« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 29, 2004
Iraq
Over there on the left, in the sidebar, is a link to IraqBodyCount.org. Currently they're reporting the maximum number of civilian deaths in Iraq as 16289. Well, the Lancet has today published a report which estimates that as many as 98,000 more civilian casualties occured after the invasion than in the similar period prior to the war.I'll repeat that figure just to make sure you got it down ok. 98,000 additional deaths as a result, directly or indirectly, of the war in Iraq.
Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.
Now Saddam is currently accused of killing some 300,000 people over 25 years of rule. In our efforts to make Iraq a safer, better place for Iraqis we've managed nearly a third of that figure. In 18 months. Yet Blair, after ditching the justification of Saddam's WMDs, continues to maintain that the invasion has improved the lot of the average Iraqi. Each of those civilian casualties has family, relatives who may very well be more amenable to carrying out terrorist acts. So much for maker the World safer...
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 28, 2004
War on Terror
A bit of sense at last regarding the real terror issues. Professor Amitai Etzioni was a key influence on Tony Blair's Third Way through his communitarian ideas. In a report Etzioni says that a nuclear terrorist attack is the main danger, and that Attempts to defend against it by hardening domestic targets cannot work, nor can one rely on pre-emption by taking the war to the terrorists before they attack.Which kind of puts the lie to all the terror threats the government keeps using in an effort to keep us frightened. Not to mention highlighting how ineffective the invasion of Iraq is.
And rather than focussing on terror candidates such as Iran or North Korea, Etzioni believes that the biggest risk comes from failing states such as Russia or Pakistan. Given the sheer size of the soviet nuclear stockpile, I tend to agree with his concerns over the management of such large quantities of fissile material. The recent leaking of nuclear secrets by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan also shows where the real risks lie.
Bottom line is that the current strategy pursued by the US and the UK, this incessant reference to the Axis of Evil, is doing absolutely nothing to ensure our safety. The lack of action on the part of the US in light of the Pakistani leaks just illustrates this. Pakistan's assistance in the hunt of Osama bin Laden is no excuse for the US to turn a blind eye to the failings of a supposed ally. Just how would Americans feel about Bush if a small nuke were detonated in the US, made from misplaced or stolen fissile material from Russia with expertise gleaned from Pakistani scientists? Meanwhile Bush and Blair stare in the opposite direction, pronouncing the world a safer place whilst doing nothing about the real threats.
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq
A secret government briefing paper, published in the London Evening Standard, has revealed that British military command staff were involved in a conference regarding planning for the war Iraq as early as June 2002. And this wasn't the only instance.In addition to the conference on 28th June 2002 there was a discussion with US commander General Tommy Franks on 13th August 2002, relating to the possibility of sending British forces to Turkey. A US planning order was issued on 7th October 2002 covering alternative approaches if Turkey refused access and the full battle plan was released on 31st October 2002.
Just to remind you, the infamous UN Resolution 1441 wasn't agreed until 8th November 2002, a full eight days after the release of the full battle plan.
More information came to light during the court martial of Lance Corporal Ian Blaymire which is being held at Catterick Army Base. The court was told that US planners had passed on invasion dates five months before the actual invasion took places. Furthermore, Army chiefs wanted training for the invasion to begin in December 2002, but this was delayed as any mobilisation then would have given the world a clear indication that an invasion was going to take place regardless of how the political process panned out.
Now Blair continues to maintain that he did not mislead parliament, but consider his statement on 16th July 2002 that no decisions that have been taken about military action. Three weeks after the June conference. And on the 13th July an MoD spokesman had stated that We don’t have current plans for an invasion or attack on Iraq in any form. Presumably the conference minutes hadn't been typed or distributed by then.
Given that Blair is in complete denial regarding his complicity, duplicity and dissembling over the whole matter of Iraq, then we can expect the usual denials and restatement of his objectives. But once again subsequent events have shown Blair to be an untrustworthy liar.
--------
Posted by Clive at 8:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 27, 2004
Gambling
The truth about the government's reasons for revising the gambling laws was revealed today. At a conference held last year by the arcade and fruit machine industry, Lord McIntosh, the minister attempting to get the new legislation through the Lords, conceded that a key aim is to raise revenue for the Treasury. Not only has the government once again displayed an inability to be honest, but it is also demonstrating how it considers raising revenue to be a higher priority than social welfare.And this isn't the first time that this government's taxation policy has put revenue ahead of the social cost. The pensions crisis is, in part, due to the £5 billion per year raised by taxing dividend payments made to pension fund.
In the case of gambling, it would appear that this government considers it acceptable to implement gambling policies that will lead to increased hardship amongst the poor members of society in exchange for £400 million per year in increased revenues. Worse still is the fact that the Department of Culture has no idea what the social impact of the Bill will be, with a spokesman stating that ministers don't know the impact it will have on the number of problem gamblers.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 26, 2004
John Peel: 1939 - 2004, R.I.P.
John Peel, broadcaster, BBC Radio 1's longest serving DJ and a massive influence on popular music in the UK, has died of a heart attack while on holiday in Peru. John was responsible for broadening the musical tastes of many in this country, myself included. He will be sorely missed. --------Posted by Clive at 2:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Little Acorns
First axe the label, then axe the labelled. On past experience, a simple step like this usually ends on a long and winding road with unforseen dangers. --------Posted by Clive at 1:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Freedom of Information
You've got to admire the excuses various government departments come up with to avoid releasing files under the Freedom of Information Act. Want to know the actual details of the sinking of the Belgrano? Fancy a gander at the files relating to the shooting of IRA terrorists in Gibraltar? Sorry, no can do, they're contaminated with asbestos. Be interesting to see what excuses are given. --------Posted by Clive at 1:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 25, 2004
Mother of Parliaments
When, eventually, the recommendations in the Commons security report have been implemented, and Westminster appears more like a fortress than the home of the mother of parliaments, remember that it was the prats with the purple dye and the pro-hunting protestors that played into the hands of the government.And when a government does not regard itself as accountable to the population, then any restriction on access is a blow against democracy.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gambling
It is one thing to change the gambling laws, but how do you ensure that casino operators take advantage of the new regime. Simple answer, tax cuts.But there's nothing to worry about, casinos will cure poverty, at least according to Tony Blair. In today's press conference he stated,
We are giving the power to local authorities to grant planning permission for larger leisure complexes, including casinos, which will probably add around about 20 to 40 casinos to the 120 that there already are in this country. Those will be directed to areas of regeneration. Go and talk to the people in Blackpool who urgently need the regeneration. For many of these places, this is a chance to put this on a proper modern footing.
So there you have it. Not only is opposition to gambling snobish and elitish, but it is also hindering the fight against poverty.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Way Things Work: The Political Process
You're a pretty unpopular Prime Minister who feels under threat from your own back-benchers. The Party Conference is coming up and you need to be able to avoid dissent. The obvious solution is to throw the persuing pack some scraps to keep them off your back.So you introduce the Ban on Hunting with Dogs and promises the Bill's supporters that the Parliament Act will be used to push it through regardless of the Lords.
But the Countryside Alliance and other pro-hunting groups are a pretty vociferous bunch, and you've an election coming up next year. So to keep the landed rabble quiet, you decide to slip in a delay of 18 months. That way your back benchers get their ban, but the demonstrations and backlash will be defered until after the next election.
Except the political process isn't that straightforward. And Blair may just have made a fool of himself, if the Lords have their way. They may well attempt to ammend the bill to introduce a licensing system, an option suggested by the Government two years ago. Another option would be to propose an ammendment to remove the delay in implementation, thus embarassing the government in the run-up to the next election.
How simpler things might have been if Tony had chosen a more worthy piece of legislation, such as a law regarding Corporate Manslaughter. And how ironic that a lawyer should be outmanouevered in the legislative process.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Property
In government, the Conservatives seemed to always be having problems in the trouser department, with various MPs and cabinet ministers unable to keep their procreative and fornicatory urges under control.New Labour's weakness appears to be with bricks and mortar. We've had Mandelsson and the dodgy mortgage, Cherie and the Bristol flats and John Prescott with his grace-and-favour flat. Not to mention how the Blairs can afford the mortgage on a £3.6million property in Connaught Square. With the publication of the details of MPs expenses, we can see that the problem is quite widespread.
We have Tony Blair's claim for £43,029 on his Sedgefield home for which he paid £30,000 in 1983. As if having 11 Downing St and Chequers at his disposal was not sufficient, and in spite of Tony having a salary of £175,000 and Cherie's not inconsiderable income as a lawyer.
Then there's Tony Banks, claiming £20,000 in spite of his West Ham constituency being only 14 stops down the District Line from Westminster.
Or John Prescott, grace-and-favour flat in Admiralty House on London, and official residence in Buckinghamshore and a house in his Hull Constituency, yet has claimed £57,066.
Gordon Brown, official flat above No. 10 Downing St, flat in central London and a house, yet has claimed over £40,000 in three years.
Blunkett, official residence in Pimlico, rents out a house in South-West London, has a constituency house and has claimed nearly £55,000 over three years.
Straw, official residence in Kent, another of Pall Mall, a house on Kennington and a constituency home, has claimed nearly £45,000 over three years.
Beckett, grace and favour flat in Admiralty House (probably needs danger money for having Prescott as a neighbour), a house in her Derbyshire constituency and a flat in Westminster which she rents out, has claimed over £50,000 over three years.
Hoon, grace-and-favour flat in Admiralty House, a house in Kennington which he rents out and another property in his constituency, has claimed nearly £55,000 over the last three years.
Gorbals Mick, Speaker of the House of Commons, has an apartment in Parliament, owns a flat in London and a house in his constituency, has claimed more than £42,000 over three years.
It's no wonder this lot are, on the whole, doing such a shabby job of running the country. They're obviously spending most of their waking hours watching the property market and filling out expenses forms.
There's probably a number of you out there who see nothing wrong with these claims. After all, they're using their constituency homes for constituency business, so what's unfair about that? Well, ask anyone who works from home, and who can only offset a small amount against tax for having a home office. If any of them were to try and claim the amounts that MPs such as those above get away with, then they'd soon feel the wrath of the Inland Revenue.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Order of Death
This is what you want. This is what you get. This is what you want. This is what you get. - Order of Death, PIL500 members of the Black Watch (along with 350 support staff) are off to southern Baghdad, to an area dubbed The Triangle of Death in a move that owes more to political expediency than military reality. The unit would appear to be full of typical British phlegm and gung-ho spirit, or at least that is the impression being given by their commanding officer Maj Blair Radford...
The jocks themselves are happy, they've got a mission, they know what to do and they are busy preparing for it.
Whilst their desire to get on and complete the mission is laudable, there is a huge gulf between what they want, and what they might get. As the dead bodies of the massacred Iraq recuits will testify.
And it is to be hoped that claims that the British Troops will be home by Christmas prove to be more substantial than similar claims made in 1914.
As the Black Watch ready themselves for departure, I hope they will consider just how poorly served they have been by their political masters. 850 British soldiers required to support US forces, when US forces in the country number 135,000? There can be no realistic military justification for such a redeployment. And once the Americans begin their assualt on Fallujah, we can expect to see a rise in violence across the country. There will be bodybags, and they will contain the corpses of betrayed members of the Black Watch. Sacrificed on the alter of one man's vanity.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 18, 2004
Freedom
I don't usually like linking directly to vast, almost indigestible lumps of legislation, but I urge you to read the text of the Civil Contingencies Bill and then get your MP to oppose it. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most threatening pieces of legislation to come before Parliament. As Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch points out...The draft Bill would have allowed the imposition of an authoritarian state. The new Bill is only better in that it paves the road to an authoritarian state. The government is really naive if it thinks people will not read the fine print of the new Bill and realise that it has preserved nearly all the powers it originally proposed - albeit in a different form - and added new contentious provisions which were not in the first draft.
Amongst many other dangers, it allows for a Secretary of State to declare a state of emergency without consultation with, or reference to, the Privy Council or the Head of State. Once the State of Emergency is in place, then the Terrorism Act 2000 comes in to play, and we are all familiar the the abuses that the government can get away with under that Act.
We already have adequate legislation in the form of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, so why the need for a completely new bill? Or is it driven more by a desire to secure power in the hands of a select few than any real desire to ensure our personal freedoms.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Terror
Dirty Bomb. That should scare you, at least messrs Blair and Co. would like those two little words to leave you very afraid. Since 11th Sept 2001 the phrase dirty bomb has been used more than a thousand times in articles in British newspapers regarding potential terror attacks. We are almost routinely reminded that assembly such a device (a mixture of convetional explosives and radioactive material, designed to contaminate) could be easily assembled by terrorists, and that the consequences would be catastrophic. But just how realistic is a dirty bomb, and how effective as a weapon?Fundamentally a dirty bomb is easy to put together, simply take a conventional bomb as used by terrorists the world over, and wrap it in radioactive material. The radioactive component could be sourced from any munber of sources such has radiological waste from hospitals, elements used in flourescent coatings, etc. So certainly terrorists shouldn't find it too difficult to assemble.
However, when you look at how effective a dirty bomb would be, it is a different story. For starters, if a person is close enough to get a potentially critical dose of radiation, then contamination is the least of their problems as they will have already been blown into several pieces. As soon as you start moving out from the centre of the blast, the radioactive material becomes so scattered that a victim is going to have to put some serious effort into becoming contaminated. The US Department of Energy has done tests simulating the effects of a dirty bomb, and their conclusions were that a person would have to stay inside the contaminated area for a year just to receive a fairly high (though non-critical) dose of radiation. And that assumes no cleanup. Most people in the vicinity of the blast would be at no greater risk than a person living in certain parts of Cornwall (radon risk) or on the Cumbrian coast near Sellafield.
The biggest risk from a dirty bomb is the chaos and confusion caused by mass panic. And here the politicians are playing into the terrorists hands by talking up the threat of a dirty bomb, rather than being open and realistic. But then this is a government that wants us to be scared, because only then can it justify the suspension of habeas corpus; only then can it justify the abuse of international treaties on behalf of third parties; only then can it restrict your personal freedoms secure in the knowledge of your aquiescence.
The Federation of American Scientists have a transcript of testimony made on the subject of dirty bombs to the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee. Some quotes for you:
Case 1 - Two weeks ago, a lost medical gauge containing cesium was discovered in North Carolina. Imagine that the cesium in this device was exploded in Washington, DC in a bomb using ten pounds of TNT. The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately. However, residents of an area of about five city blocks, if they remained, would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer
Case 2 - Now imagine if a single piece of radioactive cobalt from a food irradiation plant were dispersed by an explosion at the lower tip of Manhattan. Typically, each of these cobalt "pencils" is about one inch in diameter and one foot long, with hundreds of such pieces often being found in the same facility. Admittedly, acquisition of such material is less likely than in the previous scenario, but we still consider the results, depicted in Figure 2. Again, no immediate evacuation would be necessary, but in this case, an area of approximately one-thousand square kilometers, extending over three states, would be contaminated. Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years
The emphasis above is mine. The point to remember is that a while dirty bombs impose a greater cleanup burden, in some cases necessitating the demolition of contaminated structures, these are infrastructure costs, not human lives. The danger is that the government's scaremongering proves so effective that if the worst comes to pass, lives will be lost as a result of fear and ignorance rather than the direct effects of the bomb. And thus the government will have played directly into the hands of the terrorists.
I'd recommend you watch The Power of Nightmares on Wednesday 20th October, at 9pm on BBC2. The Guardian has a preview of the programme here (thanks to scaryduck for the Guardian link).
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hmmm
So slagging off Liverpudlians in a magazine editorial is an offence worthy of calls to be sacked, while leading the country into war under false pretences, resulting is thousands of civilian casualties and an increase in regional instability isn't?Some people need to get in touch with the real world and discover a sense of proportion. And for any scousers reading this, tough sh*t.
All credit to Boris for apologising, something Blair seems totally incapable of.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 15, 2004
Freedom
If you are not aware, Indymedia is a news source and media coordination body for the anti-globalisation movement, along with other social justice campaigns. It would appear that they have now got their UK-based webservers back from the FBI, after the Feds siezed them under the auspices of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty on the 7th October 2004. The chain of cause and effect appears to be seriously tangled, and at certain points it seems that the various authorities have indulged in almost illegal acts.The process started with a request from the Swiss and Italian authorities, made to the FBI, on the basis that the Swiss and Italians didn't like what was being said about them on the site. The FBI then obtained a court order which was served against the hosting company Rackspace. The treaty was invoked, Blunkett quite happily looked the other way and the hosting company caved in, handing over the servers.
Now the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty is designed to facilitate international cooperation in cases of terrorism or kidnapping, not to allow governments to bully independant voices simply because they don't like what is being said about them. Yet Blunkett was quite happy for this abuse to take place.
Indymedia are back up and running, but there are major concerns as to the use the authorities may make of confidential documents (including possible legal correspondance). The Electronic Frontier Foundation is providing assistance to Indymedia, but this is a disturbing development in the battle between free speech and the maintenance of power.
(Thanks to Scaryduck for the link)
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 14, 2004
Labour Needs Leadership Change
In spite of all the evidence showing Blair's justifications for the war in Iraq to built a tissue of lies, evasions and distortions, the man just continues to refuse to apologise. Worse still, neither Gordon Brown nor the Labour Party seem motivated to rid themselves (and us) of this turbulent Prime Minister.Now over at ImpeachBlair.org they have announced the team that will draft the articles of impeachment. While I continue to support their efforts, I feel we are now at a stage where every legitimate avenue must be explored in an effort to get rid of Tony Blair.
One option I thought about was whether all the opposition parties could come to some agreement that only one candidate would stand against Blair in his Sedgefield constituency at the next election. While fine in theory - and sometimes in practice as I'm sure the Hamilton's still remember - it isn't as easy as it seems. Even assuming that the first hurdle, that of getting all the opposition parties to agree to the scheme, can be surmounted, then there is still a mountain to climb. At the last general election, Blair had a majority of 17,713 over the second placed candidate. Even if all the votes for candidates other than Blair were to go to a single independant, then Blair would have a majority of 11962. So the challenge is to identify a candidate and a campaign that can cut Blair's share of the vote by 15%. Anyone who has any constructive ideas, please get in touch.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bloggage
Son out of hospital, server move completed, new bloggage later today. --------Posted by Clive at 9:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 7, 2004
Taxing Times
A classic example of how joined up our government isn't. This week the Inland Revenue won a case at the Special Commisioners. Under the IR's new interpretation of Section 660 of fiscal legislation introduced in 1936 (yup, it has taken the Inland Revenue nearly 70 years to suss this one), husbands and wives who both draw dividends from family firms will be treated as if all the income was the husband's, thus preventing a wife making use of her personal allowance and lower rates of income tax.There are a number of interesting aspects to this case. Firstly it is effectively challenging the concept of sexual equality by treating a wife's income as being her husband's. It also contradicts divorce law whereby a wife may be entitled to half of her husband's business, regardless of whether or not she has had any direct input in the development of the business. It also is a reversal of the trend towards seperate taxation of individuals. Finally, the IR is effectively moving the goalposts after 70 years, without warning and without the introduction of new tax legislation.
Now you may consider the above to simply be high-earners whinging about paying more tax, but remember, this is the government that is trying to encourage more entreprenuers. How the hell they expect people to start up and run businesses when the tax system can be altered so radically and arbitrarily is beyond me. The finger of blame points fairly and squarely at Gordon Brown and Dawn Primarolo (who, for those with short memories, refused to pay her poll tax yet now brands most small business people as tax evaders). And it isn't the first time they've got it wrong. They introduced the £10,000 corporation tax allowance against the advice of taxation and accountancy specialists, and then seemed surprised when vast numbers of businesses took advantage and incorporated. Then rather than admit to making a mistake, they introduced another tax and at the same time branded those who took advantage of the system as tax evaders.
However, in spite of what the Inland Revenue would have people think, the decision by the commissioners was not clear cut. There were two commissioners hearing the case, and they disagreed on virtually every point. The Inland Revenue only won by virtue of the presiding commissioner having a casting vote. This has left room for appeal, and this case can be expected to go all the way to the High Court.
So once again we have a situation where Gordon Brown's desire to squeeze every last penny out of the tax system (which is easier for him than a serious and concerted effort to reform the state benefit system and eradicate benefit fraud) has put the Inland Revenue at odds with almost every other aspect of relevant current law. In fact this approach has led to so much confusion and uncertainty that even as the Commissioner's judgement was being published, other government websites were still offering contradictory advice. Over on the Business Linkwebsite, under the secton on Family run businesses the site says:
If desired, family-members' renumeration can be topped up by other means - through regular share dividends, for example
Now that's what I call joined up government, one government department (DTI) giving advice that will cause you a whole heap of grief with another (IR). Business Link actually goes on to suggest that further information can be found on the website of accountancy firm of Grant Thornton. And checking their online Family Business Centre we find this little gem under Renumeration for Family Members:
Alternatively, and if it fits in with the long term share structure of the company, family members could be given a class of shares which pays a regular dividend to top up their market value salary.
I've been running a business for nearly 14 years, and things have got harder over the last 7. I'm not referring to the challenges of finding customers, but just the level of aggravation involved in dealing with the government. The taxation system just gets more and more complicated as Gordon Brown attempts to raise more revenue without openly putting up taxes; we're expected to manage a vast array of tax credits (instead of benefits), effectively becoming unpaid tax inspectors/collectors yet at the same time try and actually keep our customers satisfied. I have no objection - in principle - to taxation, but let's try and keep the system honest and fair. Rather than tinkering and fiddling, freezing allowances, introducing credits that are nigh on impossible to claim, transfering the burden of red tape to the businessman, changing the interpretation of existing legislation without warning; instead of all that, let's move to a more open and simple approach to taxation. Since becoming Chancellor, Gordon Brown has effectively introduced more than 60 new taxes, and while I can applaud his intentions in raising funds to improve public services, I have to condemn him for the approach he has taken.
--------
Posted by Clive at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 6, 2004
Hmmm
Just noticed that the UKIP has chosen purple as its party colour.Which just happens to be the thematic colour chosen by Fathers 4 Justice for both their website and their flour bombs.
Hmmm. Purple, this season's colour for swivel-eyed loons.
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Conservatives
It looks like being a good week so far for the Conservatives, especially after their dismal performance in the Hartlepool by-election. Not only does their party conference appear to be getting reasonable coverage, but their slightly low key approach seems to be having a positive effect.Robert Kilroy-Silk also gave them a helping hand, by scoring a massive own goal at the weekend. Not content with upsetting Roger Knapman (leader of the UKIP) by suggesting that he wants to be leader, the grey haired egomaniac then managed to alienate the party's main donor, Paul Sykes by suggesting that he wanted to kill the Tories.
Oh, and their website appears to have had a makeover, and looks quite tidy, not to mention better than Labour's current offering, though that's obviously a matter of opinion on design and not a reflection on policies or content.
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Oops
Not a good week so far for getting things right.First the EU manages to lose Wales, somehow confusing the eastern bank of the River Severn with the Irish Sea coastline.
Then the Royal Navy sold a dodgy second-hand submarine to the Canadian Navy, which promptly burst into flames 120 miles of the Irish Coast.
Meanwhile Wayne Rooney's fiancee managed to forget to declare £10,000 worth of shopping she brought back from America. Instead choosing the "Nothing to Declare" channel when passing though customs at Manchester Airport.
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Justice
The Law Lords are currently hearing the appeals of nine foreign nationals against their detention without charge or trial as claimed supporters of terrorist groups. The case with undoubtedly involve discussion of numerous legal subtleties, but David Pannick QC, representing Liberty, has already raised an interesting point.[David Pannick] said the Home Secretary had ordered the men's detention on grounds of crime and not immigration as government lawyers had suggested.
He said if that was the case then why did the 2001 anti-terrorism law not apply to British citizens? The answer, said Mr Pannick, was that ministers knew it would be unacceptable to Parliament and the British public.
The response of the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is interesting. He has told the Law Lords that:
The government believes it was a legitimate and appropriate response to protect the human rights of the suspected international terrorists by not exporting them to death and torture, and to protect the human rights of citizens here. We took the view that, if these people cannot be deported, they should not be allowed to roam free on the streets and so they had to be detained.
Right, so the government's defence is that we were trying to do right by everyone, protecting both the detained and the British public. What a load of cobblers. If they had evidence that these people were a potential threat to the safety of this nation, then let a court decide. Instead of which we are faced with a situation where detention is based purely on the Home Secretary's interpretation of intelligence material. Now we all know how good members of this government are at interpreting the outpourings of MI5 and MI6 (45 minutes anyone?). Not to mention the quality of the intelligence gathered (we can all spell WMDs).
And in case anyone has forgotten, Lord Goldsmith was the man who declared the invasion of Iraq to be legal. So don't go looking for straight answers in this case. Instead we shall be presented once more with weasel words, evasions and probably downright lies from the government's legal apologist.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
War
The Iraq Survey Group will shortly be publishing a report into its hunt for Saddam's WMDs. The Group's conclusion is that Saddam had no WMDs, although it will state that his intentions were to start production in defiance of UN sanctions.Jack Straw immediatly used the report to justify the invasion of Iraq, stating that the threat from Saddam Hussein in terms of his intentions [was] even starker than we have seen before. Which only goes to show what a strange perception our Foreign Secretary has with regards to threats. If you cast your mind back to the run up to war, you'll undoubtedly remember the claim that Saddam could unleash his (now proven to be non-existant) WMDs in 45 minutes.
It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; - Tony Blair, House of Commons speech, 24 September 2002.
And Jack Straw reckons that Saddam being possessed of the intention to start production is more frightening than the possibility of WMD use with only 45 minutes notice!
In effect Jack Straw is accusing Saddam of thought crime, that merely desiring to possess WMDs is a crime itself. We shouldn't be too surprised by this attitude on the part of Mr Straw, as it is symptomatic of the British Government's attitudes towards any persons or groups it considers undesirable. One need only look at the treatment of foreign nationals detained without charge or trial on suspicion of supporting terrorist organisations to realise that this government places the maintenance of its power way above any principles of justice and democracy.
Yet more entertainment was provided by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who on monday questioned whether the alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda ever existed. Which is another nail in the coffin of Blair's duplicitous justification for war. Looking back to January 2003, Blair told parliament that We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. This was further reinforced by a Foreign Office spokesman who said We believe that there have been, and still are, some al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq controlled by Baghdad. It is hard to imagine that they are there without the knowledge and acquiescence of the Iraqi Government.
And there you have it. That Saddam was an evil tyrant who had a track record of massive abuses against his own population is beyond question. But this war was sold to parliament and the public on the grounds that a) Saddam had WMDs and was a threat because he could deploy them in 45 minutes, and b) there were clear links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It is now obvious that both those justifications were false. The only question remaining is the real reason for our involvment in the war. One man can answer that, Tony Blair, but I doubt that anyone in this country still believes anything he says on the matter.
Yet there is no sign of any resolution to the unholy mess the US and the UK have created in Iraq. Lives have been, and continue to be lost as the allies demonstrate a complete lack of ability to restore stability to Iraq. Instead we have managed to create a fertile ground into which the seeds of future terrorist atrocities have been planted. Far from making the world safer, the actions of our government have instead played directly into the hands of global terrorists. Indeed, given the conduct and behaviour of our leaders, their lack of respect for justice, democracy and basic human rights it is hard to distinguish between the likes of Bin Laden, Hussein and al-Zarqawi and Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld or Blunkett.
You can do something about this. All it requires is the will to act.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 4, 2004
Labour Needs Leadership Change
This weekend witnessed Tony Blair's apparent decision to sacrifice the long-term future of the Labour Party and the country on the alter of his vanity. First we had Labour party conference at which Blair not only failed to apologise for the mess he has helped make in Iraq, but actually managed to manipulate the situation such that Composite 6 was defeated. This is effectively the Labour leadership telling the country that in spite of our concerns; in spite of the increased instability resulting from the invasion of Iraq; in spite of the electorate's opposition; in spite of everything, the Labour Party is committed to continued occupation and conflict in Iraq. And Blair's radical agenda was built on a reliance on union block votes rather than a more democratic approach.Then we witnessed Blair's heart problems, first manifested a year ago, but which now required an operation to resolve. In itself no big deal, but afterwards Blair felt it necessary to show just how fit and ready to go on he was by announcing his intention to see out a full third term. The consequence of this statement will undoubtedly be to effectively start a leadership campaign before the next election has even been announced. Indeed even Blair seems to have had second thoughts regarding the announcement, effectively becoming his own spin doctor in an effort to undo the damage caused by his ill conceived statement.
Meanwhile the Conservatives go into their Party Conference in Bournemouth in more than just a bit of a mess. Coming fourth behind the UKIP in the Hartlepool by-election was a fitting result for such a lackadaisical campaign, but with the party still struggling to find a purpose and a direction, poll results won't make for easy reading for Michael Howard.
Yet there is a warning for the Labour Party to be found in the Conservatives current state. There was a time when the Tories had a powerful and authoritarian leader who would not accept disagreement in the ranks. The same leader who implemented and stuck by massively unpopular policies. Indeed there are many similarities between Blair today and Thatcher in 1989/90, and many between the parties. Both were possessed of massive majorities in Parliament and both believed the opposition to be a spent force, vanquished to the political shadowlands.
That John Major won in 1992 was considered by many to be a miracle. Yet win he did, and that pyrrhic victory effectively condemned the party to the position it occupies today. The same could happen to Labour. Blair might very well win an historic third term, but the cost to the Labour Party will be high. If the next election leaves Blair to govern with a majority of only 60 or 70 (down from 168 in 2001 and 189 in 1997) then he will find himself vulnerable. His chances of seeing out a full term under such circumstances seem slim, and yet a bloody leadership campaign could well inflict near fatal damage upon the party. Any successor to Blair might very well find the leadership to be a poisoned chalice, with only eventual defeat to look forward to.
Yet there is a solution to all this. As his stance on Iraq, his dithering over a referendum on the European Constitution and his misguided statements on the leadership have shown, Tony Blair no longer seems possessed of good judgment. With the Conference behind him, concerns about his health still being expressed, and his own undoubted personal concerns regarding his family, who would blame him for standing down in a statesman-like manner? The next election doesn't have to be held until May 2006, which would leave plenty of time for a new leader to be found. I suspect that the electorate would look favourably upon such a change, and Labour could look forward to a more productive and protracted period in power.
The question is whether or not Blair will see things this way, or whether people such as John Prescott can make him see reason. The (ever decreasing) period of time between now and the next election presents Labour with two choices; a change of leadership and a potentially bold and bright future after Blairism, or a stubborn determination to stick with damaged goods and a decline into the political swamp of mediocrity. To quote Macbeth, If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly. Any delay can only inflict greater damage.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tax Cuts
Once again, the Tories trot out what they believe to be their best weapon in any election battle, namely tax cuts. Oliver Letwin has targeted 8 unfair stealth taxes which the Conservatives would like to be able to promise to cut come the next general election. And if that isn't a vague objective, then I don't know what is.Yet the most frustrating aspect of this Tory desire to be able to promise tax cuts is that they aren't even considering addressing the one Labour stealth tax that would have a significant impact. I refer, of course, the £5 billion per year tax on pension fund dividends. Now for sure that is a significant amount of revenue to have to find from other sources, but it would have the effect of a) showing that the Conservatives were making a substantial and credible effort to reverse the pensions crisis that has arisen under Labour and b) woo the older voters, who now comprise a substantial proportion of those people who actually vote.
Instead I expect the Conservative conference to be full of speeches making vague commitments without actually promising anything. And once again the Tories will have failed in their duty as the official opposition.
--------
Posted by Clive at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 1, 2004
Hartlepool
Well the voting is over and the electorate of Hartlepool have spoken. Labour have retained the seat, but their majority of 14,571 at the last election was slashed to a paltry 2,033 last night, so hardly a resounding endorsement of Iain Wright. Just as interesting is the fact that the UKIP pushed the Conservatives into 4th placePeter Hain tried to spin the reduced majority in a positive light,
It is terrific news for Tony Blair in a week when actually he has been hammered in the newspapers and by the critics.
but only a fool would consider last night's result terrific news for Labour. Hartlepool should have been won comfortably, and alarm bells must now be ringing in Labour HQ at the realisation that last nights swing from Labour could prove extremely damaging at the next election.
For possible comment on what last night's result would mean at a general election, check out Anthony Wells.
On the ground comment from Guacamoleville.
Hopefully Jody Dunn (LibDem) will post later this morning.
--------
Posted by Clive at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack