Today I promised myself I wouldn’t visit Twitter a single time. It’s 15.30 and so far I’m doing well – I haven’t touched Tweetdeck or hit twitter.com! Lately I’ve found the whole experience more stressful than positive. I’m a little fed-up of the tiny attention span the so-called “Twittersphere” has when it comes to major news stories or political issues. Certain characters in my Twitter circle irritate me regularly and I will have to start looking at what I want to get out of the platform and if the way I use it should change. The 24/7 flow of tiny tid-bits of information and uninformed, nuance-free opinion drive me nuts! And the widely held opinion that Twitter is the sole answer to the online political communication needs of the political class is an empty theory which hasn’t yet been proved.

Twitter makes us all lazy and completely hooked on a non-stop stream of crumbs of information. Those of us who could be classes as addicts (myself included) should all have a day a week when we resolve not to use it at all!

I have to admit I was a bit anxious at one point yesterday afternoon. Mid-afternoon, it became apparent that Herman van Rompuy, the meek Belgian Prime Minister would be selected by the heads of the 27 members of the European Union to be the first head of the European Council. This appears to have been a decision taken primarily by the leaders of France and Germany, in concert with each other. Just two days ago, Angela Merkel said in a press conference that she and President Sarkozy would be making the decision together. I guess that shows you where the power lies in Europe…

Britain’s official candidate for the role, backed by Gordon Brown was of course Tony Blair. Divisive at the best of times, Blair was never exactly a shoe-in. I’m a supporter of Blair, and I think he was a good Prime Minister and would have contributed something to the European project, giving the bloc a higher profile in the world. But I can understand how some leaders of Europe would have found it difficult to work with someone like Tony Blair with such charisma and weight. They would have been overshadowed by him. Of course, it was well known at the time of the Iraq war that the majority of European opinion was against the intervention, and I’m sure that didn’t help Blair’s chances (despite the fact that Sarkozy himself is an interventionist and wasn’t in office at the time of Iraq).

The Tories stuck their nose in by jetting around some of Europe’s capitals lobbying against the selection of Tony Blair as Council President. In my opinion, that’s highly unpatriotic and unforgivable. And now they will have to deal with a Council President who is far more federalist than Blair would have been.

Several names swirled around yesterday of potential candidates for the second job on offer, that of European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (EHRFASP – what a mouth full). Until the very last minute, there were no obvious British candidates for the post. Most attention was paid to former Italian foreign minister Massimo D’Alema and a few other unknown politicians from the continent. This was also disheartening for me – the thought of another Italian in one of Europe’s highest jobs just a few years after Romano Prodi left the Commission, and the fact that Mr. D’Alema really hasn’t done much lately and isn’t well known, even in Brussels. Towards the end of the afternoon however, a wild-card in the form of Baroness Ashton, the current European Trade Commissioner, emerged.

Cathy Ashton replaced Peter Mandelson as Trade Commissioner when he returned to Westminster politics in much fanfare. Trade Commissioner is a very senior role and Baroness Ashton has received praise for her performance, namely from Commission President Barroso, despite concerns that she was too low profile when she first got the job. Similar concerns are being heard now that she has been selected to become the first office holder of this European “foreign minister” position, a role created by the recently-ratified Lisbon Treaty. I can understand why people are worried that she’s too understated, but they shouldn’t worry too much. She’s done a good job as Trade Commissioner, and that role has given her some experience in negotiation and international affairs. She will have a diplomatic corps of several thousand working to her, out of embassies around the world. No doubt she will have some top-quality advisers in Brussels and member states will provide advice and support also.

Last night’s progress is good in several ways. Primarily, we can stop naval-gazing and get on with pushing forward and tackling issues that are pressing to Europe and the world. The Lisbon Treaty is now done and dusted, a victory for the progressives in Europe. No more negotiation or referenda, or speculation that Europe will have a flash President Blair. That’s good for Europe. Secondly, the fact that a British Labour woman is now the most powerful female in Europe, and in the top three most powerful positions in the EU, is good for Britain. It’s rare for a Brit to hold one of these high offices of Europe; they more often go to smaller states. But for the UK to be more central to Europe, and for British people to feel more engaged, it’s only logical that we should push for more of our citizens to take these big jobs. Cathy Ashton isn’t, as she said an “ego on legs”, she doesn’t make much out of the fact that she’s a woman; she lives in Hertfordshire and for all intents and purposes is quite normal and accessible for British people.

I don’t think it will be long before High Representative Ashton starts to ruffle feathers back in Westminster. She has her own mandate separate from the UK as a nation state, and it will be strange for UK ministers to see a British citizen striding the world stage as an important diplomat. Not only that, but if Labour were to lose the election next year (and by the way I still think there’s a chance we can win!) Ashton would in a heartbeat become the most powerful Labour figure. That would likely worry some in the Labour Party who have their own leadership ambitions. Baroness Ashton has five years to impress the British public, and after putting up with Cameron’s boys for a term, a Labour female prime minister might be just what the nation wants.

Today, on the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the Christian charity World Vision, which works globally to improve the lives of millions of children, has released a report condemning the lack of action to stop unnecessary deaths of just under 9 million child deaths each year. Yes 9 MILLION – that’s around 24,000 children dying each and every day due to largely preventable causes including malnutrition & extreme hunger, and death in maternity due to poor health services. As a father myself, this really bothers me. How do our governments in the West find it so easy to go to sleep each night knowing that over the last day, so many children have died?

I’m sure we are trying to tackle these issues that affect children so badly, but we need to do more. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were agreed by 192 UN member states back in 2000, and they set out eight primary goals to improve the lives of billions of people by 2015. We are almost two-thirds through that fifteen year window of time. The MDG aimed at cutting child mortality by two-thirds by 2015, MDG4, will be missed if the world continue at the current rate; so far only 30% of the target has been met with only a third of the time left to achieve the rest.

I’m proud of Labour’s record in office on international development. We have almost tripled our national aid budget from where it stood when we took office in 1997, and we’re not far off the global best practice target of 0.7% of GDP going toward issues like the one I’ve outlined here. But only 3% of global aid is currently going toward improving child and maternal health. Raising the amounts of aid we spend on this issue isn’t sufficient alone – we need to ensure that the money is going to the correct countries (World Vision suggests that there are 30 “high burden” countries which account for 80% of the world’s child mortality). And just handing out money without adequately educating local populations about hygiene, family planning, adequate antenatal and postnatal care and how to improve nutrition, is pointless. As with all aid, all money we spend on development issues must be applied free of corruption.

As a dad myself, I find this heartbreaking. It’s upsetting when a child has a simple cold, or a fall or other minor injury. My daughter Sophia almost didn’t make it into this world due to complications at birth, but thanks to the British NHS and the huge investments we make in maternity care everything turned out fine in the end. We are so fortunate living in some of the world’s most developed countries, and we perhaps take it for granted that people living in other countries are receiving the care they need. But they aren’t. Perhaps if people realised this, they would be more inclined to put pressure on the politicians and diplomats who will meet in late 2010 to review the progress of the MDGs so far, and to do more to stop children from dying unnecessarily. If it were happening in our own countries, we would surely nip it in the bud sooner rather than later.

Here are two links from World Vision for further information:

- Why the campaign: http://www.worldvision.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.3361
- What people can do to help: http://www.worldvision.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.3371