Can George Osborne Be Editor Of The Evening Standard And Remain An MP?
This is a topic that's divided opinion amongst MP's, George Osborne's constituents and the general public. For those that don't know, MP George Osborne (Former Chancellor) has been appointed the new editor of the London Evening Standard. The Standard is a free daily newspaper published from Monday to Friday. It is the capital's regional paper.
There has been much controversy surrounding Osborne's appointment. Many Labour and Tory MP's have called for Osborne to resign as MP for Tatton. They feel as though he would be unable to effectively represent his constituents and run a daily newspaper at the same time. This would also be in addition to his other jobs which according to the Guardian include one day’s work a week for fund manager BlackRock, 15 speaking engagements in the last year, working for a US thinktank and a book deal.
According to an article in Russia Today it has been found that the majority of Osborne's constituents are proclaiming that he should resign as MP for Tatton if he wishes to become the editor of the Evening Standard. In a poll by Survation, up to 66 percent of voters in Tatton said that he should choose whether to hold his seat in the constituency, or go ahead with his new appointment as the Standard’s editor.
According to The Mirror Labour MP Wes Streeting has come out and said, “It’s time George Osborne did the decent thing and resigned as an MP. Pretending he can edit a major newspaper for Londoners while properly representing his Cheshire constituency is an insult to the people he represents – and to MPs who take the job seriously. Being an MP is a full-time job. So is editing a newspaper like the Standard.”
Other MP's have been supportive of Osborne taking up the editorial role. According to The Guardian James Duddridge, MP for Rochford and Southend East said, “MPs have historically had outside jobs. If he can combine being an MP with running the economy he should manage editing a local paper.”
Jeremy Corbyn on the other hand has branded Osborne's new job as ludicrous in a video released by the BBC. He claims that Osborne has taken multi-tasking to a ridiculous new level and cannot properly represent his constituents.
So what has Osborne had to say on the matter? In a letter addressed to his constituents he said: “There is a long tradition of politics and journalism mixing. One of the greatest newspaper editors ever, CP Scott, combined editing the Manchester Guardian with being an MP. In our age, politicians from Iain Macleod and Richard Crossman to, of course, Boris Johnson have combined the role of editor and Member of Parliament.”
According to The Guardian the Ethics Committee assessing his new role are thought to be actively considering a call for the former chancellor to delay or decline the role. The committee is concerned that a conflict of interests could occur.
Amidst all of this is also the idea that Osborne is not deserving of this role. He has never run a newspaper and has no experience doing so. Surely a journalist should be in charge of a newspaper? It appears that qualified and hardworking journalists have been swept aside in order for the ex-chancellor to become the new editor. What kind of example is this setting for younger people who are working hard to achieve their dreams? The man has no expertise in the field and it appears as though he has been able to walk into the job purely because of his status. It undermines journalism and politics.
For now it looks like Osborne needs to put his constituents first or resign as an MP.
-Noah Barco
Should Cannabis Be Legalised in the U.K?
I visited Amsterdam during February of this year. As many people are probably aware it is legal to smoke cannabis here in what they call “Coffee Shops”. Despite it being legal out there it really wasn't a particularly dangerous or unsafe place. No one was running around acting crazy, everyone seemed very relaxed and friendly. I never encountered any trouble whilst I was out there. In fact Amsterdam is rated one of the safest cities in the world. So if Cannabis is such a dangerous drug then why has it not torn this city apart?
Cannabis is still the most widely used illegal drug in the U.K. according to a report by the Home Office in 2015/16. So is prohibition working as well as it should be? Currently £361 million a year is spent on policing and treating users of illegally traded and consumed cannabis. Is the current expenditure on the prohibition of Cannabis too much for a drug that is now considered by most to be acceptable to use? According to the Telegraph, a report by The Adam Smith Institute and Volteface, has claimed that the legalisation of Cannabis could net the Treasury more than £1 billion a year in tax revenue. Former deputy prime minster Nick Clegg and former health minister Norman Lamb have both been supportive of this report. The report argued that the UK should follow the lead of the United States, where in many states the drug is now legal.
Is Britain stuck in the dark ages when it comes to drug policy? Prohibition has failed to stop drugs being manufactured and used. If Cannabis was to be legalised then it could be regulated and made sure to be of an acceptable standard before selling it. Criminal gangs would be reduced and cannabis related offences wouldn't exist any more.
Nick Clegg has been all for legalisation and according to the Telegraph said, "British politicians need to open their eyes to what is happening in the rest of the world. Cannabis prohibition is being swept away on a tide of popular opinion and replaced with responsible legal regulation. Now is the time for ministers to start writing the rules for this legal market, including age limits and health warnings, so that we can finally take back control from the criminal gangs."
Clegg's colleague Norman Lamb also said, "Prohibition is harmful and counter-productive, helping neither to reduce drug use nor the risks to public health. While other countries and US states are increasingly coming to adopt a more enlightened approach to drug policy, we are stuck in the dark ages, filling the pockets of criminals and perpetuating the stigma which prevents so many drug users from seeking help."
But many people hold differing views to both of these MP's. A lot of people say that Cannabis can cause mental health problems. According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists “Some users may experience psychotic symptoms with hallucinations and delusions lasting a few hours, which can be very unpleasant. Even though these unpleasant effects do not last long, since the drug can stay in the system for some weeks, the effect can be more long-lasting than users realise. Long-term use can have a depressant effect and reduce motivation. Some researchers also suggest that long-term use can lead to irreversible, but minor cognitive deficits.”
According to the NHS Cannabis can harm your mental health. Regular use is associated with an increased risk of developing a psychotic illness like Schizophrenia. The risk of developing a psychotic illness is higher if cannabis is used during teenage years. Users of the drug have also reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. But according to Psych Central a recent study by Harvard Medical school found: “The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself.”
Despite a lot of people linking Cannabis with health problems the drug is actually responsible for NO recorded deaths whatsoever. Can the same be said for alcohol and tobacco? The answer to that question would obviously be no. According to the Office of National Statistics in 2015, there were 8,758 alcohol-related deaths in the UK. According to the NHS there were 78,000 deaths in 2014 which were estimated to be attributed to smoking. Cannabis has actually been found by some people to have medicinal value. Many states In the U.S. have legalised Cannabis for medicinal purposes. Cannabis has been said to treat many health problems including epilepsy, glaucoma and even cancer in some cases. However there is a lot of conflicting evidence over Cannabis's health benefits. Due to it being illegal here in the U.K. it's become difficult for scientists to study the plant.
So should we legalise Cannabis or not? Well I believe it would actually be safer to legalise and regulate the drug. We're never going to be able to stop people using the drug. So if Cannabis was regulated correctly then people would have to be of a certain age to purchase it. This would stop it becoming as accessible to younger people. The drug would be regulated to be as safe as possible and health warnings would be put in place. Cannabis offences would be reduced. The economy would be boosted by money obtained through regulation and more jobs would be created to ensure correct regulation. What could be the harm in legalising something that is responsible for zero deaths and that could have potential health benefits? Compared with alcohol and tobacco, cannabis doesn't look that bad. It seems as though Britain needs to leave it's old drug policies behind and embrace legalisation of Cannabis.
-Noah Barco