurses work - any proposal to cut the current unsocial payments for nurses would amount to a significant reduction in income and should be strongly resisted.

3.    "Invest in health and care by guaranteeing no more cuts in the nursing workforce; increasing resources for the community and; implementing workforce planning that reflects the needs of patients."

It is difficult for a constituency MP to guarantee no further cuts in the nursing workforce. What I can promise is that, if elected, I would not support any such cuts and that I would vote against it (whoever forms the government). We need to be actively finding ways to increase not only staffing numbers but ensuring the right skill mix - the South Staffordshire experience confirmed that some hospitals are not only poorly staffed but left junior staff in positions of responsibility they were ill-equipped to deal with.

I agree that we need to invest more heavily in community resources, as part of moving towards a health system that is preventative rather than reactive. This has to be part of a longer-term plan, which should be evidence-based and focused on addressing local health needs

The aim of every politicians with a genuine interest in health should be the facilitation of an NHS that reflects - and addresses - the needs of patients. Services should be as specialised as necessary and as local as possible. 

I applaud the RCN's initiative and am quite happy to support its manifesto aims, but it's reasonable to point out that health is a devolved matter in Scotland and that many of the decisions affecting how the Scottish NHS (which has always been seperate, founded under a different act of Parliament) works are taken in Holyrood. However, I would seek to work with MPs and MSPs of all parties to ensure that the next five years see advances in our NHS rather than cuts to service provision, and to facilitate a change in culture in which nurses are empowered rather than undermined.
 
Nurses deserve recognition, respect and a fair deal. That's common sense. 



Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Qurban Hussain deserves our sympathy

Controversy has surrounded Lord Hussain in the last few weeks, since it was revealed that his "son" was smuggled into the UK 23 years ago.

The tabloid press has been keen to highlight the fact that the peer not only brought the Pakistani child not the UK illegally, but also lied about it. He told the British High Commission in Islamabad that the boy was his own and therefore eligible to be a British citizen.

Given the furore, and the predictable reaction from some quarters - including Labour calling for a resignation - a sense of balance and perspective is needed.

Lord Hussain has resigned from all party activity after speaking with party leaders on Saturday. This seems sensible and a proportionate response.

Some facts are usually helpful if we're to cut through the sensationalist headlines and challenge the outrage. In this case, it's clear the incident happened in 1992 - well before Hussain was either a member of the House of Lords or a Lib Dem. There is no question of him abusing his position. Furthermore, he was a member of the Labour party for several years prior to defecting to the Lib Dems in 2003 - so, if Labour really are so "outraged and appalled" perhaps they might wish to tell us what information they had rather than trying to score cheap political points?

There can also be no doubt that Hussain is not acting in the interests of terrorist networks or aiding international criminals - although you might not know that to read some of the headlines. Let the facts speak for themselves: Hussain's wife was asked to adopt a boy in 1990 by a poor family living in Kashmir and to take him to England when he was two years old. Mr and Mrs Hussain did this, and raised him as their own for 21 years. The boy is now 25, a successful graduate and happily married.

Hussain recently told the Daily Mirror: "I know now it is illegal. I realise it was legally wrong but morally it was the right thing to do. The child's mother begged my wife to take him. You have never seen levels of poverty like this family lived in"

Police are now investigating and it is only right that the party allows them to follow the lead of the evidence to reach their conclusions. Whatever the outcome, there can be no disputing Hussain's intentions and to those who have been quick to cast stones I would ask what they would have done if they thought they could have rescued one child from a life of grinding poverty in war-torn Kashmir of the 90s. I'd also ask whether they'd react the same way if Hussain wasn't a politician - are his actions so different from those of Donald Caskie, Oskar Schindler or Raoul Wallenberg - or the many others throughout history who have overstepped legal boundaries to save or improve human lives?

Clearly there are distinctions between what appears morally right and the law. While Hussain has acted outwith the parameters of the law, there may be grounds for accepting this as a common law adoption, or "private fostering". He was acting compassionately in the interests of someone else, someone who now has life opportunities that would otherwise have been denied.

Right or wrong? - it's not for me to make a judgement. That is precisely the point. No-one (and certainly not the Labour Party or the tabloid media) should make a moral judgement on Lord Hussain. He deserves our sympathy rather than our derision.

I for one am already tired of the denigrating of politicians by the (usually) London-based media - which is often far less honest than those it targets.