I wonder if Lord Jeffrey Archer has negotiated a publishing deal for his prison diaries yet? If not, he should probably get to work on it. With court costs to pay and creditors on his case, people might not be referring to him as "the millionaire author" for much longer.

Normally, I wouldn't go in for kicking a man when he was down - but in the case of Archer, it's irresistible, as much of the media coverage of his downfall has demonstrated. It's not just because many felt he deserved at least four years for the crimes he has committed against literature, in spewing out some of the most clumsily-written, crass best-selling novels of all time. Nor is it just his career as a Conservative politician, befriended by Margaret Thatcher and raised to the peerage by John Major - although that certainly helps me to dislike him.

No, it's something in the essential manner of the man that makes him so massively unpleasant. It's the smugness, the arrogance and the absolute shamelessness, summed up by the fact that while facing trial on these serious charges, he exploited his infamy by appearing in London's West End in "The Accused", a self-written play about a trial. Archer has been a liar and a bully, qualities which some might say made him ideal for a career in politics. Over the years, many have had grave doubts about his honesty. He survived this long by bullying the media - by threatening to use either the libel system or his political power against any journalist who asked awkward questions.

For the benefit of anyone in a part of the world where this hasn't been headline news all week, I should perhaps explain that Lord Archer, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, has been jailed for four years on charges of perjury and perverting the course of justice. The charges related to a libel trial 17 years ago in which Archer won £500,000 damages from one of Britain's trashiest tabloids, the "Daily Star", over a story that told of his dalliance with a prostitute. The charges on which he was convicted related to Archer trying to persuade his former friend Ted Francis to provide him with a false alibi for a night relating to the libel case, and of producing fake diary entries, concocted by his ex-secretary on Archer's orders, to back up the alibi. He was also found to have lied on oath during the libel trial, and to have lied in an affidavit to the court before the trial.

At first glance this might appear to be almost an admirable crime. The truly awful "Star" epitomises the tabloid ethos: it sells sex, sensation and trivia. One could almost admire Archer for managing to extract money from it even if he did so dishonestly.

But his libel "triumph" was cruel on Monica Coghlan, the ex-prostitute involved in the libel trial. She truthfully told the court that Archer had paid for sex with her. She was not believed. So, after she gave up prostitution and tried to rebuild her life, Coghlan had to cope with a double stigma. Not only was her former profession widely known, she was also believed to have made false accusations against the popular novelist. Crueller still, she didn't live to see herself vindicated. She died in a car crash in April.

Now, it appears that there may be more to Archer's villainy. Scotland Yard detectives are investigating allegations that millions of pounds mysteriously vanished from the coffers of a charity set up by Lord Archer in 1991 to help Kurdish refugees. Somewhat ironically, in view of recent events, the charity was called "The Simple Truth".

It's a sorry saga - but at last it seems that some good may come of it all. After Archer was jailed, a disturbing fact was realised. Under British law as it stands today, when Archer has done his time, he could head straight from prison to the House of Lords. At present, there is no mechanism for removing a life peerage; so the perjurer and jailbird could influence the formation of future British law for the remainder of his days.

This is such a plainly unacceptable prospect that it has spurred the government into action. They had already promised to do something about the ludicrous House of Lords before the next General Election. For a start, we were assured that the remaining hereditary peers would at long last be purged from parliament, so no-one would be involved in the formation of British laws purely because of who their parents were. Further reforms were under discussion. Now, thanks to Archer, those reforms are certain to include a clause disqualifying those convicted of serious crimes from sitting in the House of Lords. (They're already barred from the Commons).

But better still, those reforms will now have to happen quickly. With full remission, Archer could be out on parole in just under two years. The government will want the new rules to be in place by then, so that they can't be accused of failing to respond to the situation.

So, by his conviction and incarceration, Lord-for-now Jeffrey Archer may have guaranteed the speedy reform of the very democratic institutions that he's been abusing all his adult life. It could be the best plot twist he's ever been associated with.

In the past week, some American h2g2 Researchers have been posting about letters they've received from the IRS, the US taxation service. From what I can gather, the Bush administration has wasted a lot of money telling American taxpayers that because it doesn't waste money, it can afford to give them a tax rebate. The IRS could have just sent the rebate cheques out next month without sending the letters first, but clearly it was felt that such an opportunity for a PR stunt was too good to miss.

Some of the more thoughtful American Researchers who've posted on the issue have understandably been worried about what areas of public spending are going to be cut to pay for these tax breaks. One excellent idea that has put forward here on h2g2 is that of donating the rebates to the kind of good causes that Bush opposes: environmental groups, for instance.

But one thing is certain: whatever is cut, it won't be the budget for the futile "war on drugs". The US House of Representatives has this week approved spending of more than $670 million on aid to Colombia in support of Plan Colombia, a controversial scheme to fight the drugs trade. Much of the money will be spent on spraying areas deemed to be producing illegal crops with herbicide.

The chemicals used in the spraying kill off all plant life in affected areas, not just the coca plants from which cocaine is manufactured. The spraying thus destroys the livelihoods of local farmers.

The theory behind Plan Colombia was that while the crop spraying was going on, financial aid would be given to Colombian farmers to help them switch to alternative crops. But reports have suggested that the money hasn't been reaching the peasant farmers. What's more, the glyphosate chemicals used in the spraying have had serious effects on the health of local people. Water supplies in the areas where spraying has taken place have been poisoned by the chemicals, and there have been numerous cases of people suffering eye, skin and breathing difficulties after the crop dusting planes have paid a visit. Meanwhile, the ecological effects have been disastrous, with large areas of agricultural land left barren.

And has anything been gained in return for all this? Of course not. When coca productions stops in one area, it simply moves to adjoining areas. The most the Colombians have been able to achieve has been to move some of the drug trade over the border to Peru. The price of a gram of cocaine in America has not been changed at all.

In fairness to Bush, it should be noted that this madness is not of his making. Plan Colombia was initially approved last year by the Clinton administration. But it is depressing that this failed strategy is being continued, even at a time when the United Nations is calling on the Colombian government to rethink its policies. Klauss Nyholm, the representative of the UN Drug Control Programme in Colombia, recently described the strategy of spraying smallholdings as "inhuman and ineffective". In the wake of allegations that the missing aid money had ended up in the pockets of corrupt local politicians, he called on the Colombian government to permit international scrutiny of its anti-drug programmes.
'We believe that an international and neutral verification is needed.'

he said.

And while these futile "war on drugs" policies continue, addicts around the world continue to suffer and cause misery to those around them. Having been involved in the media for some years, I've seen plenty of examples of the damage that cocaine can do. It killed one nice guy I knew and turned others into gibbering, paranoid egomaniacs. But surely, one day, governments around the world must realise that the "war on drugs" cannot be won, and that the policy of prohibition and trying to eradicate drug use has failed.

How many lives might be saved if the money being wasted on Plan Colombia were instead spent on treating some of the sick people suffering from narcotic addiction? Until governments kick their posturing habit, we'll never know.

It's always a wonderful moment when you stumble across something that lets you know you're not alone - that someone else has been thinking those thoughts that you suspected might only have occurred to you.

I enjoyed one such moment this week, when I first encountered Anxiety Culture, a website whose message is that we're all being deliberately worried sick. It wittily and persuasively explains how employers make us feel inadequate and insecure, so that we'll feel lucky to have dismal jobs. Government agencies back up that message, seeking to persuade us that even the most demeaning and poorly paid job is better than no job. Advertisers encourage us to believe that we're failures because we're not like the shiny, happy people they show us, and that the only remedy is to consume their products. Both politicians and business people have a vested interest in keeping everyone anxious, because worried people are more likely to accept restrictions on civil liberties and to consume more in an effort to distract themselves from their worries.

It's a line of argument that certainly corresponds to my experience. For years, I pushed myself to the limit for my former employers, convinced (despite all objective evidence) that I was lucky to have the job, and that life would end if I lost it. In the end, I suffered a nervous breakdown. But still, after a few weeks, I was back at work, convinced that I could not survive without the job. Fortunately, I then lost the job. Lately, I've been living largely on welfare benefits, but I'm way healthier and happier than I used to be. I am looking for suitable, interesting work, but I'm certainly not hammering on the door of my local McDonalds begging to be allowed to mop the floor, as some might say I should be. Why should people be expected to accept boring, humiliating working conditions in exchange for a pittance?

Anxiety Culture's author Brian Dean has some powerful statistics to back up his reasoning. He points out that a 1994 survey by the UK government's Department of Health showed that more than 10 percent of the population suffered from a neurotic anxiety disorder. The most common condition reported was a mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, which was found in seven per cent of people. An amazing 80 million prescriptions for tranquillisers and anti-depressants were issued in the UK in 1994 - a figure that seems incredible until you read that a 1995 NOP opinion survey reported that 60 per cent of employees suffered from feelings of insecurity and anxiety. 43 percent said that they'd suffered from insomnia because of work-related anxieties, and 54 per cent admitted to worrying about inadequate incomes.

Despite its highly critical analysis of contemporary society, Anxiety Culture is ultimately an upbeat, positive read. It suggests useful strategies for shedding anxiety and guilt, and encourages enjoyment of life. It's also frequently hilarious - its "Family Values Generator" had me in fits of laughter (although those sensitive to strong language should use its "censor on" button).

Instead of service with a smile, Anxiety Culture offers subversion with a smile. I can't recommend it too strongly.

Finally, I note with interest that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris is putting together a campaign team with a view to running for Congress next year.

You may recall the unique contribution to American democracy that Ms Harris made last year. She played a remarkable double role in the hotly-disputed Florida election, both campaigning for George W. Bush and overseeing the controversial count. It was she who cut short the recounting and declared Bush to be Florida's winner, thus ensuring that the candidate she had loudly favoured would become president.

I'm not surprised that she'd like to become a Congresswoman. If Bush has any sense of loyalty at all, he'd surely feel obliged to find Harris a top job in government, out of gratitude for the lengths she went to in order to help put him in the Oval Office. But I hope that the voters of Florida - particularly all those who found themselves disenfranchised in dubious circumstances last year - will remember how much respect Harris showed for their democratic rights, and vote accordingly.

I mean no disrespect to the educationally-challenged - but really, would you want to be represented by someone who has such difficulty with counting?

Ormondroyd

26.07.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page