« February 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

March 20, 2007

Daddy, what did you do when the war started?

Over at Bloggerheads Tim's asking what people did online back on 20th March 2003 (or thereabouts). And bless him, he's tagged me.

So, I was all over the shop during Feb/Mar 2003, up to my eyeballs in HP/Compaq merger activity and spent what time I had letter writing about the war. But back in late January I got involved in an at-times heated debate with a bunch of folks on the rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated news group. The whole thread was kickstarted by someone asking Joe Straczynski why he was opposed to the war.

A lot of time was spent by people trying to justify the war in the same manner that Bush and Blair did; calling him a tyrant, claiming links with Al Qaeda, WMDs, the lot. Which left some of us trying to point out Anglo-American complicity and hypocrisy.

Clive Summerfield - Re: jms Why do you oppose a war agaist Iraq? - A dig at the proven track record of US Ambassadors encouraging dictators.

Clive Summerfield - Re: jms Why do you oppose a war agaist Iraq? - The hypocrisy of attacking Iraq when N. Korea is, by the quoted standards, a bigger threat.

Clive Summerfield Re: jms Why do you oppose a war agaist Iraq? - The debate had reached the war-tech-wank stage of nuclear bunker busters, and was getting progressively more depressing.

Clive Summerfield - Re: jms Why do you oppose a war agaist Iraq? - On tyrants or, he may be a bastard but he's our bastard.

However, for real embarassment, just 2 days before the invasion of Iraq, I was relating my vasectomy experiences in the uk.d-i-y newsgroup.

Clive Summerfield - Massively way off topic but of interest to most men (The Snip)

So there you have it, as British and US troops prepared to invade Iraq, in defiance of the UN and the international community and on the basis of lies, I was relating the embarassment of post-vasectomy sample donation.

Now to tag 5 more willing (more or less) bloggers. Okay folks, what were you up to, online, on or around 20th March 2003. Doesn't have to be a blog post, could be a usenet posting, forum post, etc.

Scaryduck
Anthony Wells
Bob Piper
Simon
Doctor Vee

Posted by Clive at 1:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Happy Birthday Iraqi Freedom

Four years ago today, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in order to punish Saddam for his involvement in the 11th September attacks  find and destroy Saddam's WMDs  bring about regime change  free the Iraqi people from the shackles of tyranny.

It has been a costly exercise for the US forces and a joyless trip for the British. But for the Iraqis it has been a nightmare, as Iraq Bodycount shows.

This graph shows the price being paid by the Iraqis, in comparison with that paid by US forces, albeit only for the last 2 years.

The picture is even worse when you graph the Iraq Bodycount figures, showing that the trend is rising.

So scratch the Happy from the headline, there's nothing to celebrate here.

Posted by Clive at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 19, 2007

Fractional reserve deterrent

Over at Ministry of Truth, Unity has published an excellent fisking of Tom Watson's arguments for the replacement of Trident.

Not only is it an excellent debunking of the myth that we need to replace Trident for reasons of national security (I've yet to be presented with a single genuine scenario in which posession of Trident or its successor would be of benefit), but it also accepts that abandoning the deterrent would be a massive gamble.

Giving up our nuclear deterrent would entail a massive gamble. Like it or not, the nuclear genie has been out of the bottle for more than sixty years, and there’s no putting it back in. Nuclear weapons and a nuclear deterrent are a fact of life and, being realistic, the only feasible way of moving to position in which nation states do not possess such a deterrent would be to develop a global deterrent under the aegis of a supranational organisation like the UN or a very unlikely future NATO that included in its membership all five of the original nuclear powers (USA, Russia, China, France and the UK).

Effectively the posession of a nuclear deterrent is a form of insurance, one country insuring itself against the threat of nuclear attack by another. But where it differs from conventional insurance is that any country that desires such protection has to spend vast sums of money. And like all insurance policies, if you never claim then the money is gone.

But what if it were possible to buy nuclear deterrence as a form of insurance from a body such as the UN? Effectively any nation on the planet could have a nuclear deterrent without the crippling costs of development, and the threat of the existing powers stomping all over them.

Initial thoughts might be that the number of weapons required to provide global deterrent is simply too large, that manufacturing those weapons would be prohibitive. The world of banking has a solution, specifically fractional-reserve banking. With a fractional-reserve deterrent, more nations could have a call on the deterrent than weapons exist to fulfil the requirement. The assumption is that not all nations would need their deterrent at the same time. It could be seen as a step towards reducing the number of warheads in the world, helping to support the Non-Proliferation Treaty and let countries spend money where it matters, helping the less well off.

Posted by Clive at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2007

Confused

Sometimes you have to wonder if the leaders of our political parties are in any way whatsoever capable of joined up thinking. Lately we been treated to the entertaining sight of Gordon Brown and David Cameron having a d*ck waving contest over who is the most green.

BBC - Homes must be greener, says Brown

He told the BBC people had to "count the carbon as well as the pennies" and that tax breaks could be offered.

The Scotsman - Tories plan green flight taxes

The Conservative party is planning a range of taxes on air travel as part of a new initiative to tackle climate change which will set personal "green miles" allowances.

The Guardian - Brown and Cameron fight to set the green agenda

The chancellor and the Tory leader outlined rival visions for cutting carbon emissions, as both shaped up to fight each other for the right to be prime minister.

Yet, ironically, both Brown and Cameron are singing from the same hymnsheet when it comes to supporting a potential source of extreme pollution. I am, of course, referring to the replacement for the Trident missile system.

BBC - Trident rebels 'will be defeated'

Ministers have said they are confident of overcoming a possible Labour rebellion over plans to replace the UK's nuclear weapons system.

Opposition to the plans could mean the government will have to rely on the votes of the Conservatives to carry Wednesday's motion to determine whether a new generation of nuclear submarines is acquired and the Trident D5 missiles updated.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the Conservatives were supporting a replacement for Trident to ensure the UK was "prepared for all eventualities".

The Trident replacement is a no-win situation. If anyone can show me how a ballistic missile system comprising nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads and sub-orbital missile can be environmentally friendly, then feel free to use the comments on this post. Any replacement system will either not be used and thus comprise a waste of billions of pounds, or constitute a massive screwing up of the global environment in the event of the button being pressed. Of course there's bound to be some out there who will claim that the money spent on Trident and any replacement is money well spent, as we have never been subject to a nuclear attack. There again, considering that the list of countries so attack is very short (think Japan), it would be difficult to prove that a British nuclear deterrent has kept us safe.

Sure there are other possible justifications for retaining an independant nuclear strike capability; the French have one; we're a global power, etc, etc, but none of them seem like a good justification for a multi-billion pound outlay.

At the end of the day, we have the "next" leader of the Labour Party and the Leader of HM Opposition both shouting about how green they are, while at the same time preparing to vote to spend billions on the ultimate pollution delivery syste.

Bloody marvellous.

Posted by Clive at 12:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Objects of desire

Time for a confession; I'm a petrol head, but not for me the exotic lines of Ferraris or Lamborghinis; forget the tail wagging Porsche or any number of unpronouncable supercars. As far as I'm concerned, the ultimate petrol powered object of desire is an Aston Martin, and has been from the moment Sean Connery picked up the keys of the DB5 from Q.

Over the years Aston Martin hasn't had the smoothest of rides. There have been numerous setbacks and near disasters - anyone remember the Lagonda of 1980 - leading to the classic joke...

Q. How do you make a small fortune out of Aston Martin?
A. By investing a large fortune.

I think most fans were nervous when Ford took a 100% stake in the company, and the DB7 was pretty but flawed. Still, better cars appeared, the Vanquish, the DB9 and the V8 Vantage, but Ford has been struggling with a truly obscene level of debt and the "For Sale" signs were up at Newport Pagnell.

After the failure of MG Rover (see here for truly depressing photos), and the disaster that was the Russian buyout of TVR I suspect most supporters of the marque were nervous about who the new owner might be. Luckily the company would appear to be in safe hands.

BBC - Aston Martin sold to UK-led group
Luxury car firm Aston Martin is heading back into British hands after being sold by Ford in a £479m ($924m) deal.

Oxford-based Dave Richards, boss of motorsport firm Prodrive, is heading the UK-led consortium buying Aston.

My only real concern is whether Dave Richards now has too many fingers in too many pies, with his Prodrive company running Subaru's World Rally Championship team and also about to enter Formula 1. Still, at least the company doesn't appear to have fallen into the hands of crooks and incompetants.

Posted by Clive at 10:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 5, 2007

There's no justice

It has taken some time before I could bring myself to write this piece.

Today I heard of Chris Lightfoot's untimely death. I first got to know Chris through his work with mySociety and the excellent Political Survey, two masterful legacies, but which go to show just what he was capable of and how much he will be missed. On the occasions when I met him in the flesh he was always witty and entertaining, able to rant in the most informative and articulate manner on a wide variety of subjects.

His impact on society may not be as widely appreciated as it should be, and there will be many who have used WriteToThem or PledgeBank, or have signed up to No2ID without realising the work Chris put in to these projects. As someone who had benefited - and continued to do so - from Chris' knowledge, it is tough realising that I will never be able to reciprocate.

Once again life shows that there ain't no justice, and all I can do is send my thoughts and sympathy to his family.

Rest in peace Chris, you're sorely missed.

RIP Chris Lightfoot - 1987 - 2007

Update:

Dave Weedon - RIP Chris Lightfoot
Bloggerheads - To: Chris Lightfoot
Chicken Yoghurt - Chris Lightfoot
No2ID - in memoriam Chris Lightfoot, 1978 - 2007

Posted by Clive at 7:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bournemouth Broadband in the sh*t

Before anyone complains, that is a factually correct headline.

silicon.com - Underground sewer pipes are being used by Bournemouth Borough Council to cut the cost and disruption of laying new broadband internet cabling.

He told silicon.com: "This is ideal for resilience. Going deep in the sewers it is less likely to be hit by a JCB digger. It gives us complete alternative routing."

I wonder though, if performance is slow, would it be due to excessive traffic or a log jam somewhere down below?

Posted by Clive at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 2, 2007

2020 Blinkers

So Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have launched The 2020 Vision.

BBC - Mr Clarke said he wanted it to be a wide-ranging "big tent" debate, rather than a narrowly focused attempt to construct an alternative manifesto, but, he added, he hoped it would not be too "woolly" and inconclusive.

Mr Milburn said he wanted the site to throw open the debate about Labour's future to the public at large. They both pointed to the influence in US politics of web-based debates.

They said current debates - such as Mr Blair's Number 10 based policy review and the deputy leadership race - were too inward looking and did not address the wider country.

It all sounds very laudable, but the mission statement is revealing.

Politics is about the future not the past. After ten years in office Labour needs a new vision and new policies if we are to successfully meet the future challenges faced by our country and the wider world. Winning future elections requires us to renew ourselves intellectually, politically and organisationally.

Not a very good start there. Ignorance of the past condems us to repeating the mistakes of the past. Politics is about understanding where we are and how we got here, and from that deciding on policies to address the resultant issues. Any twerp can sit in a bar and spout off (which seems to be how New Labour came upon many of its big ideas), but moving forward demands insights that can only be achieved by consideration of history. Carl Sagan put it more succinctly when he said "You have to know the past to understand the present." And both Clarke and Milburn would do well to keep in mind the words of Oscar Wilde, "One's past is what one is. It is the only way by which people should be judged."

But the key element to that opening paragraph comes at the end. The real objective is to win elections and other policy objectives must be subservient to that goal.

Renewal cannot happen behind closed doors. It requires an open participatory debate in the Party, amongst our supporters and with the wider public about the future direction for New Labour. Ten years ago we had a clear vision about direction. And in those ten years we have done much to make both Britain and the world better and fairer. We take pride in what has been achieved under Tony Blair’s leadership.

This section starts so well, calling for open debate, not only amongst the Party membership, but also with the public. Unfortunately it is let down by the closing sentence. If you look openly and honestly at what has been achieved under Blair's leadership, you will be left more with a sense of shame than pride. Fiasco upon fiasco, war after war, and an increasing disconnect from the electorate. Does anyone remember the Big Conversation? That was so popular and engaging that the site is no longer available, and the domain is now registered to an Austrian. How about Blair's speach in Sedgefield after the 2005 General Election?

"The great thing about an election is that you get out and talk to people for week upon week and I have listened and I have learned.

I think I have a very clear idea of what the British people now expect from this government for a third term."

Anyway, enough of knocking Blair, let's get back to The 2020 Vision.

Now the world has moved on. It is the right time not just to take stock but to set out the new ideas that can give New Labour renewed momentum. A Conservative victory would be bad for Britain so we believe that we should have the courage to take the radical centre ground in British politics by setting out a compelling vision for the future rather than simply relying on what we have achieved in the past.

Obviously New Labour has found itself in a mess because everyone else has moved on. Damn us for not hanging around, putting our expectations on hold and basking in the radiant light of New Labour government. A more honest approach would have been to admit that New Labour took its eye off the ball and spent too much time playing the media game rather than concentrating on good government.

Oh look, there's the Tory bogeyman again, I wondered how long it would take for that to be thrown in the mix. It's been ten years since the last Conservative government and Cameron has yet to make any hard policy commitments, so saying that a Tory government would be a disaster for the country requires some serious crystal ball gazing.

However, once you get past the novel idea of the centre ground being a radical place - personally it just seems to be a very crowded place these days - you hit the traditional New Labour obsession with compulsion. Given previous performance by New Labour, a compelling vision is one in which we have no say, but which is forced upon us nonetheless.

The 2020 Vision is about looking to the world a decade or more ahead. It is about identifying the new challenges the world faces and the new policies needed to implement progressive values. By modernising our means but staying true to our ends we can make the twenty first century a progressive one.

The sheer hubris of the whole idea is revealed in that first sentence. The next General Election has to be held by May 2010 at the latest, in three short years. Yet the implicit assumption is that New Labour will be in power after that date, and therefore needs to adapt. Did no one tell these people that pride comes before a fall? Frighteningly, the paragraph closes with a statement not a million miles from "The end justifies the means", a proposition thousands of Iraqi civilians would disagree with, were they still alive.

We believe in radical reform. For us reform is for a progressive purpose – to make for a fairer society. We look to policies that empower individual citizens, reward aspiration, spread opportunity, tackle intolerance and inequality, provide security, protect the environment and that are internationalist not isolationist. And we look to a style of politics that is based on dialogue, debate and devolved power.

Or to paraphrase; we're exciting, we're moving forward, we're going to be all things to all men, so vote for us! Still, if they really mean that last bit about dialog, debate and devolved power then all credit to them.

The 2020 Vision is an open forum for individuals and organisations who believe in New Labour’s renewal. The 2020 Vision aims to facilitate a wide-ranging debate about the future of progressive modernisation. Through an interactive website, publications and regional and national events The 2020 Vision will seek to encourage the development of ideas and policies that can contribute to progressive reform.

Renewal cannot be about going back. It is about moving forward. That is what The 2020 Vision aims to do.

A final splurge of rhetoric takes us to the end of the mission statement.

Maybe the above is a bit cynical, but after 10 years of New Labour's media-driven empty promises I doubt that I'm any more cynical than the typical voter. We've had plenty of public engagement initiatives over the preceding decade, but not one has had the slightest impact on the policy direction of New Labour. So why should this be any different.

The voting record of messrs Clarke and Milburn do little to allay any fears or concerns. Since New Labour came to power on 1st May 1997, Clarke has rebelled against the Government only 7 times whilst Milburn managed only a solitary act of rebellion in 10 years. On that basis one can only conclude that The 2020 Vision is more concerned with the perpetuation of Blairism and its primacy over the Labour Party than engaging in meaningful debate with the public.

Posted by Clive at 1:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Red Noses, not Red Faces

Some very sound and timely advice if you want to avoid arrest or distress on Red Nose day.

Posted by Clive at 9:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack