Measles or vaccination - the Egyptian view of islamist politics

Have had fascinating talks with a colleague from Egypt this afternoon. It was one of those lunchtime discussions which just ran on and on until we suddenly looked at our watches and saw it was 5pm.

In essence, he likens the threat posed in his country by radical islamist parties (and how to deal with them) as being like a choice between measles and vaccination.

In deciding how to handle the threat posed, he says that the dilemma for the mainstream parties - and he includes the Government and main opposition - is whether to engage with the islamists or not. He argues very forcefully for engagement and he holds regular public debates with the islamists.

His view is that to engage with them is the vaccination approach. You try to counter the disease so that, although there may be isolated cases, the widespread outbreak of the virus never happens. The alternative is not to engage and risk a pandemic which will take many generations to get over. You might be lucky of course and it may never happen, but the chances are that it will and you will have done nothing to stop it.

He goes further with his comparisons, describing the 'ROMification' of the young islamists. He says that many of them have been so brainwashed that they have lost the power of reasonable thought. They can only store ideas and parrot them back - like a computer with ROM memory. For rational thought a human needs the equivalent of RAM memory - the ability to process new data. His fear is that a whole generation has been lost and it may be a long while before a new set of young people can be debated with.

So why engage at all if these people are lost. There is particularly the danger that the liberals will be lumped into the same basket as people like Bush. His view is that this is a problem. But to refuse to debate risks the islamists starting a debate for themselves with people who are even more extreme - in Egypt they are the jihadis. A debate between violent and non-violent islamists will result in victory for the the more reasonable sounding group. But you still end up with islamists.

As for the George Bush problem, the argument is that George Bush effectively started a debate (ok, not a debate, a war) with the jihadis. By engaging with them on their terms (armed conflict) he gave them credence they do not deserve.

The additional dilemma comes with the problem of what to do if the islamists win an election. What is to stop them changing the constitution so fundamentally as to talibanise the country? His argument is that they would seek to persuade the islamists to sign up to an agreement with the fundamentals of elections and the rule of law. Even if you cannot get that, he says, by their very engagement in debate and through their participation in elections they have, de facto, agreed to the concept of elections and the constitution that goes along with them.

I'm not sure that I go along with the argument entirely, but it made for an interesting discussion. If you do accept it then it has some parallels for the UK. Should we in the UK debate with those who argue for sharia law or with the BNP.

On another note, he points to the crucial nature of Egypt in world politics and suggests that the islamist movement in the country is one which the world should be taking seriously. He points out that 1953 and the Suez crisis led to the effective end of empires; that 1972 saw the beginning of the end of Soviet control way before the fall of the Berlin Wall and that 1978 was the turning point for the recognition by Arab countries of the state of Israel. His characterization is the Egypt in world affairs is the same s the Middle East in the game of Risk. In order to win the game, a player needs to take and hold that territory.

As I say, a very interesting lunch. Arguments welcome!

In Beirut

I'm in Beirut for a meeting of the nascent Liberal Arab Network. There are people here from Egypt, Palestine, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria and Lebanon. As with my work in Africa, these parties vary in their levels of electoral strength and experience, but there is a wonderful determination.

Arrived last night wondering what sort of place I was flying in to. Turns out to be a wonderfully modern airport which is the gateway to a very modern city. Ok, so I've only been to the city centre so far, but it all looks typically mediterranean. Lots of coffee bars and ice cream parlours and, being a Saturday night, huge numbers of people on the streets having a good time. The bars and clubs (and coffee shops and casinos) get truly busy after midnight.

The taxi driver who brought me from the airport talked about the political situation here and described the country's three neighbours - Israel, Syria and the sea. He says most Lebanese believe that only the sea is friendly!

We had a dinner tonight as guests of our host party at a very busy and popular local restaurant. Feasted on mezze, grills, very sweet puddings and lots of fruit. I was sat with representatives from three different Egyptian parties. The fact that they compete with each other electorally doesn't seem to worry them here!

The only downside is the fact that everybody smokes. Not just after dinner, but as they eat. And the waiters come round with shishas which people smoke as they eat. One of my colleagues juggled a cigarette, a shisha and his fork.

Pictures of assassinated Prime Minister Rafik Hariri everywhere and Hariri medals are sold by the airline on the plane.

More studied analysis to come. And maybe some pictures.

Tesco Direct ads - genius

Just seen the new ad for Tesco Direct (aka internet supermarket shopping) starring Martin Clunes. Absolutely brilliant.

Nick in Birmingham in Pictures

Nick Clegg was in Birmingham today to visit the Heartlands hospital in the middle of Hodge Hill constituency with PPC and local councillor Tariq Khan.

Heartlands is a Foundation NHS Trust. Lib Dems were sceptical about the benefits of FT status but Heartlands is one which has grasped the opportunity FT status affords very eagerly. As well as recruiting more than 70,000 people to their electorate (the patients and local residents who can vote in Trust elections), they have also undertaken innovative development work to improve their IT systems. Whilst every major Government IT project seems to be late and over budget, Heartlands have developed a form of electronic patients notes system which is portable and allows medical staff better access to matient records at the bedside.

At the moment, the system works on a portable desktop computer, known affectionately as a COW (computer on wheels). But they hope to have the tablet format up and running very shortly.

Nick met with nurse Medel Toletino and patient Henry Seabourne to look at the new system in action.

Afterwards, Nick met with patients' representatives Marguerite and Gerry at the hospital's patient information unit.

Pics: Nick looks at the COW system with nurse Medel Toletino and patient Henry Seabourne; Nick talking to patients' reps Marguerite and Gerry; Nick in Birmingham with Tariq Khan.

Paw stroking - a new art

By all accounts, M. Sarkozy has wowed the UK establishment in a way not seen since the French toffs all came here to escape the Revolution (I take my history from Blackadder, but some of it might be true-ish).

It comes to something when the top bod in France starts describing the UK as leading the way and expressing such outright gratitude for all the UK has doen for them. Never again will we be able to describe them as ungrateful so-and-so's. There go a million pub diatribes.

All was described to me earlier today as being the art of paw stroking.

PR - Who has said what

Since the Government allowed the idea of constitutional and electoral reform to be floated over the weekend, there has been a lot of talk in the blogosphere on the subject. Three interesting strands have emerged:

- There have been a lot of Lib Dems saying that AV is the right thing to do. Ok, many of them have said it is right only as a first step on the way to proper reform. Or, like me, have said that if Brown wants to make the change then we shouldn't oppose him, but we should still make STV a first condition in the event we ever have any bargaining power. But there are still Lib Dems for whom AV is the right amount of change. I don't know whether this is because they simply look at the maths (which is, I believe, speculative guesswork), or because they actually believe that AV is the right change (as do people like Lembit and, to a certain extent, Simon Hughes). Whatever the case, I think that there will be a battle within the Lib Dems over this one should it ever come to pass.

- Conservatives have argued that what is needed is not electoral reform but for voting to actually mean something again (see Dan Hannan for a well written example). I agree with them completely on the need for changes to make people believe that voting is worthwhile again. I don't necessarily agree on the precise measures that are sometimes proposed, but I do think that we cannot expect people to want to participate in our democracy so long as they have no respect for politicians. But, for all the talk from Dave Cameron about ending the 'politics as usual' stuff, just watch him in PMQs. It'll be the same punch and judy, the same cheap debating points and the same ridiculous arguments as before.

- From the Government itself, nothing. The floated proposals on electoral reform have been stifled. Jack Straw, who it appears is a convert to AV having been vehemently opposed to any reform previously, said nothing on the subject yesterday.

I suspect that, yet again, this was a Labour Government flag flying exercise. They like to raise the prospect every so often to see what reaction they get - particularly from their own backbenchers. Brown 'let it be known' that he favoured change after the last election. But of course we would have to wait for him to become PM before anything would happen. And remember that they did so after the Power Report. Then nothing.

No, the most meaningful thing that has happened in the area of electoral reform recently was that the chief cheerleader for AV in the Government - Peter Hain - is no longer there.

The other key point to remember is that the Labour reformers (and there are quite a few) tend not to like preferential voting. Instead, they look to the AMS system that exists in Scotland, Wales and for the London Assembly. It is a proper form of PR but relies on a mix of individual constituencies and top-up lists. Lib Dems tend not to like it as it combines the worst of both worlds - First-Past-the-Post in constituencies with all the problems that brings in terms of lack of proper representation, tactical voting etc - and top-up lists with no geographical link and all the dangers of party patronage.

Roy Jenkins tried to find the happy medium when he recommended the Alternative Vote Top Up (AV+) to Tony Blair. He proposed preferential voting in constituencies and top up lists to make the whole thing (slightly more) proportional. Despite my admiration for the great man, I thought the whole thing a complete dog's breakfast. If you think STV is complex to explain the just try convincing Joe Public about AV+. Thankfully, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we bring that one back again.

Cameron's questions - you bet!

Ladbrokes have opened a new market on the topic of Dave Cameron's first question at PMQs.

Surely some room for insider trading?

For the record, although I think that he will use some of his questions on MPs expenses and the Speaker's ludicrous decision to go to the High Court to try to block publication (just how much does he have to hide?), which are listed under Constitutional/Parliamentary issues at 12/1 - in from 33/1 since this morning - I don't think that will be the subject of his first question which is how the market is settled.

I suspect that banking and the state of the economy is how he will go. But backing the fave is a bit boring. So I think he'll realise he missed out last week when Nick Clegg talked about Iraq and he didn't. So, despite losing the vote last night, he might well rehash the subject.

Hat-tip - Political Betting