« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 31, 2006
And so it begins
As I noted over a week ago, "There is something of 1914 in the air."
And as Iran is referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear development program, that sense of foreboding is reinforced:
The Guardian - Iran papers reveal 'uranium warhead instructions'
That pressure increased today when Russia and China joined US and European efforts to refer Iran to the UN security council. A London meeting of foreign ministers from the council's five permanent members - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - agreed to consider a report in March from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Tehran's activities.
Ali Larijani, Iran's senior nuclear negotiator, said such a move would put an end to efforts to resolve the crisis peacefully. "Reporting Iran's dossier to the UN security council will be unconstructive and the end of diplomacy," he said.
This is just the sort of scenario Bush will be slavering over. And this time Blair will be able to claim U.N. support for any action against Iran.
What I find surprising is that Russia and China should come around to the position of referral so quickly. This is significant given the scale of their trade links with Iran, not to mention the offer by the Russians to carry out fuel enrichment for the Iranians.
A French government official told the Associated Press that the Russian and Chinese ministers had been persuaded of the need to show a united front.
I can't help wondering just what sort of persuasion was used. Are we once again going to see a network of dodgy deals and agreements lock us in to an inexorable path to war?
Posted by Clive at 3:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
When is a lie not a lie?
When it is an untruth apparently!
BBC - In their report on Tuesday, MPs on the Commons standards and privileges committee said Mr Byers was not guilty of "contempt" of Parliament, despite being untruthful.
"We do not believe, on the evidence we have seen, that Mr Byers lied to the transport sub-committee as alleged," says the committee.
In fact it would appear that forgetting the reason for giving a misleading or dishonest answer is sufficient to make it an untruth rather than a lie.
The Guardian - The convoluted row centred on an answer given to the transport select committee in 2001 by Mr Byers, denying that he had made plans to pull the plug on Railtrack.
During a high court battle with Railtrack shareholders last year, Mr Byers was forced to admit in court that this was untrue, although he could not remember why he gave the answer.
This goes a long way to explaining why Blair doesn't believe he lied to the country over the reasons for going to war in Iraq; because all he was doing was being un-truthful. Or perhaps had conveniently forgotten his original reasons.
And our government has the temerity to wonder why we have so little respect for them.
Posted by Clive at 3:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 27, 2006
Wimps
West Berkshire Council demonstrated Wednesday night that they are either spineless, thoughtless or in love with the nuclear weapons business. At a planning meeting, the Council's planning committee gave the go-ahead to the expansion of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. As I pointed out on Wednesday, this was effectively the last-chance saloon, a final opportunity for the council to request a public inquiry.
Alas, the Council decided jobs were more important than safety, lives and the environment.
The next step is to try and request a judicial review, something that the Nuclear Information Service are already considering.
Posted by Clive at 9:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 25, 2006
Polaris, Chevaline, Trident and ???
Waaay back in the early 1980's if you'd wandered through Reading you had a good chance of being accosted by some scruffy looking oik or smartly dressed member of the clergy and firmly enlightened as to the risks of global nuclear war; the scruffy oik may even have been me.
At the time we were protesting against the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham Common, the deployment of the Chevaline upgrade to Polaris, and the announcement of Trident. Chevaline had cost nearly £1bn, making it the largest "secret" peacetime military program in British history; and Trident was eventually to cost more than £12bn.
Then with the "collapse of communism", the need for strategic nuclear weapons seemed to have disappeared, at least in the minds of rational people. After all, who could we use them against, and would the Americans allow us to use them in an independant manner? But we'd spent the money on swords instead of ploughshares so we were stuck with Trident. At least it seemed that we'd moved beyond the era of nuclear weapons development other than activities necessary for the maintenance of Trident.
In 1993, the Labour Party conference voted to cancel Trident and stop nuclear testing, a position also made clear in Parliament.
Hansard - Oral Answers to Questions Defence Procurement
Mr. Corbyn : Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for a serious review of Britain's defence expenditure, which now totals more than £23 billion a year? Should not we cancel the nuclear missile programme and consign all nuclear missiles back to base as part of a programme of worldwide disarmament? Should not we try to cut conventional expenditure to at least the European average, which would save £6 billion a year? Should not we also ensure that skilled workers who are at present manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and other forms of armaments are put to making socially useful products, including materials for the health service and housing industry--and recognise that world peace is best achieved by people working for peace rather than by arming themselves for war?
Now fast-forward to 2006, a Labour government is in power, the former Soviet Union presents no significant threat requiring an independant nuclear deterrent and Trident has many years of life left in it. Throw in phased withdrawal and life extension programs, and Trident could still be in service for 20 to 30 years at least.
So how has the situation arisen where H.M.G. is allocating significant funds for nuclear weapons research, monies that are already being spent:
The Herald - Faslane to have £125m facelift
Defence chiefs gave the go-ahead for the investment to try to attract the navy's best staff to the nuclear submarine base.
Surely if Trident is merely to be maintained, then no expansion of Faslane is required? And why try to attract the brightest and best?
More telling are the expansion plans - already at the planning application stage - for AWE Aldermaston.
AWE - AWE Updates Site Development Plans
In a written ministerial statement on 19 July 2005, Dr John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence announced that agreement had been reached to take forward a programme of investment at AWE to ensure that the existing Trident warhead stockpile can be maintained throughout its intended in-service life.
Orion plays an important part in the future of plasma physics research and the facility will be made available for use by the wider academic community such as universities and other centres of research.
Hydrodynamics is the science of shock forces acting on solid materials. AWE has led the world in this area of science and plans to maintain the lead with the construction of a new hydrodynamics research facility – known as a Core Punch Facility.
The existing facility, HELEN, proved sufficient for the development of the Trident warheads, so if they are just to be life extended is there any need for enhanced facilities? The AWE press release may actually reveal more than intended, and ORION may be about more than just Trident life-extension.
ORION is an important factor in plasma physics research, and Aldermaston also specialises in hydrodynamics, the science of shock forces acting on solid materials
It would seem to me more likely that Aldermaston is expanding to facilitate research into nuclear bunker busters, along lines similar to programs in the U.S. which have received congressional approval.
ContraCosta Times - Report claims warhead program would promote new nukes
The DOE's Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which recently received $25 million in congressional funding for a second year of feasibility studies, is a "slippery slope to new nuclear weapons," according to the author of the new report, physicist Robert Civiak. He worked for more than a decade on national security issues in the president's Office of Managem
Now nuclear bunker busters seriously blur the line regarding the use of atomic weapons in warfare. To some military planners the use of nuclear bunker busters would not constitute the first use of atomic weapons in combat. With a subterranean detonation it would be difficult initially to determine whether or not the explosion was nuclear, but might trigger a nuclear response on the part of the nation thus attacked.
Michel Chossudovsky - The Dangers of Nuclear War: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky
I should mention that these tactical nuclear weapons, which are often referred to as 'mini-nukes,' are now in a sense re-classified - in fact they are considered as conventional weapons and the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred following a decision in the U.S. Senate, December 2003, which essentially allows for these so-called mini nukes to be used in conventional war theatres and in fact, the senate decision was reached after a propaganda campaign waged by the Pentagon, which enlisted nuclear scientists to the fact these nuclear bombs were harmless to civilians, quote, unquote. That's exactly the term they used, that these nuclear weapons are "harmless to civilians" because the explosion is underground, and the system of delivery would be very similar to the conventional bunker buster bombs.
So it looks like our government wants to join an exclusive club without recourse to Parliament, or at best with debate conducted under misleading terms.
And why is there no significant debate on the matter in the mainstream media?
George Monbiot has this to say on the matter:
The defence secretary explains that a new missile system is necessary because “some countries” have not been “complying with their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty”(5). In response, therefore, the UK will refuse to comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. This provides other countries with their justification for … well, you’ve got the general idea.
Now in theory Berkshire County Council could delay matters by asking for a public inquiry into the expansion plans for Aldermaston, though we'll know tomorrow whether or not they have stepped up to the plate. And even if an inquiry is requested, the Government is under no obligation to grant it. So once again it is up to people on the ground to do what they can in the face of Government arrogance and indifference.
I thought, over the years as I grew up, that our society might have grown too; that as we left the Cold War behind us, so our nation would abandon the trappings of that era and - albeit slowly - get rid of our nuclear weapons. In my naivety I stopped supporting CND, not maliciously, but simply in a belief that there were other things to worry about.
I was wrong. So I'm going to signup and do what I can, and I ask you to do the same.
More on CND's campaign against the expansion of the AWE can be found here.
Posted by Clive at 3:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Some hae meat and canna eat
Another year, another Burns Night complete with Haggis, Neaps and Tatties. Unless you're a Scottish school child, as the Scottish Executive has decreed that Scotland's national dish be lumped in with other culinary nightmares, such as Turkey Twizzlers, that should be served to children no more than once a week.
Luckily First Minister Jack McConnell has stepped in to reassure butchers across the nation that haggis will not be banned after all.
The Scotsman - Anger as Executive lumps in haggis with hot dogs
Alan Pirie of James Pirie and Son, reigning Scottish haggis masters, said: "With good turnips and potatoes, there's nothing more nutritious than haggis. It's made of all natural ingredients - there's no rubbish in it at all. To compare it with processed meat like chicken nuggets or hot dogs is just ridiculous."
Personally, I hold Jamie Oliver wholly responsible. If he'd just included a haggis-based dish on one of his all-to-familiar TV programmes, none of this would have happened.
Posted by Clive at 1:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Rendition - Old News Worthy of Investigation
At least the Europeans seem to be taking an interest in investigating CIA rendition activities.
BBC - Europe 'knew about' CIA Flights
European governments were almost certainly aware of the CIA's secret prisoner flights via European airspace or airports, a key report has said.
"Acts of torture or severe violation of detainees' dignity through the administration of inhuman or degrading treatment are carried out outside national territory, and beyond the authority of national intelligence services...
"It is highly unlikely that European governments, or at least their intelligence services, were unaware," the report said.
So, given that there is a high profile issue regarding rendition flights, sovereignty and what the intelligence services may, or may not, be telling national governments, surely there is a great need to investigate matters at a national level?
Not in the U.K. there isn't, according to an article at ePolitix:
So no need to investigate any related matters then I suppose. Such as how ministers were misled by the Foreign Office?
The Belfast Telegraph - Minister admits misleading peers over rendition
In a written reply to a question from to Liberal Democrat Lord Oakeshott, Lord Triesman explained why he told peers that Foreign Office officials had not held talks with the UN on the alleged use of British airports for secret CIA flights, before admitting that a meeting had taken place.
Once again Blair tries the "There's nothing to see here. Move along." approach to covering up the failings of his government. Well regardless of whether the news is old or new, it is worthy of investigation.
UPDATE - 12:25
Excellent information available at the New Statesman
An honest answer from Howells might have looked like this: "The government has no idea whether renditions have taken place in the past few years and nor do we know whether any requests have been made for British co-operation. If they have they are almost certainly illegal, but we have decided to back the US government anyway because it has promised that it would not allow anyone to be tortured - though it doesn't mind a bit of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."
Also from the same source:
Irfan Siddig's memo from December 2005
(Links courtesy of Bloggerheads)
Posted by Clive at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Luke 6:41-42 - The Fallout Continues
The blogging fallout from Guido and Recess Monkey's pissed-up podcast continues. Over at Bloggerheads Manic provides an excellent appraisal of the whole sordid issue (the podcast that is, not Oaten's revelations).
Meanwhile over at Blood and Treasure, Jamie gives our two drunken podcast stars some excellent advice on why acting like a couple of prurient and pissed public schoolboys may well prove to be more than a little counter-productive.
Of course the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether the whole thing wasn't intended as anything more than a grandiose exercise in vanity and self-publicity. And having listened to the podcast, read the Popbitch item and the story in the Screws, it looks like they can't even claim any real credit for breaking any story - apart from how sad and pathetic bloggers can be at times.
As Elton John sang; oops, another homosexual there. Wonder how Guido and Monkey would about Elton hanging around outside a playground. Probably be fine about it because he's rich and famous, though as a slaphead, albeit syrup wearing, he musht be a little shushpect shurely? Anyway, as Elton sang, sorry seems to be the hardest word, and I'm certainly not expecting any such generous gesture from Guido or Monkey.
Posted by Clive at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
25 Years Ago
25 years ago today, 4 misguided Labour Party members effectively condemned their party to 3 consecutive general election defeats and 16 years of opposition. They also set in motion a train of events that eventually gave us New Labour and Blairism.
The four people were David Owen, Roy Jenkins, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams, whose Limehouse Declaration should be remembered as a lesson for cowards and traitors everywhere.
The calamitous outcome of the Labour Party Wembley conference demands a new start in British politics. A handful of trade union leaders can now dictate the choice of a future Prime Minister.
The conference disaster is the culmination of a long process by which the Labour Party has moved steadily away from its roots in the people of this country and its commitment to parliamentary government.
We propose to set up a Council for Social Democracy. Our intention is to rally all those who are committed to the values, principles and policies of social democracy.
We seek to reverse Britain’s economic decline. We want to create an open, classless and more equal society, one which rejects ugly prejudices based upon sex, race or religion.
A first list of those who have agreed to support the council will be announced at an early date.
Some of them have been actively and continuously engaged in Labour politics. A few were so engaged in the past, but have ceased to be so recently. Others have been mainly active in spheres outside party politics.
We do not believe the fight for the ideals we share and for the recovery of our country should be limited only to politicians. It will need the support of men and women in all parts of our society.
The council will represent a coming together of several streams: politicians who recognise that the drift towards extremism in the Labour Party is not compatible with the democratic traditions of the party they joined and those from outside politics who believe that the country cannot be saved without changing the sterile and rigid framework into which the British political system has increasingly fallen in the last two decades.
We do not believe in the politics of an inert centre merely representing the lowest common denominator between two extremes.
We want more, not less, radical change in our society, but with a greater stability of direction.
Our economy needs a healthy public sector and a healthy private sector without frequent frontier changes.
We want to eliminate poverty and promote greater equality without stifling enterprise or imposing bureaucracy from the centre. We need the innovating strength of a competitive economy with a fair distribution of rewards.
We favour competitive public enterprise, co-operative ventures and profit sharing.
There must be more decentralisation of decision making in industry and government, together with an effective and practical system of democracy at work.
The quality of our public and community services must be improved and they must be made more responsive to people’s needs. We do not accept that mass unemployment is inevitable. A number of countries, mainly those with social democratic governments, have managed to combine high employment with low inflation.
Britain needs to recover its self-confidence and be outward-looking, rather than isolationist, xenophobic or neutralist.
We want Britain to play a full and constructive role within the framework of the European Community, Nato, the United Nations and the Commonwealth.
It is only within such a multi-lateral framework that we can hope to negotiate international agreements covering arms control and disarmament and to grapple effectively with the poverty of the Third World.
We recognise that for those people who have given much of their lives to the Labour Party, the choice that lies ahead will be deeply painful. But we believe that the need for a realignment of British politics must now be faced.
The formation of the SDP resulted in the defection of 29 Labour MPs, all of them moderates, leaving the centrists in the Labour Party fragmentmented and isolated. As a consequence the Labour Party was unable to present a coherent, realistic and broad-based opposition to Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives at a time when it was so badly needed. Worse still, their departure led to a rise to prominence and power of the worst elements of the extreme left of the Party, leaving the public with a looney left image that took years to shift.
Had they stayed, it is likely that they could have helped to bring about the modernisation and reform which the Labour Party was in need of. And with reform would have come a return to government after a far shorter time in opposition which would have helped to disuade the Party from supporting New Labour/Blairism. How many Party Members supported the direction Blair was leading the Party, but gave their support in almost desparation after 18 years of opposition? Without 18 years in the wilderness, would the dumping of Clause 4 have even been considered, let alone achieved?
And did the Gang of Four really achieve a realignment in British Politics?
Barely a year after the Limehouse Declaration came the Falklands War. Thatcher went from being one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers to become the Iron Lady, Blessed St Margaret who could do no wrong. On a tidal wave of popularism, she went to the country in 1983 and won a resounding victory. In that election, the SDP polled almost as many votes as Labour, albeit winning fewer seats. How different would the 1983-1987 Parliament have been had the SDP not diluted the Left? And Williams and Rodgers both suffered defeat in the Polls, so although 1983 may have been the highwater mark of the SDP, it wasn't particularly high.
Then the rump of the SDP decided to merge with the Liberals to become the LibDems, while Owen ploughed a lonely furrow until the SDP candidate in the Bootle by-election of 1991 polled fewer votes than Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party.
For Labour 1983 brought a change in leader, with Neil Kinnock replacing Michael Foot. Although a former left winger, Kinnock brought a moderate stance to the leadership, going as far to lambast Militant and attacking the Militant-dominated Liverpool Council in 1985. But it was an uphill struggle. With the original defection of moderates, a vacuum was left in the centre of the Party, a vacuum that would eventually be filled by people such as Mandelson, Blair et al.
How different would Labour have looked in 1992 without the defections of 11 years earlier? How different would the Country have looked with a moderate Labour government elected in 1992, instead of a further 5 years of dogmatic, shambling Conservative government under John Major.
The Limehouse Declaration may be 25 years old today, but I for one will not be celebrating.
Posted by Clive at 9:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Strange Bedfellows
The strangest of people can sometimes find themselves united (sort of) in support of the most unlikely of causes. And what more odder bedfellows than the BNP and Christian Voice? That's right, Nick Griffin's bunch of neo-fascist bullies and Stephen Green's rabid God-bothers and upholders of Hairy Whitemouse's moral legacy have actually found a common cause in opposing the national tour of Jerry Springer - The Opera.
Entertainingly, Christian Voice has denounced the BNP's involvement, the Revd Hollins claiming:
I would be appalled to think any of our leaflet distributors were members of the BNP. They are purveyors of hate and we are purveyors of love. We're Christians.
Err right. It must be a pretty strange form of love that he practises then. After all, we're talking about Christian Voice here, the group who's leader, Stephen Green, saw nothing wrong in publicising the home addresses and telephone numbers of BBC in protest at the Corporations screening of Jerry Springer - The Opera last year.
Stephen Green who loves to quote such loving bible passages as Dueteronomy 28 v20
The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
Yup, that's love alright.
Personally I find extreme groups of any kind highly distasteful. My only hope is that such overlapping purposes results in the discrediting of both organisations, and that no innocent people are harmed by their protests.
Posted by Clive at 11:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Big Brother - Bigger than what?
Is our society really so stuffed that a TV show can be considered more important than an issue directly affecting thousands of lives, or above the due process of the law?
Week before last, I made reference to George Galloway's presence in the Big Brother house getting in the way of his representing his constituents in the CrossRail debate in Parliament.
In the latest development - and I'm not refering to Essex slapper Chantelle being up for eviction - lawyers representing Michael Barrymore are trying to get the Lubbock family's private prosecution adjourned until Barrymore either wins the competition or is evicted from the BB house.
Big Brother makers Endemol Productions have not given legal representatives access to Mr Barrymore during the show.
So not only does the family of Stuart Lubbock have to face Barrymore parading himself on Big Brother, but now they may have to wait longer for an opportunity to seek closure in the matter of Stuart's death. Big Brother is a tawdry excuse for entertainment which has about as much in common with "reality" as religion does with truth. Yet Endemol see no need to consider any higher authorities.
Indeed, had there been anyone at Endemol with any conscience at all, they would never have approached Galloway or Barrymore with a view to their participation on Big Brother. Or, having been approached themselves, Endemol could (and should) have exercised some judgement and turned them down.
Though maybe I shouldn't be so harsh. If they as a company consider Barrymore and Galloway et al, to be appropriate participants, it is only because the viewers of Big Brother themselves can see nothing wrong in their presence in the BB House.
In which case it is possible that Big Brother does reflect reality, a reality in which a significant number of people consider justice and democracy to be trivial in comparison to the entertainment provided by a televised freak show.
Posted by Clive at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Luke 6:41-42
Or why my respect for Guido and Recess Monkey has fallen faster than a DC10.
Okay, so Mark Oaten displayed a massive failure of judgement in, depending on your point of view, indulging in a socially dangerous practice of using the services of male prostitutes, or thinking that he could run for leader of the LibDems without the secret being outed.
But for chrissakes, he was only running for leadership of the LibDems, and not he wasn't a front runner even then. Does he really deserve the public humiliation and villification, the effecting trashing of not only his life but those of his wife and daughters?
If you want to hang Oaten, hang him for his support a couple of years ago for a Private Members Bill advocating ID cards. Or shoot him for changing his mind by the election last year. Me, I'd take him to task for supporting the SDP in the early 80's. What I wouldn't do is hold him to public account for his sexual preferences.
So maybe Guido and Monkey feel they represent a new upswing in public morality. Or perhaps they are possesed of an intensely puritanical streak. More likely though, they're just a couple of arrogant sh*ts, too full of themselves to admit they've ever made a mistake, taking delight in someone elses mistake. Because at the end of the day, Oaten was pretty inconsequential on the politcal scale of things, and his indiscretions were unlikey to ever give rise to any real public concern.
"Ah," comes the response, "but what about hypocrisy? How can a man who uses rent boys also support a policy aimed at restricting and reducing prostitution?".
Well, for starters let's just take a moment to realise that party policies are generally a matter of collective responsibility (outside of the Labour Party at least). So just because Oaten supports a policy doesn't mean he is the sole person behind it.
And if hypocrisy were justification for destroying a families life, then the Palace of Westminister would be deserted save for the shambling figures of broken men and women sacrificed on the alter of drunken, arrogant and boastful hubris.
Which brings me back to the title of this piece.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
If this is the way British political blogging is going to take scalps, then those of us who care may just as well give up now. Because when a opportunity comes to bring down someone more deserving, the moment will have passed. Squandered by petty individuals with an immature attitude and a penchant for vainglorious pronouncements.
Posted by Clive at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 20, 2006
Who's next?
This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Winston Churchill said those words in 1942. And with results in from Iraq's elections, many might consider that we have reached the beggining of the end; that the War on Terror will cool off.
Personally I don't believe it. I suspect that things are going to get a lot worse for a lot longer before we see any improvement in World peace. And local Labour MP (Rotherham) and former Foreign Office Minister (2001-2005), Dennis MacShane agrees.
In an article in this week's Independent, MacShane writes:
There is something of 1914 in the air. The Greys and Poincarés fret as the wheels of conflict trundle inexorably forward. The Iran crisis brings together every world problem: nuclear weapons in the hands of theo-cons who want to exterminate Jews; the economic future of China; and, above all, the inability of a world system or its most powerful state to impose a solution.
At some point, the people in power will complete their cost-benefit analysis and decide that a pre-emptive strike on Iran is the only way forward. But conflict isn't the solution, as Iraq has proved. The only solution has to be by peaceful means, yet as long as Bush and Rice remain visionless, the almost inexorable drift to war will continue.
Now would be an excellent time for the U.K. to exert what influence it might have over U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately though, there is no one in a position of authority within the government capable of acting in such a moderating manner. Blair and Straw are both irrevocably tarnished by their aquiesence and complicity in the invading of Iraq. And Robin Cook, who had the vision to maintain relations with North Korea and thus retain some influence over that state, is dead.
We failed to stop the invasion of Iraq. If we are to leave any sort of future for our children, we must not fail when, almost inevitably, the U.S. and U.K. decide to move on Iran. War was avoidable in 1914, but a lack of vision and/or willingness to act other than in a habitual manner result in a conflict that destroyed millions of lives. The same malaise infects our foreign policy today.
How many lives this time?
Posted by Clive at 8:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gullible or dishonest
Yesterday I noted that the SNP had produced a list detailling potential rendition flights, including aircraft types and registrations. Can the government categorically state that none of the suspect flights were in contravention of our international obligations?
In a written statement to MPs on the matter of rendition flights using British airports, Jack Straw stated that:
We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 11 September 2001. We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 1997 where there were substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of torture.
So it should be a simple matter for the FO and the security services to produce evidence to corroborate this statement.
Straw further noted that:
We are also clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or airspace (including overseas territory) without our permission.
Really?
Now there is a long track-record of the U.S. being highly selective in what it tells its favourite ally in Europe. While the Government may consider the relationship between the U.S. and U.K. to be special, across the Atlantic it is perceived as convenient.
So either Jack Straw really believes that the U.S. would asked before using British airspace, or he is lying to us.
Either option presents an unedifying image of our Foreign Secretary.
Posted by Clive at 8:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Rendition
About sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices, sacrificial animals think quite differently from those who look on: but they have never been allowed to have their say. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Discussion of the issue of extraordinary rendition and our Government complicity in the matter shows no sign of abating.
Over at Bloggerheads, Manic offers a neat summary of the furore surrounding Jack Straw's evasions when challenged on the use of British airports by U.S. torture flights.
Jack Straw has attempted to deflect blame by claiming that the U.K. has not received a single request from the Bush administration, and only three from the preceding Clinton administration. And strangely enough, this may be the truth. But the absence of any formal request from the U.S. does not constitute proof that the U.S. is not using British airspace. Nor does it exonerate the British government. Does anyone really believe that an America arrogant enough to invade soveriegn countries in complete disregard to international law would see any need to consult with its blinkered poodle of an ally. Indeed the Bush administration may even have thought it was doing Blair a favour by not lodging formal requests.
While Blair tries to focus on the minutae of the leaked memo, the fact of the matter is that it proves that the government was aware that the possibility of such flights using our airspace did exist. And given the possibility, our obligations, both moral and those pertaining to international law made it incumbent on the government to find out exactly what was going on. Looking the other way, or avoiding the asking of awkward questions does not constitute innocence. As a qualified barrister, Straw knows that ignorance is no defence, and to attempt to assert otherwise is disingenius in the extreme.
If the government has nothing to hide, then why would Geoff Hoon claim a debate on the matter would be inappropriate? The SNP has produced a report compiled by aviation experts which lists 10 companies which operate as fronts for the CIA, including aircraft type, registration and landing dates at Scottish airports. It would appear that suspect flights used Prestwick and Glasgow 149 times for refuelling stops since 2001, used RAF Leuchars six times, Inverness five times and Wick twice.
Full details of the suspect flights can be found at Indymedia
A quick glance at that list shows Gulfstream jet (former egistration numbers N379P/N8068V) aka "The Guantanamo Express" though a DC 9 (Registration number N822US) which has been the subject of debate in the Canadian parliament and Norwegian diplomatic enquiries appears absent..
Now such flights will undoubtedly continue, regardless of whether or not the British government refuses permission. But a refusal to investigation constitutes complicity in the act and is an indefensible position for any right-minded government. So once again we are left with confirmation that this Blair government is anything but right-minded.
We are beyond the point of demanding the resignation of specific ministers. This government is drowning in a sordid pit of - at the very least - tacit acceptance of human rights abuses. Those responsible should be brought to justice. I'm sure Blair, Straw et al would enjoy the company of Slobodan Milosevic.
Posted by Clive at 9:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 11, 2006
What the f**k
What the f**k is going on at the DfES? At a time when Tony Blair is pushing his Respect campaign we're faced with a chronic lack of respect for the natural concerns of parent from Ruth Ke;y and the DfES.
Now I'm going to make my position quite clear on the issue of the DfES approving people on the Sex Offenders Register to work in schools. I'm Vice Chair of the Board of Governors at a local C of E Primary School, and we are repeatedly made aware of our duty of care by the LEA, the DfES and - in my case - by the Diocese. And justifiably so. Parents trust schools to not only provide a decent education for their children, but also to offer education in a safe and secure environment.
Which makes it all the more annoying and frustrating when the DfES gives approval for potential (and I use the word advisedly) sex offenders to work in schools. It is all the more galling when Ruth Kelly then admits that the department doesn't know how many such people it has given approval to.
Now when I've calmed down a bit I'll give Ruth Kelly the kicking she so richly deserves, but for now I'm just too bl**dy angry.
Sir Michael Bichard, who headed the Soham inquiry sums things up:
Sir Michael Bichard, meanwhile, said he was "disappointed" the vetting recommendations of his inquiry into the Soham murders had not been acted on.
Ian Huntley was able to get a job as a caretaker at a college on the same grounds as his victims' primary school despite a string of sex allegations against him.
"I was suggesting one barring or registration scheme," Sir Michael told BBC2's Newsnight programme.
"The problem is, as I understand it, that it's not been possible to find a slot in the legislative timetable for the necessary bill."
How on earth can this government not find a slot in the legislative timetable? We're talking about the same government that used the Parliament Act to force through legislation banning hunting with dogs, yet can't find the time to advance legislation protecting our children. Obviousy foxes rank higher on the scale on national importance than children!
Now, I know I'm coming over all Daily Mail with a rant such as this, but if such a person is working in my school, they my balls (along with the rest of the Board of Governors) are on the line. I'm the person angry parents will be having a go at; I'm the person who will have to try and explain just what the f**k is going on.
There is however, a solution which would reassure parents and at the same time inflict intense pressure on the DfES. Every school in the country should write to the DfES requesting formal confirmation than none of the staff working in the school are on the sex offenders register. Now there are somewhere in the region of 3,500 Secondary Schools and approximately18,500 Primary Schools in the UK, those numbers not including public schools and other related institutions. So, with a bit of co-ordination it should be possible to hit the DfES with more than 20,000 requests, covering (at a very rough estimate) 40 staff per school on average. So that'd require the DfES to check up around 800,000 names to see if any were subject to such approval.
Puts it into perspective a bit, doesn't it?
And our imperious leader's response:
Parents' groups have demanded an apology but Downing Street dismissed reports the minister's job was at risk.
A spokesman for Tony Blair said the PM had full confidence in Ms Kelly.
That'd be the same level of confidence that he had in Mandelsson, Byers, Blunkett et al. There again, we're talking about a Labour Government that has, in spite of Blair's 1997 mantra of Education, education, education, published 12 Education White Papers since 1997! Yet is spending less on education as a percentage of GDP than was being spent in 1970. So maybe we're just expecting too much of this government to respect parents, teachers and those of us who give our time voluntarily to help educate our children.
And, as an aside and knowing no intimate details of the case in question, I think it would be safe to say that we're not talking about people who accidentally stumbled upon paedophilic images. Something must have drawn attention to these people. And I want to make it clear that I'm not after a witch hunt for the people approved. It is the DfES and the Secretary of State for Education (and her predecessors) who have created this situation. They are the one upon whom we should focus our opprobrium.
Posted by Clive at 11:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Representation
God bless the Labour Party and affirmative action. According to the Party's latest email to members:
Labour has a long track record on equality issues. We have the highest number of women and ethnic minority members in the UK Parliament than all the other political parties put together. Labour first introduced positive action back in 1997, and since that time has continued to use positive action in selection procedures at a parliamentary, devolved and local government level. We are very proud of what we have achieved so far - but we know there is more to do to ensure the country's governance structures truly represent the communities they serve, not only in terms of women and ethnic minorities but in terms of age, class, sexuality, disability and religion.
Now assuming I was sufficiently motivated to put myself forward as a prospective candidate, I suspect that my personal circumstances might just prove to be a hinderance. Somehow I doubt that the Labour Party would like a white, middle class, married hetrosexual as a parliamentary candidate. Though maybe as a southerner now living in Yorkshire I might qualify on ethnic grounds.
The real problem with Labour's invitation lies in the closing sentence:
but we know there is more to do to ensure the country's governance structures truly represent the communities they serve
As a consequence of Labour's policy on devolution, Scottish MPs (amongst others) can vote on legislation that only affects England (Tuition Fees anyone?).
As a consequence of our electoral system, Labour has an overall majority of 66 MPs on only 36% of the vote.
As a consequence of the current electoral system, it takes nearly twice as many votes to elect a Conservative MP as it does a Labour MP.
In spite of massive opposition to the invasion of Iraq, Blair went ahead.
In spite of massive opposition to ID cars, Blair persists.
In spite of widespread outcry and objections to the erosion of our civil liberties by new anti-terror legislation, Blair persists.
In no way, shape or form has Blair and New Labour improved representation of communities at a national level. And this email once again displays the sheer arrogance of New Labour. After all, if Blair and Co had truly been interested in representation, then they could have stuck by their 1997 manifesto commitment to proportional representation rather than leaving the Jenkins Report to gather dust.
The question I can't help asking is why the Labour Party feels it necessary to send such a communication to its members. Unless, perhaps, it is finding it increasingly difficult to find potential candidates prepared to toe the line, and thus a trawl through the membership for suitable victims persons.
Posted by Clive at 4:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
Showing a little Respect
Once again Tony Blair hits the road with another campaign. This time it is the Respect campaign, basically a rehashing and re-presentation of old and flawed ideas that will achieve very little indeed. In many ways it would be fairier to call it a half-baked campaign, not only because it contains nothing new, but also because it appears to be another New Labour rush job as Tim points out.
I could spend time pulling the whole thing to pieces, but in all honesty that would be a waste of both your time and mine. New Labour, and Blair in particular, has shown time and again a complete inability to deliver on the fundamental issues facing society, and Respect is just another case in point.
Meanwhile, Channel 4 is showing Respect, or rather Respect's MP "Gorgeous" George Galloway, on Celebrity Big Brother. I bet those 15,801 electors in Bethnal Green and Bow who elected George are really happy with the return on their democratic investment. According to Get Back To Work George, Galloway has so far cost his constituents more than £800 in wasted salary as a result of his appearance on the show. More importantly, his presence in the Big Brother House makes it almost certain that he will not be in Parliament for Thursday's Crossrail Bill debate, a matter of great local importance as one result of the bill passing would be massive disruption in his constituency, affecting thousands of people. In an online interview last year, Galloway had this to say on the matter:
Crossrail will devastate the East End - if it is allowed to go ahead on its current route - in a way they wouldn't dream of devastating the West End. They would never build a "Ground Zero" in High Street Kensington in the way they plan to do in Brick Lane. They counted on eastenders being a push over - I suspect May the 5th will prove them wrong.
So given the importance of the matter and his awareness of its significance, what on earth is he doing on Big Brother?
Posted by Clive at 3:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Leadership
Two down and one to go. Of the leaders of the three main political parties at last year's general election, only Tony Blair remains.
Michael Howard resigned, realising that he would never lead the Conservatives back to government. At the time there was significant criticism of Howard from within the party for the leadership contest he initiated, but the result was better than either he or anyone in the Conservative party could have expected. While Cameron comes across as the Tory's equivalent of Tony Blair circa 1994, at least he lacks the taint and stigma of a Thatcher-era Conservative.
Now poor old Charles Kennedy has bowed to the inevitable and resigned. While I have sympathy for Kennedy being faced with his alcohol problem, it is hard to understand why his departure should be bemoaned. Being an alcoholic isn't necessarily a barrier to leadership of a political party (or indeed premiership) as the ghost of Winston Churchill would undoubtedly testify. But the dishonesty element was (for me and, I suspect, many others) a major issue. Furthermore, the LibDem's performance at the last election shouldn't be viewed as a success for Kennedy. His party's increased representation was more a result of votes from people disgusted with Blair yet unable or unwilling to give their support to the Conservatives. I suspect that almost any LibDem or Liberal leader of the last 30 years would have managed a comparable result at the very least.
So Kennedy and Howard are gone, yet Blair remains. This gives rise to two concerns. Firstly, the timing of Blair's departure and secondly, the identity of his successor.
Under no circumstances should Blair be allowed to choose the time of his resignation. He has lied to the people of this country on numerous occasions, has led us into an illegal war on false pretenses, has presided over a sustantial erosion of our civil liberties and yet in spite of this, has consistently failed to deliver on fundamental manifesto commitments for nine years. Education policy is still a movable feast, the welfare state remains in desperate need of review and reconstruction (though maybe this constitutes fulfillment of the promise to think the unthinkable i.e. do nothing), and the NHS has merely been the recipient of vastly increased sums of public money with no significant results with regards to value for money or efficiency.
Now, if we let Blair resign when he chooses, then a dangerous precedent will have been set. The message will go out that the Labour Party will accept and condone any actions (or inactions) regardless of consequence as long as power is retained; effectively taking the dogmatic stance of the Conservative Party under Thatcher (and Major). Just as the Conservatives have now been out of power for nine years, and Labour was out of power for eighteen years previously, so New Labour will find itself cast out unless this fundamental issue is addressed.
This brings us to the second, and more challenging, issue. Who is to succeed Blair as leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister. Almost inevitably the one name that is mentioned is that of Gordon Brown. But of all the potential successors, Gordon Brown is the most unsuitable for a number of reasons.
Looking at his stewardship of the economy and initial impressions would be that he has managed significantly better than many of his predecessors as Chancellor. Digging deeper however, reveals fundamental weaknesses and failures. While his initial decision to follow the economic policies of the previous Conservative government were lauded, he effectively painted himself into a corner at a time when there was no need to limit his options so radically. A commitment to not raising direct taxation yet at the same time increasing public spending resulted in a vast number of stealth taxes. This led to an over-complication of the taxation system, and the introduction of a number of mean-tested benefits and credits that the most needy were unable to take advantage of. Changes to financial reporting and his tax on pension fund dividends were the prime triggers to the current pensions crisis, and he has compounded the issue with his fundamentally flawed efforts to block or undermine the conclusions of Adair Turner's Pensions Commission.
And he has shown an inability to accept advice or recommendations prior to introducing flawed legislation. One such change was the introduction of the £10,000 corporation tax threshold which resulted in over a third of a million self-employed business incorporating to take advantage of this tax break, with a resultant drop in tax revenues. Yet the Charted Institute of Taxation warned the Treasury of just such a result prior to the budget introducing the measure.
Furthermore, his 1% increase in Employers National Insurance Contributions was intended to increase funding for the NHS, but was a double-edge sword. Given that the NHS is one of the largest employers in the UK, the effective of the increase was to increase the indirect financial burden of that organisation. Hardly an example of clearly considered or joined up thinking.
Looking at the wider picture, Brown has consistently show himself to be devious and manipulative, putting his own desires ahead of the wider good. Consider his conduct over Student Fees. The 1997 Labour Manifesto plainly stated that such fees would not be introduced, yet the Government subsequently went ahead. When faced with a rebellion on the matter, Gordon Brown's response was to send Nick Brown to persuade the rebels to back down on a matter that the Scottish Labour Party and Parliament had already rejected.
Then consider Iraq. Here was an issue that caused divisions within the Party and was nationally unpopular. If ever an opportunity had presented itself for Brown to speak out for the rest of us and against the excesses of Blair then this was it. Yet instead he did nothing. In this case his silence was as damning as any supportive action.
And another. Recall Brown's recent unscheduled return from Tel Aviv in an effort to bolster Blair's ill-fated anti-terror legislation. That action alone sends a clear message that Brown is just as committed to Blair's erosion of civil liberties as Blair himself.
Looking back to the Ecclestone affair shows that right from the earleist days of the New Labour government, Brown has been at least as duplicitious as Blair and far more Machiavelian than Blair ever was.
Above all, Brown has consistently shown that he lacks the strength of character and balls for a fight. He is a man who firmly believes that leadership of the party and the country are his by right, but that they should be handed to him rather than earned or won. Is this the person Labour wants to lead it into the future? Is this the person most suited to leading this country? In both cases the answer must be a resounding no!
Which leaves the Labour Party (and the country) with a profound dilemma. If Blair must go, and Brown is fundamentally unsuited to leadership, then what are the alternatives? Because unless the Labour Party gets its act together, it is going to hand this country to David Cameron and the Conservatives and I firmly believe that to be no better than letting Blair and Brown continue.
Posted by Clive at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack