Sunday Politics Show

The NHS and Health and Social Care Bill are currently hot topics, and I welcomed the opportunity to debate them with Sandra Gidley, former Liberal Democrat MP for Romsey, on the Sunday Politics Show this week. 

Video property of the BBC, copyright 2012

The coup d'etat in the Maldives must be stopped

Most people will perceive the Maldives as an idyllic paradise of sun-soaked resort islands. Sadly this is only one part of the reality. This week, the fledgling democracy has seen a bloody coup d'etat with the first democratically-elected President Nasheed being removed from office, then beaten and detained by the military loyal to those close to the former dictator Gayoom. It is true that technically he resigned to be replaced by his Vice-President but this was because, in his words, "they told me if I didn't resign they would resort to the use of arms". The international community needs to condemn the violence and recognise the truth behind what has happened.

The background to the coup has been Nasheed's attempt to deal with a judiciary which has shown itself to be corrupt, under-qualified, and loyal to the previous dictator and his associates. He has worked tirelessly to rid the country of corruption, to democratise institutions, and deliver on his MDP party's election pledges. But it now seems that reform of the judiciary has prompted a backlash from the police and military. Nasheed recently ordered the army to arrest Criminal Court Chief Justice Abdulla Mohamed on charges of misconduct and favouring opposition figures.

His only mistake seems to have been failing to recognise that many of the senior figures in the police and the military felt they would lose out from reform - and as such a plot to overthrow their democratically-elected President was hatched. It now seems very likely that the new "President" – Nasheed's former deputy Mohamed Waheed - was working quietly behind the scenes with the military and police to orchestrate an apparent legitimate handover of power for the world's media, when the truth is that it is a coup d'etat by those who were beginning to have their interests threatened. President Nasheed, 44, was elected in 2008, educated in the UK, and was recently described by David Cameron as "my new best friend".

Nasheed will likely take his beatings and detention courageously: he faced similar treatment over many years as he dealt with exile and imprisonment leading up to the democratic elections in 2008. In bravely facing up to the corruption in the nation's judiciary he was dealing with the major barrier to reform and renewal for his nation. The world now needs to stand up for what is right and use all diplomatic power at its disposal to restore democracy and order in a country which is now facing a very bloody and uncertain period.

Lord Bates' three thousand mile walk from Greece to London

On Good Friday 2011, Michael Bates (Lord Bates) set off on a 3000-mile walk that would take him from Olympia to Westminster, through 16 countries over 300 days. He arrives back in the UK - at Dover - today, and on Wednesday next week he will cross Westminster bridge and arrive at the Houses of Parliament, ready to resume his seat in the House of Lords in the afternoon.

Michael's walk has not been without its trials. Following a fall down a ravine in the Alps he dislocated his shoulder and fractured his arm. He was able to get back on his route thanks to the staff at Hospital du Valais, and support of friends and family who took it in turns to go out and carry his luggage. Michael would hate to read that I am promoting his efforts and not just the truce but he should be justly proud of what he has achieved.

Every Olympic year since 1993, a UN resolution has been put and signed by all 193 member states, urging "all Member States to take the initiative to abide by the Truce, individually and collectively, and to pursue in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations the peaceful settlement of all international conflicts". However, this has rarely been observed by the signatories; with the exception in Sarajevo in 1994 where a ceasefire was instituted which allowed thousands of children to be inoculated. The main aim of the truce is to create a window where humanitarian aid – such as vaccinations - can reach conflict zones and save lives.The initial aim of the Olympic Games, after all, was to bring about peace as athletes would compete as Olympians, not as members of states. From 776 BC, a truce was declared seven days before the Olympics until seven days after in order to ensure the safe passage of athletes, officials, and spectators.

Much has changed, as the truce is now, for most people, a sadly peripheral aspect of the Olympic Games. Since their resumption in 1896, the Games have had to be cancelled three times because of war, have experienced major boycotts on five occasions, and have twice been targeted by terrorist attacks. We would do well to remember that the true spirit of the Olympic Games is not tourism or national prestige but facilitating cooperation and promoting peace.

Michael, a former Conservative Minister, has been campaigning for a meaningful observance of the Olympic Truce for London 2012. So far, he has met and won support from His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the UN, and Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee. He has met with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Secretaries and secured commitments from seven foreign nations to both sign and implement the Truce. British Embassies and Consulates across his route have expressed enthusiasm for the truce, which gives hope that the British Foreign Office is committed to widespread implementation of the truce in 2012.

David Cameron pledged his support for the truce on 29th June 2011, stating, "The whole House will want to congratulate Lord Bates ... We will promote a fresh resolution at the UN calling for the continued observance of the Olympic Truce ... We wish to make the most of that historic opportunity".

In the light of significant domestic commitments and international conflicts, implementing the Olympic Truce may be thought to be a relatively small opportunity. But as Michael said in his reflections on the New Year, "honouring commitment in small things is a very big thing".

I hope that Michael's courage and sacrifice exhibited in his walk will encourage and inspire the British government, as well as governments across the world, to honour the spirit of the Olympics and implement the Olympic Truce for 2012. Welcome back Michael and Well Done!

The original article appeared on Conservative Home

Lessons from Libya

The publication yesterday of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee Report on Libya is quite rightly very positive about the conduct and outcome of recent operations in that country.

There were three important factors in the operation leading to a successful outcome: a backdrop of clear, diplomatic alignment around UN Resolution 1973; a rapid NATO-led deployment; and the existence of internal resistance seeking to remove Gaddafi.

One can view the headlines of success but fail to see the bigger issues that the experience throws up. The ultimate success of the operation in a short timeframe does not remove the backdrop of the SDSR and the challenge to ensure that future operations of a similar type would be successful whilst maintaining the contingent capabilities that our country needs.

Conflict between military and political objectives

The objectives were not defined sufficiently clearly. It became very difficult to sustain a narrative which maintained it was not about regime change, when it became increasingly clear throughout the conflict that the objective of protecting civilians would not be secured without regime change. The public heard that the action was intended to enable Libyans to define their own future and to protect innocent civilians from a dictator. However, it is difficult not to conclude that the world had lost patience with Gaddafi and his inability to act with any concern for innocent human lives. Few analysts predicted a scenario where Gaddafi remained in power having undergone a Damascene conversion after 40 years of oppressive government. Regime change may be a toxic phrase, but there is a need to be clearer in defining objectives in a way which does not diminish credibility and sow confusion among the public.

Value for money questions

There is no doubt that our Armed Forces did an excellent job in Libya. The Typhoons and Tornados played an important and full role, as did the Navy and Joint Helicopter Command. However this should not stop us asking whether the operation achieved value for money.

The 'Harrier and Carrier' question has been much debated. It is entirely legitimate to ask whether, if we still had an operational carrier, it would have been deployed and had an impact on cost and efficiency of the operation. In evidence to the committee, the First Sea Lord made clear that if we had had a carrier available, he suspected it would have been used. Clearly, a carrier would not have incurred as yet undisclosed costs of fuel transits, accommodation, an extensive equipment supply chain and RAF bases in Italy.

It is noted that the Italians used their aircraft carrier, as did the French, rather than deploy from air bases in Italy and France. This is surely more evidence to support the urgent need for QE class carriers to be brought into service and the carrier strike programme to be regenerated with sufficient aircraft.

Nevertheless, thanks to the choice of weaponry and performance of the RAF there was little collateral damage. However, it would be interesting for the RAF's review of operations to examine whether the same low levels of collateral damage could have been achieved using different weaponry, and whether improvements could have been made so that the same targets were not bombed on multiple occasions.

The headline success of the mission should not negate the need for a rigorous assessment of value for money issues. To facilitate this we need greater transparency over the costs involved in Operation Ellamy: not only the direct costs, but also factors such as the impact on pre-existing training plans, and extra wear on engines and airframes. Given the remit of a shared NATO command a like-for-like comparison with our allies should be undertaken as far as possible.

It is imperative that the lessons taken from the successful operations in Libya should serve to inform and enable successful conduct in any future operations. It remains unclear whether a similar operation could be repeated whilst retaining the ongoing contingent capabilities in a world where the SDSR resourcing decisions are fully implemented.

Gaddafi: a unique challenge

However, it should be acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that we will see another situation where world powers agree a UN resolution leading to an effective air campaign in cooperation with in-country resistance so to achieve a successful outcome in a politically-manageable timeframe. Fortunately, there are few characters like Gaddafi who provoke universal world condemnation. Perhaps President Assad of Syria should be another: but as yet the Russians and Chinese do not seem to agree with this assessment.

The original piece appeared on the Huffington Post

Further reform of the MOD is urgently required

The House of Commons Defence Committee todaypublishes its 8th report of this parliamentary session on the MOD's Annual report and accounts (2010/11). The key underlying question facing the Committee was, how responsible is the MOD each year with over £33 billion of taxpayers' money? When set against the chorus of 'we shouldn't cut here' we hoped to see a tight ship with clarity on where the money goes and what the country gets in return. Unfortunately, this was far from the case.

The MOD often hides behind the defence that because of the nature of the department's work it must be treated as a 'special case'. The assertion that the MOD is different cannot continue to be used. The MOD is not beyond scrutiny, nor beyond the need for responsible use of taxpayers' money across all its activities. It must also adopt procedures which are standard in other government departments.

I want to highlight four key areas in the report:

Redundancies – The Committee was alarmed to learn that there had been no compulsory redundancies of civil servants in the MOD whereas 40% of all those redundancies in the Armed Forces, so far, have been compulsory. When pressed by the Committee, senior civil servants said this was because "a large number of Civil Servants have flexible skills that enable them to work in a variety of places" - showing apparently little regard for the breadth of skills and flexibility that is the hallmark of our Armed Forces and the direct product of the training they receive. The Committee felt that the discrepancy between the policy for civil servants and forces personnel was "grotesque" and lacked adequate justification. Further, this policy is unjustified given the existence of gaps in current capabilities. Whilst it is clear that retraining would be necessary for existing service personnel to change speciality there should be no presumption that personnel must be made redundant instead of being redeployed in certain areas. Forces redeployment is preferable to expensive redundancy payments, and needs to be explored more fully.

Waste - Perhaps the most notable example of this is the 'loss' of Bowman radios. At the end of March 2011 the MOD had 50,893 radio sets recorded, but could find no evidence for the whereabouts of 4093 of them. The total value of these missing sets amounts to some £125 million – over £30,000 per set. Whilst it is understandable that these radios are frequently dismantled and used flexibly in different operations it is still astonishing that so many are 'lost' given their importance to operational effectiveness. Robust procedures have still not been put in place to track their whereabouts despite the fact that this has been brought to the MOD's attention by the committee in both our 2010 and 2011 reports. We also have no assurance that this will be resolved fully until a new tracking system is in place in 2014.

Accounting – This is the fifth year in a row that the MOD's accounts have not been signed off by the National Audit Office. Nobody doubts the complexities and unusual challenges that the MOD faces; but the fact remains that standard accounting procedures including judging the timing of write-offs, need to occur in all major complex industrial situations: the MOD is no exception. The Committee also noted that "instances of theft and fraud are increasing year on year but detection and recovery remain low".

Assessing MOD performance – The MOD assess their own performance against a range of indicators. However, when pressed by the committee on the underlying data of, for example, "88% progress towards a stable and secure Afghanistan", the Permanent Under-Secretary of the MOD revealed that this was based on a very narrow range of indicators, ignoring the quality of governance, the economy, and security. This epitomises the MOD's reluctance to submit themselves to reasonable outside scrutiny.

The lack of transparency is further demonstrated in the MOD's inability to provide the committee with any meaningful estimates on the full costs of operations in Afghanistan and Libya. The Committee recognise that a proportion of any operational expenditure would be required regardless of external deployment. However, it seems incredible that the department does not recognise the need to understand and set out the full costs of an operation so that future operations can be planned and costed more accurately. The Committee were further dismayed that they were told they could not see the Quarterly Performance Risk Report on security grounds, and felt that the MOD were "hiding behind security classifications". In this area the MOD are failing to make themselves available to proper parliamentary scrutiny – if the House of Commons Defence Select Committee are unable to hold the MOD to account, it is difficult to see who should!

Despite this, it is heartening that the new Secretary of State, is committed to reforming the MOD and professionalising its practices, as was his predecessor. This won't happen overnight but his commitment gives us hope that the department can develop a level of professionalism worthy of those who serve under the Armed Forces banner.

The full report demonstrates the full range of issues that need further attention. Article taken from Conservative Home.

Promoting assisted dying is not a compassionate response to suffering

Today, David Burrowes MP will be leading a debate on care for the dying in Westminster Hall.

Those who have known somebody with a terminal illness will know the distress and concern that can be present towards the end of life, and the real vulnerability that exists amongst families in these circumstances. There is a growing belief that advances in medicine are allowing people to live much longer, but not enjoy any quality of living in those final years of life.

The question to be debated in Westminster Hall on Tuesday is, how should we, as legislators, respond? Clearly it must be with compassion and concern for those who are in a very vulnerable state.

It has been suggested by some that the answer lies in amending the law to allow assisted dying. Those who believe that this should happen invariably cite the need to promote an individual's right to choose, or that given the state of pain and distress that many are presumed to be in, that a premature death at a time of their choosing would be in their best interests.

I want to examine these arguments and explore how the application of palliative care can both alleviate suffering and refocus the important questions that are often under-emphasised in this debate.

Free to choose?

Promoting freedom of choice sounds attractive, but we should question whether assisted dying really does promote genuine choice. Assisted dying is suggested as the means to avoid uncertain future pain and distress, but too often fear of future pain can lead people to make decisions from a position of uncertainty and anxiety. A patient can be fully informed about their treatment options in theory, yet not be in a position practically to evaluate what quality long-term symptom relief could achieve for the alleviation of distress and the securing of an acceptable quality of life.

I cannot see how promoting individual autonomy works effectively when that decision is made in the wake of fear, anxiety and a partial understanding of what the future could bring. This is hardly 'informed consent'.

A healthy 85-year-old in the early stages of Alzheimer's could sign consent for assisted dying at a hypothetical point in the future. Yet that individual may live longer than they anticipated, and in periods of lucidity that patient's decision may not reflect their settled will. It is questionable how robust procedures for respecting and communicating a change in wishes could be codified in law.

Whose well-being?

Arguing for assisted dying on the basis of the perceived well-being of the patient ignores the very real possibility that the patient's well-being would not reliably be at the heart of a decision to end life.

Whose well-being will be promoted? Pressure could be applied - implicitly or explicitly - to elderly patients to end their life by their well-meaning relatives; or doctors could find themselves under pressure to support a decision against their best judgement of the patient's interests. Moreover, the patient themselves could feel under an obligation to their relatives to relieve them of further expense and inconvenience.

Even with basic safeguards, it is very difficult to assess whether somebody had mixed motives for seeking to end their life. The decision to end life prematurely is one with no legal recourse or possibility to undo. The potential for a decision to be made on factors other than the patient's well-being convinces me that legislative change to allow assisted dying cannot be the right response.

Responding with concern and compassion: palliative care

In the face of potential distress and suffering at the end of life, palliative care and the excellent examples of the hospice movement offer us a way forward. Too frequently the assisted dying debate underplays the increasingly comprehensive contribution that palliative care makes for those in the final stages of life.

Britain is the only country in the world where palliative care is a recognised medical specialism, and the quality of palliative care in Britain was ranked as the best in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2010. Doctors often report that patients express gratitude that they did not seek to end their life having received unexpectedly good palliative care.

Palliative care is a response that recognises the value of life, and reflects compassion and concern for the individual's well-being. Rather than moving towards assisted dying - fraught with its risks, uncertainties, and legal problems - the government should support and promote the extension of excellent palliative care. This will go a considerable way to meeting the physical, social, psychological and spiritual needs of patients at the end of their life.

As a society, we should not be led to believe that a compassionate response to suffering at the end of life lies in promoting assisted dying. It is in caring comprehensively for the person at the end of life that the value of life is affirmed, the value of the individual is upheld, and compassion is truly expressed. 

Article taken from the Huffington Post

Executive pay must become a new component of corporate social responsibility

The debate around how best to deal with unfair pay – where the salaries of top executives rise irrespective of performance and often contrary to it – has provoked a range of suggested solutions. Some legislative changes can make shareholders' votes over pay more binding and the relationships between remuneration committees can be purified. However, for my part the long-term answer lies in addressing the broken mechanism by which shareholders should theoretically express their views.

The immediate response to high executive pay from a Conservative perspective should be to look to the decisions of the shareholders - in who they elect to the board and what resolutions are passed over pay. However, despite its initial appeal, the notion that armies of individual shareholders will vote down an excessive pay settlement for an over-paid Chief Executive is unlikely to work out like that. Most people who invest in a company don't do so as an active individual investor; instead they put their money in an investment product managed by an insurance company, a pension fund or a fund manager. It is these investment managers who decide which companies to invest our money in and who act as custodians of the individuals' shareholder rights: and it is to this group that we need to look as the people who will control the granting of senior executive pay packages.

At present we need to ask why fund managers don't focus on executive pay when determining their investment strategies. A cynic might say they overlook such details as their own pay packets can involve eye-watering numbers - and by avoiding making an issue of the pay of the senior executives of the companies they invest in, they avoid serious scrutiny of their own salaries. If one takes a less cynical view, we could deduce that they do not focus on salaries of executives because their primary purpose is to maximise returns for their investors. Quite reasonably, after all, they see themselves as fund managers not agents of social policy.

As long as individual shareholders are content to exist as passive, arms-length shareholders who have consciously given the rights that go with the shares they own to fund managers who buy and sell them to maximise profits then little will change. At present there is a clear understanding - the maximisation of return for the arms-length investor wins over a concern of the pay levels in the companies that deliver those superior funds. Until the buyer values of the individual investor change, the fund manager will continue to execute the investment decision on the individual investor's primary concern – an increase in the value of their investments.In recent months, set against the shroud of a prolonged period of economic uncertainty and a lack of significant growth, there has been a heightened awareness of the pay levels of those at the very top. I do wonder, would this issue have risen up the collective political consciousness, if we were in a boom time in which we were seeing healthy returns on investments? Would anyone care how much a few at the top were being paid if the value of their own investments was rising steadily?

Regardless of how we answer this, it is surely right and fair that we do not throw our hands up in the air and say "we can't do anything about it". It seems to me we have two options. We either regulate – specifying parameters for pay and setting out rules on how the relationships with performance should work – or even, as my colleague Matthew Hancock MP suggested yesterday - introduce a law that makes it possible to prosecute executives for serious financial recklessness.

Or we undertake measures to make executive pay and the relationship with performance transparent and allow the public access to the information which tells us where our money ends up. If over-inflated pay becomes such a priority it will very quickly become unacceptable for fund managers to invest in a firm that does not take the pay levels of its senior execs seriously. Instead it will become commercially suicidal to offer investment products which involve buying shares in firms where pay settlements are offered that do not relate to performance. In turn this will stimulate a change in behaviour by companies who need continued access to finance from the aggregated funds of the passive shareholders.

A generation ago, "Corporate Social Responsibility" was a buzzword of those who trumpeted a new role for business; one whereby businesses actively sought to comply with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms. Today "CSR" is embedded in most business leaders' DNA, it is universally studied in business schools and we have meaningful metrics such as the FTSE4Good Index series to tell us who is taking a range of issues seriously.

Today's challenge is to make the relationship between board pay and performance an important metric that all potential investors look at when they weigh up which fund to put their money into. It is in this way that shareholders can genuinely hold management to account and take responsibility for the firm that they own. This is a Conservative solution – not more regulation, but more information and choice - let the real investors decide, not the cartel of Chief Execs and Fund managers who have no incentive to open up in the current regime.

Full article taken from Conservative Home.

The real challenge of innovation lies within the NHS

I was pleased on Monday to read "Innovation, Health and Wealth", the report of the review into innovation in the health service led by Sir Ian Carruthers. In October I called for a debate in Westminster Hall on the subject of innovation in the NHS. The statement by the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley MP, made clear that the government appreciate the value and importance of innovation to the future of the UK's health service. As the Carruthers report explains, innovation in the NHS has the capacity both to save lives and drive up standards of care in the health service, but also to promote efficiency and reduce the cost burden of treatments and procedures.

I argued in October that the current processes to capitalise on innovation are simply not quick enough, and there are insufficient incentives and mechanisms to innovate. The recommendations of the Carruthers report are very welcome and will go some way to addressing this. The shared savings formula and a system of payment for outcomes act will develop real incentives to innovate. The focus on making the uptake of innovation "quicker and smarter" - by developing close relationships between industry, the Medical Research Council, and the Technology Strategy board, and introducing processes to fast-track NICE-approved treatments onto the hospital floor - is also particularly welcome.

I was particularly interested in Andrew Lansley's recognition of a new prevailing research model, based upon collaboration, early clinical trials, and a willingness to outsource. I have two observations to offer on this theme that should complement and extend the reforms outlined on Monday.

First, the measures that have been announced focus on using NHS resources to encourage innovation in the private sector – such as anonymous patient data and use of clinical trials - and ensuring any innovative technologies and treatments are swiftly adopted and diffused. However, if we are to take a truly collaborative approach we must surely make use of the expertise of clinicians and technicians within the health service, and encourage innovation to come from within the NHS. Successful innovations could be made commercially available and accrue revenue streams to the NHS. This is the real challenge of innovation: unlocking the potential that lies within the existing institutions. The role of innovation hubs to promote innovation from within the health service received relatively little attention but could form a significant part of future reform efforts. The review on NHS Intellectual Property Strategy is also a good opportunity to address this side of the challenge of innovation.Second, if a modern research and innovation model is to succeed, we have to understand the crucial role of leadership. The Carruthers review focussed on Board-level leadership and specified commitments to promote innovation, but this needs to extend to a fundamental cultural change. The systematic exploitation and adoption of good ideas, and the ability to bring ideas to a point of commercial viability, should become "second nature".

The review found that the chain from an initial idea to widespread use across the health service was too long. A fear of failing has stunted the adoption and promotion of innovative ideas. We need a culture in the health service that is not paralysed by a fear of failure, so that individuals are prepared and feel able to take risks, but also take responsibility. This is a central virtue of private enterprise that should find its way into the heart of the NHS.

The recommendations of the Carruthers review are a welcome start to tackling the challenge of innovation in the health service, but they should be complemented and extended by a focus on innovation within the NHS, and a creation of a culture that is not afraid of risk-taking or of possible failure. It is there that the greatest potential for efficiency and higher standards lies. Read the full article on Conservative Home here.

Soft Power and British Foreign Policy

It is fantastic news that the British Council have resumed their work in Libya this month. Their last eleven years of presence in the country were rudely interrupted when they were forced to close the office in February 2011.

The British Council's work in the region over the coming months will include offering citizenship and arts grants to build up civil society; teaching English, including educational radio broadcasts across the country; using UK higher education expertise to create universities that value cultural activity and free speech; and developing curricula and qualifications for vocational education. This type of work has occurred across the globe - including North Africa and the Middle East - since the British Council was founded in the early 1930s. Historically it has enjoyed significant success, including in apartheid South Africa, in democratising countries in Eastern Europe, and in post-Soviet Russia.

There are three reasons why I think the work of the British Council and other organisations such as the VSO and the Commonwealth Foundation are an essential part of a modern and sophisticated foreign policy.

First, the work of these organisations reflects the importance of 'soft power'. Soft power is the power to influence and encourage others to sympathise with our values. It is not a substitute, but rather a complement, to the 'hard power' of economic or military means.

Soft power cannot achieve specific aims within a given timescale in the same way as military or economic activity often can; but it can build healthy political relationships and political capital that complement these more direct tools of foreign policy.

This could involve restoring a country to a point of stability after a prolonged conflict, or engaging in conflict prevention activities. The ongoing use of soft power resources can develop relationships that can lend legitimacy to any necessary military presence, as well as inform any strategic and tactical decisions. The hard power of military intervention, or economic sanctions, is sometimes inevitable in the modern world, but should not be the only component of an effective British foreign policy.

Second, the recent reports of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and the National Security Strategy have stressed the value of soft power and diplomacy in response to the challenges facing defence funding. The SDSR refers to a need for a "whole of government" approach to foreign and defence policy, and the value of British culture and language, and participation in international institutions, to Britain's role in the world.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, emphasised the importance of soft power when defining the coalition's foreign policy. He argued that soft power institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service build up British influence and support British values that we wish to see shared abroad. The Prime Minister also identified the importance of these institutions in supporting democracy in the Middle East and North Africa.

In Libya, this calls for building up civil society so that progress does not rely on any political party or national government. By developing a trusting relationship between ourselves and Libya, especially through the teaching of English, Libya is more likely to choose to embed the values of a modern representative democracy: freedom of expression, citizenship, and international opportunities and cooperation. This will lead to a consolidation of Libyan democracy, greater political stability, and the likelihood of a stronger basis for future trade and positive international relationships.

Lastly, the British Council's work is one example of the UK demonstrating its moral commitment across the world. British involvement with other nations should ideally not start and end with military force: our foreign policy has always centred around the promotion of British interests, but it also has at its heart a long-term commitment to other nations. Building mutually beneficial relationships with other countries should be a continual ambition of our international activity. We must recognise a wider commitment to other peoples, by fostering democracy and encouraging the institutions that help maintain political stability.

The work of the British Council and similar organisations, and its soft power influence, is an important facet of a sophisticated and enlightened foreign policy. The reestablishment of the British Council's presence in Tripoli is a great example of this and a welcome move to help secure a peaceful, democratic future for the Libyan people.

Article originally appeared in The Huffington Post.

How to avoid becoming a fast food opposition

Having sat through the debate called by the opposition on youth unemployment and jobs last week, I had plenty of time to reflect again on the business of Opposition. What a grim business it is. The Opposition spent the time shouting and pointing as they randomly plucked unrecognisable statistics to make a political point; gratuitously avoiding any attempt to project a costed alternative, yet desperate to win the "war" of the sound-bites.

I have three observations about what Labour need to do if they are to avoid prolonged exile from the Government benches and avoid becoming purveyors of fast food politics – i.e. put together in a hurry, looks good when you grab it, tastes good when you first eat it but leaves you hungry a few hours later and needs to be offset by sustained counter-measures for a long time afterwards:

1. Economic policy has to add up before the sound-bites will be heard.

In proposing delays in public spending cuts, Labour offer a tempting choice but leave too many questions unanswered for it to be a viable option.

Labour proposed a temporary reversal of the VAT increase – which itself had to be brought in by this government to avoid a disastrous increase in National Insurance. Labour backbenchers made ad hoc calls for temporary measures – but, again, without a solid timescale for these measures to apply and no assessment of the negative impact these costs would have on the credibility of the UK's finances. Predictably, the old line that we are cutting "too far and too fast" was bandied about liberally - yet retaining economic credibility internationally and establishing stable public finances was never mentioned. Stability must remain central to any macroeconomic policy – this is what businesses and families need most, and there will be no hope of macroeconomic stability with an unsustainable deficit and debt. It is easy to write the line, as Labour do, which boils down to "we have to speculate to accumulate" – but the unwillingness to attend to the implications for the country's financial credibility makes it a desperately unrealistic proposition. As people are sick of the deficit – they are even more fed up with empty – uncosted - posturing from Opposition politicians (for example, Ed Miliband's empty words attacking big business in his recent party conference speech).

2. Opposition built on debating jibes rather than sound policy will be flawed

Playing off the dynamics of the coalition rather than talking about policy seems clever, it sounds good – but it will be substantive policy development that will lead to electoral success.

It was great fun helping William Hague to prepare for PMQs in 2000-2001 and despite his unrivalled linguistic dexterity in the chamber we all remember the outcome at the 2001 general election! When we do hear from the current Opposition, their words are often based on combing through recent – or often ancient - statements and speeches to try to catch the government out. They seem happier to play off the inevitable challenges of coalition dynamics rather than addressing the underlying issue that a policy is seeking to address. Miliband often asks "who speaks for the Government?" when most people understand that the Liberal Democrats will always see sentencing, Europe, and immigration differently to the Conservative Party. Equally, Labour's "Drop the Bill" campaign, though at least focussing upon a piece of government legislation (criticising the Health and Social Care Bill), makes no attempt to present a reasoned alternative for long-term pressures facing the NHS. Labour's empty rhetoric will not persuade the electorate.

3. A clear link needs to exist between core beliefs, an agreed narrative, and a credible alternative plan for government.

An impactful critique of government policy only happens when the Opposition move beyond offering hurriedly-prepared titbits to an agenda for an alternative government.

Eighteen months in, Labour is yet to articulate a clear policy framework and compelling narrative for the country. Liam Byrne's performance at the despatch box last week was combative but really boiled down to cheap and superficial politics. He would do better to use his ongoing to policy review to deliver a vision for the Labour leadership. One still has the sense that Labour could move in any number of ideological directions – recognising the empty shell that New Labour was and the inherent tensions in finding credible alternative policies when for many there remains confusion over what Labour really believes in today.

Serving up more and more political equivalents of insubstantial "happy meals" will fail to satisfy. As we found, short-term appeals to sentiments without ideological underpinnings will win through at the ballot box. Bandwagon opposition politics may amuse and distract but ultimately it won't mask the contradictions that exist in the post Blair-Brown Labour party where conventional ideological foundations have been undermined so far that no coherent reason for being now exists.