The Nether-World

No Charges in Cash for Honours Scandal

2007-07-20T02:19:00.000+01:00

The BBC is reporting that there will be no charges made against anyone in the cash for peerages investigation. None. Not even for Lord Levy who was up to his neck in the giving of peerages in return for donations and 'loans' to the Labour party and who has been arrested more than once. I had always suspected that Tony Blair would get away with it but I am surprised that no one else is being charged. I can only repeat what Mr Eugenides said at this point.

Apparently there was no evidence to prosecute, something I'm finding hard to believe after nearly a year and a half of investigating and clear signs of a cover-up. Obviously this is not the end of the matter even if there are to be no prosecutions. There is still to be the Parliamentary inquiry which was put on hold until the police investigation was completed. The Blairites involved in the scandal will, no doubt, be crowing about how they have now been exonerated. I think enough information came out during the investigation to demonstrate sleaze if not corruption. We can also expect a major smear campaign against Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates and his team. Eyebrows are going to be raised at the Crown Prosecution Service who made the decision not to prosecute. I'm sure there will be plenty of recriminations over the next few weeks.

Tags: Cash for Honours, Sleaze, Blair, New Labour

Good Riddance Tony

2007-06-27T04:14:00.000+01:00

Today Tony Blair leaves Downing Street for the last time as Prime Minister. I've already tried to summarise my thoughts of his time in office so instead of further commentary of the last ten years, let's have a video by Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads which brilliantly reduces the Blair era to a few minutes.

Of course it isn't the end really. Blair won't just disappear into obscurity as so many of us wish. He's already lined up his new job as Middle East envoy. Yes, the warmonger is going to carry on being Bush's poodle by pretending to be a peacemaker. Using the cliché of saying that this is like putting the fox in charge of the chickens doesn't really sum up how inappropriate this position is for Blair. So, it's over to Justin for some better terms (be sure to read the comments).

So the celebrations of Blair's departure are tempered by the fact that that we will still be seeing both of his faces on our television screens and in our newspapers as the Middle East situation deteriorates further. However, celebrations there will be... Oh yes. Not even the thought of Gordon Brown taking over is going to spoil that.

Tags: Blair

Taking Liberties: A Short Review

2007-06-10T19:09:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, I finally got to see Taking Liberties after more than a month of watching the trailer, reading various reviews and encouraging people to go and see it. I have to say I was very impressed. It's going to be difficult to say anything vastly different from what Tim over at Bloggerheads has already said but I'll give it a go. The documentary covers in great detail the erosion of civil Liberties in Britain since Tony Blair came to power. It does this by breaking the subject into sections rather than taking a chronological approach. These sections are:

Right to protest
Free speech
Privacy
Detention without Trial
Extradition
Torture

These sections are largely taken from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) set up in 1950 by the Council of Europe in order to prevent the appalling abuses of the Second World War from happening again. Some of these rights though are very ancient like Habeas Corpus which dates back to Magna Carta. Taking Liberties explains these rights and their origins with some entertaining animated sequences.

The film opens with the story of bus loads of anti-war protesters at the start of the Iraq war who were wrongfully stopped by police and escorted back to London after being prevented from continuing on to their peaceful protest. It is a good starting point and sets the tone for the rest of the film. Using a mixture of interviews with both politicians and ordinary people along with news footage interspersed with animated sequences, the film shows us the decline of civil liberties from the heady days of Tony Blair's arrival in Downing Street which seemed to promise a bright new era. There are frequent news clips of Blair saying things like:

When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street... I may not like what they call me but I thank God they can. That's called freedom. - Tony Blair 07/04/02

These are followed by other news clips that completely expose Blair's statements for the utter rubbish they are, for example, the arrest of Maya Evans, the manhandling of Walter Wolfgang and the attempts to silence Brian Haw.

For such a serious subject, Taking Liberties does manage to inject just the right degree of humour to make it entertaining without detracting from the film's important message. Much of the film's humour comes from the ingenious ways peaceful protestors try to get around the Draconian restrictions placed on them. Particularly funny were two elderly ladies who defied a police ban on protesting outside an American listening station. I won't say any more but these two ladies seemed to encapsulate 'Britishness' better than Gordon Brown ever could. The film also covers the Mass Lone Protests which take place on a monthly basis to highlight the stupidity of the demonstration esclusion zone. One of the things I liked about the film was the focus on ordinary people caught up in Blair's assault on freedom and not just what politicians say.

For a film which shows Tony Blair and New Labour in such a bad light, Taking Liberties is remarkably non-partisan which is something I really appreciated. Among the politicians interviewed are Clare Short and Tony Benn as well as Ken Clarke and Boris Johnson. This is an important part of the argument because we seem to be moving away from a discourse between 'Right' and 'Left' into a more crucial discourse between 'Libertarian' and 'Authoritarian'.

Where I do perhaps disagree with Tim is on the animated sequences. I don't think they do "stray from the narrative/thrust". For me they break up what might otherwise be too much news footage and interview at any one time and inject some humour as well as covering very dry subjects like the ECHR in an entertaining fashion. However, I wholeheartedly agree with Tim that these animations are spectacular.

If I had to find a quibble about the film, I would say that I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on the role of the media in allowing the attack on civil liberties to go ahead even though, as the film suggests, we all bear some responsibility. The film did allude media manipulation several times with the smear campaign against Mohammed Abdulkahar who was shot by police in the botched Forest Gate raid, the July 7 bombing survivor who was used against his will by The Sun to justify 90 days detention and with the "45 Minutes From Doom" headlines relating to the September dossier prior to the Iraq war. But the death of Dr David Kelly and the subsequent Hutton whitewash which resulted in the BBC being severely punished and which has affected much of its reporting since wasn't mentioned. For me this was the event that removed any lingering doubt I may have still had about the direction in which Britain seems to be heading (not that there were many doubts remaining). The role of the media in bringing about so much knee-jerk legislation and Tony Blair's cosy relationship with Rupert Murdoch, as well as Alistair Campbell's media manipulation deserved a bit more scrutiny in my opinion. However, this is a very tiny quibble in what is a great film. And I realise that it is impossible to cover a decade-long attack on civil liberties fully in two hours. As it is I'm impressed so much was fitted into a couple of hours, from the right to protest to pre-natal ASBOs to ID cards to torture and rendition. Like Tim, I'm just so relieved that a film like this has finally been made...and made well.

Contrary to what Martin Kettle said about this film in The Guardian, I don't think the premise of Taking Liberties is that Labour has turned Britain into a police state...yet. Of course we can't compare what is happening in Britain to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. To me the film is a warning that unless we stop this erosion of civil liberties and reverse it, we could eventually find ourselves in a similar situation. Civil liberties are very easy to remove if we allow it (as we have seen) but they are much harder to re-introduce. Nazi Germany lost all its freedoms almost overnight. In Britain we have seen the erosion of our freedoms by a sustained decade-long attack, and with this continuous chipping away at civil liberties it's much harder to define the point where we do find ourselves in a police state. New Labour seems to be laying the groundwork for a police state, a point that even Martin Kettle can't avoid making by referring to "the oppression we all suffer under the Blair tyranny".

Not Saussure points out that the Soviet Constitution guaranteed the right to hold demonstrations but that when people did try to protest they were told that they did not have the necessary permits to do so. I would add that in Albania these days people can protest outside their parliament without the need for permission. The fact that at the moment some protests are allowed outside the British Parliament (provided permission is obtained a week in advance) is beside the point. We shouldn't need permission.

Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to the director of Taking Liberties, Chris Atkins, and all those who participated in the film. Once again I urge people to go and see Taking Liberties and help give it the publicity it deserves. Go see this film and take people who might not be aware of what is happening in their name with you. Also, buy the book. I expect it's as entertaining and informative to read as the film is to watch.

Tags: Taking Liberties, Civil Liberties, Blair, Entertainment, Film

Taking Liberties Opens Today

2007-06-08T19:01:00.000+01:00

Just a quick reminder to urge you to go and see this film while you can and to encourage others to see it too. Taking Liberties opens Today (Friday June 8) at selected cinemas. If enough people go and see it on the opening weekend then the distributors will push the film out wider and there is a chance of it reaching more people than just those who are already familiar with what Blair has done to our cherished freedoms. To find out where the nearest cinema showing this film is, check the website's cinema listings. For a review of the film, go over to Bloggerheads, and here are some more reviews from the MSM:

The YouTube trailer is here. If you are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in Britain since New Labour came into power, then this film is for you.

Tags: Civil Liberties, Blair, Taking Liberties, Film

Ihre Papieren, Bitte!

2007-05-28T07:51:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

Warning: Swear blogging alert

So, here I am trying to recover from this awful flu bug which has incapacitated me somewhat, and thinking that as it's a bank holiday weekend it might just be possible to get through it without without Blair or any of his minions managing to enrage me to the point where I have to write something. Fat chance! Anyway, this has pissed me off enough to go into swear blogging mode so apologies for the language, normal service will resume once I calm down.

Before we have digested John Reid's latest attack on the European convention on human rights (ECHR) the stupid cunt has to go even further and try to bring back the racist Sus law. It didn't work then why should it work now?

And as if that wasn't bad enough, Blair has to put his ten pence worth in, turning my incandescence into apoplexy. Look guys, I'm not feeling well and it's supposed to be a holiday. Is it really too much to ask for both of you political has-beens to shut the fuck up at least until Tuesday? Apparently it is. It's hard to know where to start, but seeing as the return of the Sus law has been covered very well here, here and here we may as well move on to the insane rantings of Blair. Before we do though I'd just like to repeat an important point that Devil's Kitchen rightly makes:

Er... Does anyone remember that Identity Cards were not going to be compulsory to carry? You know, various Home office ministers pooh-poohed the idea that Britain was going to become some kind of jack-booted, totalitarian police state because you wouldn't actually have to carry your ID Card with you?

I think this is what DK is referring to:

The bill made no difference to police stop and search powers, he [Charles Clarke] said, and there would be no requirement for people to carry ID cards at all times.

Right, moving on to Blair:

The absconding of three people on control orders because of suspicion of their involvement in terrorism has, once again, thrown into sharp relief the debate about terrorism and civil liberty. Within the next few weeks we will publish new proposals on anti-terror laws. Our aim is to reach a consensus across the main political parties.

Well, if they had been tried for their alleged connections with terrorism using phone tap and other currently disallowed evidence, they would, if found guilty, be behind bars now. The debate about terrorism and civil liberty exists because you are doing the terrorist's job for them by removing the civil liberties we want to defend. Your aim is to push through even more Draconian legislation with the minimum of debate as usual using a relatively minor event as an excuse.

But at the heart of these new proposals will lie the same debate: the balance between protecting the safety of the public and the rights of the individual suspected of being involved with terrorism.

And where exactly is the "balance" here if everyone is now a suspect?

First let us clear away some of the absurd criticism of the police and security service over the three individuals who absconded.

As far as I'm aware no one is criticising the police and security services over this incident. The criticism has been leveled at you and your government for these ridiculous control orders.

After September 11, 2001, in common with many other nations, we passed new antiterror laws. In the aftermath of such an outrage it was relatively easy to do. We gave ourselves the ability, in exceptional circumstances, to detain foreign nationals who we believed were plotting terrorism but against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. It was an important power. They were, of course, free to leave Britain. But we wouldn't let them be free here. The ability to detain foreign nationals gave our services the ability to focus even more resources on the surveillance of British nationals who were a threat. It also sent out a strong signal of intent.

It sent out a strong signal of shoddy law making. If there was insufficient evidence to prosecute foreign nationals then there was no need to incarcerate them without trial, and when that was declared illegal to put them under house arrest. If there was a justifiable suspicion of malicious intent then they should have been kept under surveillance until there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.

In December 2004 these laws were struck down by the courts. In his famous judgment Lord Hoffmann said there was a greater risk to Britain through the abrogation of the foreign suspect’s civil liberties than through terrorism.

That's right, a judge with a far better knowledge of the law than you possess realised that indefinitely imprisoning people without trial is fundamentally wrong in a free society. Not too complicated is it?

So we were forced to opt for the much milder remedy of control orders, applicable to both foreign and British nationals. These do not involve detention. They impose some limits on the individual’s freedom. They are better than nothing and have utility - because otherwise the individuals would have to be subject to even more intensive surveillance.

You were forced to do no such thing. You had the option to attempt a prosecution using phone tap and other surveillance evidence as other countries do. You just didn't like the humiliation of a judge telling you you were wrong so you appealed the judgement and lost that too. The control orders were your sour grapes.

They were, however, much weaker than we wanted, perpetually diluted by opposition amendments, constantly attacked on civil liberty grounds.

Yes, there is a good reason they were attacked on civil liberty grounds. House arrest is still a form of imprisonment and there was still no trial to justify such an action. Are we learning yet? Obviously not.

In addition, after September 11, and again after July 7, we have tried continually to deport foreign nationals who were either engaged in or inciting extremism. Again and again in court judgments we were forced to keep them here. The important point is that although of the hundreds we keep under surveillance, many are UK citizens - as with these three individuals - many are not and in any event their influence and the ideas they import from abroad have a significant and radicalising effect. And, of course, we lost the crucial vote on 90 days’ precharge detention, despite offering a week-by-week court hearing throughout the 90 days.

If inciting extremism is illegal, then those who do it can and should be charged, tried and locked up if found guilty. Simple no? If someone is deemed dangerous or suspicious by the security services then surveillance seems the obvious course of action. I don't see what difference it makes whether they are foreign nationals or UK citizens (like the July 7 bombers). Yes, you did lose the vote on 90 days detention without trial and you haven't stopped sulking since. Hopefully, if you try to reintroduce it, you'll lose the vote again because it's damaging to civil liberties (even with a week-by-week court hearing) and completely unnecessary as we have seen.

So when there is an outcry about the three absconding, we should remember that consistently over the past few years, and even after July 7, attempts to introduce stronger powers have been knocked back in parliament and in the courts. Indeed recently it was said, again in a court case, that unless the British government could prove that a foreign national suspect would not be at risk of mistreatment in his own country, we were obliged to keep him here.

Er...outcry? The only outcry I heard came from you and that odious thug John Reid. You just don't get do you Blair? The reason Parliament and the courts knocked back your attempts to introduce stronger powers is because Britain has a strong tradition of protecting civil liberties, and as Prime Minister you have a duty to do that also. Your dismay that the British government should prove that a foreign national suspect would not be at risk of mistreatment in his own country before you deport him is not a great surprise to anyone because we are all too familiar with your ambivalence to torture, whether it's calling the American Guantanamo gulag an "anomaly" or pretending that extraordinary rendition doesn't happen. The fact is, you couldn't give a flying fuck if people are tortured even if they are innocent.

So the fault is not with our services or, in this instance, with the Home Office. We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first.

Yes, the fault is with the Home Office and you. Who else is at fault if your dodgy legislation fails? As you say, we have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. This is what makes us different from the terrorists and from the totalitarian regimes that you support. Strange as it may seem to you Mr Blair, that's how we like it.

I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong. If a foreign national comes here, and may be at risk in his own country, we should treat him well. But if he then abuses our hospitality and threatens us, I feel he should take his chance back in his own home country.

Oh, fuck off! Civil liberties are not "misguided and wrong" you wanker. If foreign nationals abuse our hospitality we can either deport them (if we know they won't be tortured or worse) or we can imprison them. We just need to prove in a court of law that they have indeed abused our hospitality. I can't believe I have to explain this to a barrister.

As for British nationals who pose a threat to us, we need to be able to monitor them carefully and limit their activities. It is true that the police and security services can engage in surveillance in any event. But this is incredibly time-consuming and expensive, and even with the huge investment we have made since 2001, they simply cannot do it for all suspects. Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.

You should monitor anyone, foreign or British, who the security services believe pose a threat to us, and activities shouldn't be limited unless a good reason to do so can be shown. Time and money shouldn't be a constraint on justice. What a bloody daft thing to suggest. With that logic you might as well bang everyone up up and dispense with courts all together... Oh, wait a moment... Of course, if ~~your~~ America's foreign policies didn't have half the world wanting us dead then maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have such a terrorist threat to confront.

Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment. This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practice this extremism.

Anyone's right to civil liberties comes first. What is dangerous is departing from that stance. The tougher laws don't seem to help. You keep introducing more and more and yet we are constantly being told of ever more numerous heinous plots against us. Saudi Arabia has even more Draconian laws and yet extremism is still practiced. Go figure.

This is part of a bigger picture, in which a considerable part of media and public opinion continues to blame us for causing the extremism.

Hmmm, I wonder why the media and public opinion would think such a thing. Could it be they have a point? Anyway, not all the media do think along those lines. Your masters at The Scum and The Daily Mail certainly don't.

I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims felt angry.

Er, yes...?

When he had finished, I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a United Nations-supervised democratic process and the Muslims in both countries get the chance to vote, which incidentally they take in very large numbers. And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.

You remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes. In both countries the civilians are being bombed to smithereens by British and American forces. Iraq has been utterly destroyed and is now in the grip of terrorism that didn't exist before the illegal invasion. You lied to the world about Iraq's non-existent WMD because regime change is illegal. The various civil wars are tearing what's left of Iraq to pieces, you made no plans whatsoever for the aftermath of the illegal invasion. There are two million refugees and a further two million internally displaced people and over 600,000 dead. The country is now divided along sectarian lines with a government that seems almost as brutal as Saddam's...but at least they got to vote for the candidates you put forward - Whoop di doo!! And you wonder why Muslims feel angry? You deluded idiot. Oh, and you are losing in Afghanistan too.

What’s more, British troops are risking their lives trying to prevent the killing. Why should anyone feel angry about us? Why aren't’t they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd thing about the conversation is that I could tell it was the first time he had even heard the alternative argument.

Words fail me. So, the British army aren't doing any of the killing, is that what you're saying? Have you asked the family of Baha Musa why they might be angry? You might, by luck or design, managed to have a conversation with someone who perhaps wasn't as well informed as he might be, but I bet there are opponents of your policies who could wipe the floor with you.

This extremism can be defeated. But it will be defeated only by recognising that we have not created it; it cannot be negotiated with; pandering to its sense of grievance will only encourage it; and only by confronting it, the methods and the ideas, will we win.

I think one way of defeating this extremism is by recognising that we have at the very least contributed to causing it, whether in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine or Lebanon. I don't know whether or not it can be negotiated with but we have to acknowledge that there are legitimate grievances that need to be addressed even if we rightly condemn and try to counter the violence, because by dismissing the grievances you are provoking further extremism. Your confrontational attitude has made things worse not better and you seem to have run out of ideas (I'm not sure you had any to begin with). Fortunately for all of us, both here and abroad, you will be out of office soon and we can only hope that your successor is a bit more pragmatic (a forlorn hope I fear).

The continuation of your policies will lead to even more defeat. Your conviction that your bankrupt policies will lead to victory remind me of the claptrap Mussolini came out with during the second world war... Vincere e vinceremo! (To win and we will win!). Well, we all know what happened to him. Here's a reminder. What isn't widely known is that when the bodies were taken down the children of Milan were invited to piss on the corpses (I cite my father as a source for that nugget). You Mr Blair deserve nothing less for your crimes.

*UPDATE*

More bloggage on this from Not Saussure and Obsolete

Tags: John Reid, Tony Blair, Civil Liberties, Stop And Search, Control Orders

Taking Liberties

2007-05-15T17:24:00.000+01:00

This film is at the top of my 'must see' list. As the title suggests, Taking Liberties is about the attack on civil liberties that Britain has experienced since 1997 when Tony Blair came to power. Other than the various plugs for it I've seen on numerous blogs of all political persuasions and, of course, the information on the film's website along with the trailer, I don't know that much about it but it certainly seems to be a very interesting documentary and a fitting tribute to the Blair years. The film covers the following topics:

Tim Ireland over at Bloggerheads has seen the press screening and has written a positive review. Here's the trailer on YouTube:

Taking Liberties will be in cinemas from June 8. It is very unlikely to get anything like the same publicity that Hollywood bockbusters get and it will only be shown in a few selected cinemas so check the website's cinema listings to find out where it's showing.

Tags: Taking Liberties, Films, Civil Liberties, Entertainment, Blair

A Date For Your Diary: June 27

2007-05-10T18:52:00.000+01:00

So we now know that Tony Blair will quit as Prime Minister on June 27. There are now just seven more weeks of him to put up with before we can celebrate his leaving with a party. The avalanche of political obituaries has already started with the BBC coverage being embarrassingly gushing. As promised, I have written one too. It can be found on Blairwatch. It's rather long but I wanted to cover as much as possible of the last ten years of disappointment, scandal and mayhem. Chicken Yogurt has a fitting tribute to Blair as does Paul Linford. Anyway, now that the serious stuff is out of the way. A rather shorter and more humorous tribute to the Blair years can be found here.

Tags: Blair, UK Politics, Nu Labour

Tony Blair Will Announce His Resignation Today

2007-05-10T01:58:00.000+01:00

Well, hooray! I'll have more to say about Blair's time in office later over at Blairwatch, but for anyone in London who wants to express their gratitude to Tony for ten years of wars, corruption, sleaze and the erosion of civil liberties and democracy, the Stop The War Coalition is providing an opportunity.

Thursday 10 May Downing Street
3.30 to 5.00 pm: Symbolic protest when Tony Blair resigns
(Please note time change)
Tony Blair is resigning early and in disgrace due to his support for the Bush wars. He will announce his resignation on Thursday 10 May. We are asking for as many people as possible to come to Downing Street from 3.30 to 5.00 pm for a symbolic protest in memory of the thousands who have died as a result of his war policies. Please bring old shoes to lay at Downing Street. Local Stop the War groups are asked to bring their banners.

Tags: Blair, Protest, Iraq

Blair Deluded As Ever

2007-05-05T02:42:00.000+01:00

Okay, so I'm nowhere near as proficient with Photoshop as geniuses like Beau Bo D'Or, but after listening to Blair try to dress up Labour's disastrous results in the latest elections as some kind of victory, I couldn't resist this rather obvious gag. The spin coming from New Labour is hilarious. Of course this sketch also comes to mind.

Tags: Blair, Nu Labour, UK Politics

Blair: The Final Days

2007-05-02T16:37:00.000+01:00

courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

You can really feel the end of the Blair era approaching now. The newspapers are full of stories about Blair's legacy and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, is getting plenty of media attention. Not so for those who dare to think that there should be a proper contest and who actually offer an alternative to the policy of the last ten years (or is it 28 years?). Previously loyal politicians are distancing themselves from Blair with some truly hilarious hypocrisy like this:

Blair was too focused on spin, says Mandelson

Buff Hoon also came out with a classic in reference to Iraq:

"we didn't plan for the right sort of aftermath"

Sounds a bit like "the wrong kind of snow" doesn't it? No doubt there will be plenty of political obituaries for Blair in the coming weeks and I may well write one myself. For the moment though, a little light relief seems in order as we get demob happy. From Eclectech (via Bloggerheads) comes this rather good animated piece with a soundtrack by Phil Alexander.

Click on graphic to enter the site and play the video

Of course when the happy day of Blair's departure actually arrives, a small celebration is called for at this location.

Tags: Blair, Nu Labour

Blair's Delayed Departure Explained

2007-04-28T15:26:00.000+01:00

It all makes sense now...

With thanks to Beau Bo D'Or

Tags: Blair, Nu Labour, UK Politics

Blair's Legacy

2007-04-28T13:48:00.000+01:00

The closer we get to the moment when Blair finally throws in the towel, the more we hear about his legacy. Many people will obviously think his legacy will be Iraq, the cash for peerages scandal, the loss of so many civil liberties, the out-of-control surveillance society, the pensions scandal, his subservience to George Bush, the widening gap between rich and poor, the freezing of social mobility and the creeping privatisation of our public services.

Blair, of course, has other ideas, and in an effort to divert attention from his numerous failures which will be highlighted during next week's elections, he has compiled his own 22 page dossier (yup, another dodgy dossier) of what he wants his legacy to be and distributed it among all Labour MPs. Needless to say it's mostly garbage. It still links Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

"9/11 fundamentally changed the world," he said. "We are still dealing with its impact, most obviously, in both Afghanistan and Iraq."

Well, we can't argue that 9/11 didn't change the world but when it was used as a shoddy pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq coupled with a load of nonsense about WMD pushed by Bush and Blair, his statement is as ridiculous as those still made by Dick Cheney. It gets worse:

"Our influence and access across the globe has increased with Britain helping to set the agenda rather than follow it,"

Yeah, right! Another depressing part for me was a bit about what his successors will inherit.

In an early contribution to the political obituaries that will mark his resignation, the prime minister said New Labour had created "the governing idea of British politics", which all opposition parties had had to adopt in its wake.

Oh please God, no... How arrogant! Blair's legacy will be what people remember, not what he tells them it is. Blair isn't the first to do this obviously. Kings, emperors, and dictators have been doing this since the beginning of civilisation. Usually in these cases, however, the legacy is presented after the real, not the political death of the ruler in the form of an obituary or a commemorative monument. I wonder if Blair will be merely content to hand out a list for his loyal acolytes to recite on cue and, of course, the medal he hasn't been able to collect from Bush, or whether he's wishing for something more substantial like, say, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti that the emperor Augustus had emblazoned on various monuments around the Roman empire. At least Augustus achieved the things he boasted about.

Tags: Blair, Legacy, UK Politics

Common Sense Prevails - For Now

2007-04-05T15:37:00.000+01:00

Thankfully, the crisis over the sailors and marines captured by the Iranians seems to be over and they are now home. In the end common sense prevailed and both sides sought to de-escalate the crisis before it evolved into something more frightening. There are lessons to be learned from this story, the main one being that dialogue and diplomacy are far more effective than hysteria and threats. This crisis ended despite Tony Blair not because of him. Blair's intervention provoked the Iranians into changing their minds about releasing Faye Turney and to consider putting all the captives on trial. It may have ended sooner than it did if he hadn't gone crying off to the UN. The Security Council seems to have realised how unhelpful this tactic of Blair's was and watered down its statement. Even the European Union, which was far more supportive, balked at the prospect of imposing further sanctions on Iran as Britain hoped for.

The propaganda put out by Britain failed dismally too. It was just too difficult to portray the captives as being humiliated when they were shown to be healthy, eating well and relaxed even though there was obviously a degree of stress and the confessions and letters were extremely unlikely to have been voluntary. No matter how it is spun, there is clear contrast between the pictures we saw of the British personnel and the now infamous pictures we've seen of prisoners of the Americans, be it Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

Compare and contrast

Blair's statement on hearing the news of the release of the captives showed that his policies had failed and he had to resort to lies (as usual) saying that there were no negotiations.

"Throughout we have taken a measured approach - firm but calm, not negotiating, but not confronting either."

That simply isn't true. There were obviously plenty of negotiations going on behind the scenes. These negotiations led to the release of one of the Iranians captured by the Americans and an agreement to allow consular access to the others (it will be interesting to learn how they are being treated). So much for Bush's no "quid pro quos". The rhetoric was obviously toned down on both sides too. After returning from the Iranian new year holiday, cooler heads decided to end this crisis swiftly and President Ahmadinejad was instructed to release the captives, which he did with a theatrical touch at yesterday's press conference and succeeded in surprising everybody concerned. Margaret Beckett expressing "regret" for the incident obviously helped a bit too.

Some sterling work was done by Craig Murray in pointing out that both the British and the Iranians were both wrong in their assertions that they were able to definitively tell in whose waters the sailors were in and getting the media to accept this point. It now seems likely that there will be some bilateral talks between Britain and Iran to prevent a similar incident.

As to the question of who came out best from the diplomatic wrangling, I'd say that both sides won because conflict was averted (for now). Hardliners on both sides will not be pleased, however. It does seem though that Iran comes out better from this saga at the moment. Blair has a new problem now. As long as British military personnel were held by the Iranians, he could manipulate public opinion to supporting war with Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranians had the temerity to spoil his plans by treating the captives humanely and then releasing them. So Blair has to switch to plan B and subtlety accuse the Iranian regime of being responsible for the deaths of four British soldiers in Iraq while pretending that he is doing no such thing.

"Now it's far too early to say that the particular terrorist act that killed our forces was an act committed by terrorists who were backed by any elements of the Iranian regime, so I make no allegation in respect of that particular incident.
"But the general picture, as I have said before, is there are elements at least of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming, terrorism in Iraq."

Subtle as a brick! He'll make as much political capital as he can out of this but I bet he won't go to the funerals of any of the dead soldiers. Tony needn't worry, he'll probably get his war. There will no doubt be more provocations of the Iranians and America is sending yet another aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz to the Persian Gulf, apparently to relieve USS Eisenhower. We shall have to see. Common sense may have averted war for now but it is a rare commodity in Downing Street and the White House.

It is an interesting coincidence that this saga happened at about the same time as David Hicks is about released from Guantanamo to Australian custody to serve nine months for "providing material support to terrorism" provided that he

... agreed to several conditions including withdrawing allegations he had been abused by US authorities, before or after his transfer to the Guantanamo prison in 2002.

Also the release of British resident, Bisher al-Rawi from Guantanamo after four years without being charged with anything, much of which was spent in solitary confinement. His friend Jamil al-Banna is still there. His crime seems to be refusing to join MI5 and the British abducted the two men in Gambia on false allegations and handed them over to American 'Justice'. That Britain is complicit in these crimes is beyond doubt, a point not lost on the Iranians.

Tags: Iran, Blair, Captured Sailors, War

Tony Blair and Depleted Uranium

2007-03-22T19:46:00.000Z

Tags: Blair, Iraq, Petitions, Depleted Uranium

A petition on the Downing Street website which asked the Prime Minister to Ban the use of DU (depleted uranium) weapons in warfare, has now expired. Because I signed this petition, I received an e-mail with a link to the part of the site which has Tony Blair's reasons for dismissing this petition (along with all the others). This is what he had to say:

The Government considers that the country's Armed Forces deserve the very best equipment with which to protect themselves and to succeed in conflict. At present, the best anti-tank munition for the Army's Challenger Main Battle tanks is the 120 mm anti-tank depleted uranium (DU) round. This round will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because the use of DU is legal and because its use does not present the health risks suggested by a very small minority of scientists.
DU is only weakly radioactive and this is agreed by independent expert groups. Many independent reports have been produced that consider the battlefield effects of using DU munitions. These are available on the World Wide Web and include work by the Royal Society, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). No widespread DU contamination sufficient to impact the health of the general population or deployed personnel has been found in environmental surveys and no traces of DU have been found in urine samples collected from several hundred UK veterans who have served in both Gulf conflicts and the Balkans. In short, contrary to popular belief there is no reliable scientific or medical evidence to link DU with ill-health or with birth defects.
Media reports of DU-induced cancers and birth defects in Iraq have not been substantiated with credible scientific evidence. Many other factors need to be considered as possible causes, for example, some scientists have blamed the former Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Really? I suppose you can draw that conclusion if you withhold research into the effects of DU.

A report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2001 said they posed only a small contamination risk.
But a senior UN scientist said research showing how depleted uranium could cause cancer was withheld.

Blair's statement seems to have been largely lifted from the MOD website. The same website also states that the cleanup of DU contamination in Iraq is being left to the Iraqi government. So why would the US military make tape warning of the effects of depleted uranium and then not show it to troops? UK personnel in Iraq were issued with this Depleted Uranium information card by the MOD:

MOD Card:
"DU Information Card (introduced 03/03) F Med 1018
You have been deployed to a theatre where Depleted Uranium(DU) munitions have been used.

DU is a weakly radioactive heavy metal, which has the potential to cause ill health

You may have been exposed to dust containing DU during your deployment
Further Information
You are eligiable for a urine test to measure uranium.
If you wish to know more about having this test, you should consult your unit medical officer on return to your home base.
Your medical officer can provide information about the health effects of DU.
Information is also available on the MOD web site:

A useful resource on Depleted Uranium munitions an be found at the Campaign against Depleted Uranium. There you can find reports about the effects of DU and links to other sites on the subject.

Just as a reminder of what we are talking about, here is an old video about the effects of Depleted Uranium from the beginning of the Iraq War (warning, this video is highly emotive and has some very disturbing images).

The use of DU munitions, though not illegal under international law, does go against established principles of humanitarian law. Belgium has now banned uranium weapons, the first country to do so. This ban will affect US shipments of uranium ammunition and armour plate via the port of Antwerp. Obviously there is at the very least a question over the safety of the use of DU munitions which was reported on as far back as 2003 if not earlier. To dismiss the call for a ban on these weapons out of hand seems irresponsible in the extreme.

I Always Thought So

2007-03-03T06:17:00.000Z

This picture (from the Guardian) of a young Tony Blair, taken when he was at Oxford University in the 1970s, tells us something about the Prime Minister that I've always suspected to be the case. I don't think I'm the only one who suspected this, and his actions since becoming Prime Minister only confirm those suspicions. You can see the full photo here. Strange that this photo should come into the public domain just when the Ugly Rumours, Blair's student band, are making a comeback.

Tags: Blair

The February Stop The War Protest In London

2007-02-25T02:59:00.000Z

All in all, the Stop The War protest was a fun day out as well as a serious exercise in democracy and (it seems) the only way to get heard these days. I emerged from Hyde Park Corner tube station into pouring rain thinking that it would be as miserable an experience as the tube journey (no Northern or Victoria lines so the Piccadilly line was very overcrowded). Anyway the weather cleared up shortly after I met up with Rachel and the rest of the day was very pleasant.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was going to be a very large demonstration, there were hoards of people at Speakers Corner and the march didn't get started until about 1:30 PM and people were still arriving. We positioned ourselves close to some excellent drummers to keep our energy up and we were entertained by some performers dressed in funky day-glow skeleton costumes, a bit like a 21st Century Danse Macabre I thought, only funnier.

The route the march took was down Park Lane then down Piccadilly into Haymarket and finally into Trafalgar Square for the rally. That short distance took over two hours which should help give an idea of how many people there were. Sky News was apparently reporting 'several hundred people', I heard that the police said there were 10,000 protesters while the organisers claimed 60,000 (George Galloway said it was 100,000). From the ground it was impossible to tell but based on previous demonstrations I guessed (and this is just a guess) between 40,000 and 50,000 people turned up. Both Rachel and I had the foresight to take our hip flasks with us. Mine had Cognac and Rachel's had whiskey and when you're shuffling along a few swigs definitely helps. We also had whistles so we could contribute to the drumming and chanting.

Meanwhile, back at Blairwatch H.Q., Tom had the good idea of live blogging the event, the plan being that I'd send pictures from my camera phone and he'd put them on-line. So I put away my digital camera and tried taking pictures on the mobile. I then spent what seemed like the best part of an hour fiddling with the settings in previously unseen menus because although my phone has a nice 1.3 mega pixel camera, you can't send any picture via MMS which is more than 100 kb in size. Luckily Rachel came to the rescue and sent a steady stream of photos to Blairwatch with her phone until I sorted mine out.

Trafalgar Square was totally packed when we arrived and it was very difficult to move about. However, we did eventually manage to find a way to the top of some steps where we watched some of the speeches. The best speech by far was that of Mark Thomas.

Mark Thomas

George Galloway too made a rousing speech. The organisers had erected a large video screen so even at the distance we were at, we could see whoever was speaking. The sound was very clear too, so well done to the organisers for that.

George Galloway

When Yvonne Riddley started speaking we took that as our hint to call it a day and locate a nice cosy pub for some refreshment (after a bit of a search we settled on Le Garrick and very nice it was too). After that it was time to brave the tube again and it was even more crowded than before.

I didn't watch any news reports on television about the event but you can see the BBC report on-line here. You can also see more photos on my Flickr site. Hopefully the demonstration succeeded in showing the Government just how much opposition there is to the Iraq war and to the renewal of Trident. I hope it also sent a warning to Blair about involving himself in the coming war in Iran. The people are no longer buying the bullshit he's been peddling and they are sick of the continuous wars that will be his legacy.

Anyway it was a fun way to make the point, all the more so by having such good company.

More Bloggage and some nice pictures over at Lenin's Tomb. There are also good reports from The Disillusioned Kid, The Heathlander and Devises Melting Pot. If I find any more reports I'll post the links. Feel free to let me know in the comments of any more reports.

Tags: Stop The War, Protest, Iraq, Blair, Bush, 24 February 2007, London

Parliament Under New Labour

2007-02-21T04:47:00.000Z

The recent resignation of Labour MP Alan Simpson from Parliament, is a loss to British politics. The Labour party now has even fewer politicians with the conviction to stand up for its principles. When I read the reasons Alan Simpson gave for his resignation, I was reminded of some of the things Tony Benn said when he retired from Parliament in 2001. There is a similarity in their statements and the reasons given are a damning indictment of what Parliamentary politics has become under Nu Labour.

Tony Benn on his retirement from Parliament:

“It is difficult to get this [the issues Benn had pledged to fight for that brought him into conflict with his party] across inside parliament at the moment because politics is reported in such a shallow way... The issues that face us are difficult, challenging and interesting—and the level of political discourse is shallow, abusive and personal...
"I am not retiring from politics, but I believe the work that needs to be done now to rebuild the Labour Party is best done from outside. If you are in parliament at the moment you are asked to do a lot of things that run absolutely contrary to the pledges I gave my constituents and to my own convictions. All progress has always come from outside parliament,"
Source

Alan Simpson MP on the announcement of his resignation from Parliament:

"I never went into Parliament to have a career. I went in to change the world. I'm leaving because I still want to change the world, and I don't think you can do that in this Parliament," he said. In a letter to his Nottingham South party, he said: "My worry is that it has become a comfort zone in which MPs are paid more and more to stand for less and less...
"There are good people in the Parliamentary Labour Party; just not enough of them. Many MPs complain of a government that no longer listens to the party, but they dutifully walk through the division lobbies to vote for whatever regressive measures Downing Street asks for. At times I feel that colleagues would vote for the slaughter of the first-born if asked to."
Mr Simpson is giving up a relatively safe Labour seat with a majority of more than 7,000 at the last election. Asked why he does not stay and fight, he said: "Because I don't think the changes are going to be driven inside Parliament. There is a desperate short-termism that consumes you. Parliament is dominated by playground games: who's gang are you in?
"I think the danger is that Parliament becomes a politics-free zone, where people are more interested in their careers than the issues that really matter to people outside. People position themselves around loyalty and career opportunities and the debate is arranged around short-term options - should we lock up more prisoners, not should we be looking at alternatives to prison?"
Source

If politicians of conviction feel that they can no longer fight for the issues they believe in inside Parliament and think they have a better chance of affecting change from outside, what does this tell us about Nu Labour and our Parliamentary system at the moment? And what danger does this pose for the future? For me this highlights an urgent need for change in our political system. Perhaps things might improve once Tony Blair has left office but I doubt Gordon Brown will be much different. As Alan Simpson says:

Choosing between Blair and Brown is like choosing between Saddam and Uday ... They're as bad as each other.

Another interesting quote from Tony Benn illustrates part of the problem with Nu Labour:

It's very interesting to me that some ex-communists in the Labour party have been able to shift from Stalin to Blair and it hasn't been much of a shift... the shift from Stalin to Blair is a minor adjustment.

Tags: Nu Labour, Blair, UK Politics, Alan Simpson, Tony Benn

Cash For Honours - The End Draws Near

2007-02-05T06:51:00.000Z

Tags: Blair, Lord Levy, Cash For Honours, Sleaze

"Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his friends for his life" - Jeremy Thorpe speaking of Harold Macmillan's 1962 Night of the Long Knives when he sacked most of the senior members of his cabinet to save his political career.

The Times is reporting that three of the people questioned by the police in the cash for honours scandal are likely to face charges. This must mean that the police investigation is drawing to a close and we'll soon be waiting to hear what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say. It appears that someone questioned by the police has been singing like a canary.

Crown Prosecution Service lawyers have received files from the police indicating that charges should be brought against three people, although the inquiry is continuing.

“I would be very surprised if they are not charged,” a prosecution source told The Times. The same source said that Tony Blair was likely to be interviewed by the police for a third time because he had yet to answer certain questions.

So who are the people who are likely to be charged? It would seem on the face of it that Tony Blair might escape prosecution and it will be his minions that will carry the can for the Right Honourable Gentleman. Obviously Lord Levy is top of the list as he's been arrested twice so far. Naturally he's still protesting his innocence and has once again said that he will not swing for Tony Blair.

Tony Blair's chief fund-raiser Lord Levy is ready to tell the police that the Prime Minister is to blame for the cash-for-peerages scandal.

The Labour peer is furious that he has become the prime suspect.

And he is ready to defend himself by arguing that Mr Blair, not him, should be made to take full responsibility for the affair.

This is at least the second time Lord Levy has stated that he won't be the fall guy for Tony. To be fair to him he does have a point. Only the Prime Minister can bestow honours on people. But it does seem that the noble lord is in it up to his neck, and let's not forget that the second time he was arrested it was in connection to a potential cover-up. Perverting the cause of justice is a far more serious crime.

Ruth Turner, Downing Street's director of government relations is also in the frame following her recent arrest (again on suspicion of perverting the cause of justice). This means that her boss, Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff might also face further questioning and possible arrest. So who has been spilling the beans? Well it seems possible that it might be Tony Blair's director of political operations John McTernan. Back to the Times article:

A CPS source said that the case had been strengthened by the testimony of John McTernan, the Prime Minister’s director of political operations, who gave a different account of discussions about honours from that given by other Downing Street figures questioned.

Oh dear, perhaps it was this that has re ignited what was beginning to look like a moribund inquiry. The Government has in recent days pulled out all the stops in trying to deflect attention from this investigation and create the impression that it was going nowhere after 11 months. We've had MPs and Cabinet Ministers as well as peers either coming out against the investigation or insisting that Blair should stay on as Prime Minister and friendly 'journalists' also saying to the police in effect "shit or get off the pot". We've had anonymous leaks in the case of the alleged plot in Birmingham which some police suspect may be politically motivated. If all this sounds like desperation, it probably is. Tony Blair is not out of the woods yet. There is already speculation that he might be questioned for a third time by police, perhaps under caution. Even if he himself is not charged, he will be very badly damaged if his closest members of staff are charged. This might mean that he will be visited by the dreaded men in grey suits.

It is starting to look like Blair won't be able to hang on until the summer as he intends to. The irony is that it will be a scandal which is relatively trivial in comparison with the far more serious crimes committed in Iraq which forces him out. But then Al Capone was caught out on tax evasion rather than his violence and racketeering.

The Blair Crime Family Expands Its Gambling Operation

2007-01-30T15:09:00.000Z

Tags: Blair, Gambling, Sleaze, Cash For Peerages, UK Politics

Not content with its usual rackets of selling honours, halting or tampering with police investigations, arms dealing, bribery and assassination, the Blair crime organisation (also known to be operating under the name of NuLabour) has expanded its operation into gambling. Britain's biggest criminal organisation, dominated by its boss 'Teflon' Tony is about to open the country's largest and swankiest gambling joint in the city of Manchester.

There was some confusion as to where the location for this new venue was going to be. Some thought it would be in Blackpool which has aspirations to be another Atlantic City. Others thought the location would be in London in a spot famed for a failed diamond heist by an unaffiliated local gang. However this might have attracted too much heat after the negotiations with an American billionaire conducted by the under boss John 'Cowboy' Prescott were exposed.

The move into gambling is happening under the leadership of capo regime Tessa 'Under-Bus' Jowell who has been urging the family to stake a claim in the lucrative gambling racket for some time. She is known to have links with the famous Don Berlusconi in Italy who is currently awaiting trial for corruption and perverting the cause of justice along with her husband.

This audacious move is happening as the police get ever closer to busting the family for its peerages racket. It is thought that even 'Teflon' Tony might not escape justice this time and he is said to be handing control of the family business over to his associate Gordon 'One Eye' Brown. The crime syndicate is so worried about police attention after the recent arrests of other senior members including consiglieri Michael 'Cash Point' Levy a.k.a. Sleazy, that it is thought that even 'Machine Gun' Blunkett can't save them.

A Roundup of This Week's Political Corruption, Sleaze and Hypocrisy

2007-01-20T04:23:00.000Z

Tags: Blair, Sleaze, Corruption, Nulabour, Cash for Honours, BAE, Peter Hain, Ruth Turner

As the Middle East situation goes from bad to worse, the British Government has a few problems closer to home to deal with. These problems reflect Tony Blair's loss of authority and the decline of New Labour as we enter the last months of his Premiership. Let's start with the continuing BAE scandal. If Blair thought that by halting the SFO investigation into BAE's corrupt dealings with the Saudi government over the Al Yamamah arms deal the problem would go away, he was sorely mistaken. Now instead of the original corruption being investigated, the focus is firmly on Blair's misguided decision. As pressure on Blair mounted to reverse his decision from 130 campaign groups, the Prime Minister reverted to the defence we've seen so often:

"The Attorney General set out the reasons for the decision on that and I have nothing further to add,"

Lord Goldsmith's reason for dropping the inquiry was, we were told, national security and he told Parliament on December 14 that the security services agreed with his assessment. Unfortunately the newly knighted John Scarlett. head of MI6 was reading from a different script.

Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords was incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen. They replied that naturally it would.

Later the Foreign Office issued a statement which stated that:

"Contrary to the Guardian article, SIS (MI6) shared the concerns of others within government over the possible consequences for the public interest of the SFO investigation."

Obviously furious at having their investigation halted, the SFO leaked the names of top BAE officials involved in more corruption in South Africa.

BAE's chief executive, Mike Turner, is named along with the former chairman, Sir Dick Evans, and two other executives, in a document dated June 26 last year.
The document is a request for mutual legal assistance sent from the SFO in London to authorities in South Africa, where a £1.5bn aircraft deal with Britain is under investigation. The SFO's dossier says: "There is reasonable cause to believe that all the above-named persons and company have committed offences of corruption." It was leaked to the Mail & Guardian, a Johannesburg newspaper.

The closing of the Al Yamamah inquiry is now being investigated by The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which has condemned the closure and says Britain may have reneged on its promise to combat corruption in the developing world. It isn't just Saudi Arabia and South Africa involved in corruption with Blair and BAE Systems. There's another scandal, this time in Tanzania. Tony Blair personally backed a plan to sell Tanzania a military air traffic control system which was ten times more expensive than anything that country actually needed. Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries which had just had its debt written off, has only eight military aircraft. In order to push through this sale, Blair, with the support of Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon went against Gordon Brown, Clare Short and the World Bank which condemned the deal as a complete waste of Money. Now it turns out that BAE used a $12, million bribe to get the deal.

The UK's biggest arms supplier secretly paid a $12m commission into a Swiss account in a deal which led to Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries, buying a controversial military radar system.
A Tanzanian middleman, who has a long-standing relationship with military and government figures, has admitted that the sum was covertly moved to a Swiss account by BAE Systems, which is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

The SFO are now investigating this case and are going through BAE's Swiss bank transactions with Tanzania. It remains to be seen whether or not Blair will decide that this investigation too is a threat to national security and close it down as well.

The disaster that is Iraq has caused some Government Ministers to try to distance themselves from the foreign policy they previously supported and Blair's close relationship with George Bush. Hilary Benn, James Purnell, and Yvette Cooper are all now criticising the decisions that were made. Most interesting of all though, was Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain's outburst in The New Statesman:

"The neo-con mission has failed ... It's not only failed to provide a coherent international policy, it's failed wherever it's been tried, and it's failed with the American electorate, who kicked it into touch last November. The problem for us as a government ... was actually to maintain a working relationship with what was the most rightwing American administration, if not ever, then in living memory."

Peter Hain, who voted strongly for the Iraq War and strongly against investigating the Iraq war, is of course launching his bid to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. If you thought Ruth Kelly was a hypocrite, take a look at this and this and this:

There is vigorous public debate about Britain's support for UN sanctions on Iraq. I have no intention of ducking this debate, because I am convinced Britain's policy is right.

This week also saw another development in the cash for honours scandal. A fourth arrest has been made in the investigation and this time it is a senior Downing Street political adviser. Ruth Turner was arrested 6:30am on Friday, she is first salaried government official to be arrested. She was later released without charge. What is interesting is that she was questioned not only about cash for honours but also about perverting the cause of justice which suggests that the police suspect that attempts at a cover-up have been made. As you'd expect, Ruth Turner denies any wrongdoing and is expressing her willingness to co-operate fully with the police.

“I have already given the police two lengthy interviews and made it clear to them that I was happy to speak to them again at any stage. I have been completely open with the police throughout and will continue to co-operate with them fully . . . I absolutely refute any allegations of wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever.”

So far, Blair is still supporting her. That might well change if she decides to spill the beans.

"Ruth is a person of the highest integrity for whom I have great regard and I continue to have complete confidence in her," said the prime minister.

There is more than a hint of nervousness at Downing Street now and the previously cordial relations between the police and Downing Street have cooled significantly. I was amused by a statement by Lord Puttnam who was himself ennobled by Tony Blair after donating money to the Labour Party:

"What about turning up at 9 o'clock, or what about phoning and saying: 'I wonder if you'd mind coming into the police station, we'd like to talk to you'? Why do you send four policemen at 6.30 in the morning to arrest a perfectly nice woman? It's ludicrous. I think they're into theatrics.

Hmmm, theatrics. That sounds familiar. My guess is that the police will now want to interview her boss Jonathan Powell again... possibly under caution this time. And I suspect Lord Levy might well be contemplating another trip to the Middle East. As for Blair, well we'll have to wait and see but I doubt he's sleeping that easily.

Anyway that concludes this week's roundup of sleaze and corruption. I wonder what next week will bring.

An Opportunity Missed

2007-01-16T15:39:00.000Z

Here's another first for this blog, a film review (or rather, a rant about a TV show). Since I saw it advertised on More 4, I had been waiting impatiently to watch "The Trial of Tony Blair". The trailers looked great and I've liked Robert Lindsay as an actor since "Citizen Smith" back in the 70s. I thought the idea for this programme was a good one; to see Tony Blair (a fictional one unfortunately) on trial at the Hague for war crimes relating to the illegal Iraq war. What a disappointment it turned out to be!

My main gripe is this: How can you have a programme called "The Trial of Tony Blair" without erm... a trial? We only see Blair in the dock once, and that is for the extradition hearing. For me this spoiled the entire show. I was looking forward to seeing Tony Blair answer a well presented case by the prosecution with his defence (whatever that might be). Instead the film finishes as he is bundled off in a prison van to the airport and what we are presented with instead is a series of mildly amusing but not very credible gags which would have been more at home on the "Bremner, Bird and Fortune" show. Because of this the film packs less punch than a newspaper cartoon. Perhaps the film would have worked better as a docudrama, starting in the Hague with pertinent episodes dealt with as a series of flashbacks.

Robert Lindsay does look the part but nevertheless fails to convince as Tony Blair. He seems to have borrowed from his performance as the fictional manic Labour councillor Michael Murray in the excellent "G.B.H". Tony Blair's deluded character is dealt with far too obviously. Yes, of course Blair is deluded, but the film fails to portray his talent at spin and presentation. This clumsiness was shown in the scenes where he is writing his book and keeps using the soundbite "I felt the hand of history on my shoulder" over and over again, a good gag, just not very believable. One thing about Blair is no matter how cringe-makingly messianic his speeches are, they are well presented; it's one of the reasons he's so dangerous. I wasn't convinced by Phoebe Nicholls portrayal of Cherie Blair either. Peter Mullan did manage to capture the voice, mannerisms and general awkwardness of Gordon Brown but I think all the actors were let down by the script.

Unfortunately this was an opportunity missed. The chance for putting the possibility of Tony Blair being tried for war crimes into the public conscience degenerated into cheap satire. Now that the film has been made and well-received, there is little chance of another one being made covering the same topic. Unless of course the real Tony Blair is carted off to the Hague, but I'm not holding my breath.

Tags: The Trial of Tony Blair, Film, Entertainment

The Madness of King George

2007-01-12T05:58:00.000Z

I have been trying to think of something to say about President Bush's decision to send 22,000 new troops to Iraq. It's turning out to be harder than I expected, partly because it has already been covered very well by others, partly because there were no surprises in Bush's address to the nation - we all knew what was going to be announced, but mainly because the plan is so spectacularly stupid that I can't really avoid stating the obvious. For once I find myself agreeing with the majority of US military officers and politicians of both parties who oppose this plan. Still, something as important as this does need to be commented on.

First, let's get these really obvious points out of the way. It won't work. It hasn't worked so far and more of the same is just as likely to fail. It also failed in Vietnam. Most intelligent humans when realising that their actions are not achieving the desired results, and are in fact counterproductive either try something else or give up, especially when they have been warned by so many others beforehand. Not Dubya. It's like watching a demented retard slam his head into a wall, shout out "Ouch, that hurt!" and then slam his head into the wall again in the hope of getting a different result. The world is now waiting for the next inevitable "Ouch, that hurt!".

Telling the American people and the wider world that this troop reinforcement is coming at the request of the Iraqi government won't wash either. The Bush administration had to convince al Maliki's government of the need for more troops and agreement was reached by focussing on the Sunni extremists and al Qaeda (al Qaeda is about two or three percent of the insurgency). In other words this plan will add to the sectarian divisions. And let's not forget that to 90 percent of Iraqis the Americans are personae non gratae. Having the largely Shi'ite army and police force (already infiltrated by extremist elements) smash their way into peoples' houses with the Americans is only going to make matters far worse. And there is no way that 20,000 troops are anywhere near enough to hold the areas they clear so it will be exactly as before once they inevitably leave.

It's easy to pass this folly off as mere hubris from a president trying to salvage something from the disaster he's created and to a large extent it is, but there's more to it than that. Bush's reputation cannot be salvaged and there were more hints of a wider war in Bush's speech.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Yes, Iran again. While Bush is outwardly supporting the Shi'ite Iraqi government which is on friendly terms with Iran, he is doing his utmost to provoke the Iranian regime to respond. Arresting Iranian officials invited by al Maliki's administration, and now storming an Iranian consulate and arresting employees. When these diplomatic incidents are coupled with the sabre rattling coming from Bush, Blair and of course Israel, and with the naval build up in the Persian Gulf, a frightening and familiar pattern emerges.

The British government is still hinting at troop withdrawals from the region this Summer but hasn't explicitly stated that it will withdraw troops. Basra may be less violent than Baghdad, but the coming "surge" in troops and the expected crack-down on extremists will also affect the Shia who could decide to retaliate in the south of the country. The British held zone is strategically important to the American occupation; it's a supply line and an entry and exit point. It's also on the Iranian border. The coy game that Blair seems to be playing is rather typical of him. Remember him saying that no decision had been made to invade Iraq right up until the moment troops went in? I wonder if he isn't doing the same thing again. If a wider war explodes, or if the Basra area is targeted by insurgents then the plans to withdraw British troops will either have to be accelerated or dropped completely. There is little doubt that Blair would like to be involved in another adventure with his buddy but he knows there isn't the stomach for it in the UK even with Tory support. It would take a serious and 'unexpected' crisis to turn public opinion in his favour and it's not just American warships that are in the Persian Gulf.

Blair's government seems happy to go along with any idea that is suggested in America. When the Iraq Study Group (ISG) reported its findings, Margaret Beckett said "We get the impression that their thinking was broadly in line with our own". And yet the same government supports the 'surge' (the complete opposite to the recommendations of the ISG) despite the announcement of the intention to withdraw British troops from Iraq. If the troop withdrawal is a genuine intention of the Government, then this could be seen as a sign of a split between London and Washington but great care will be taken to smooth over any cracks in the alliance. Of course we don't know (nor are we likely to know) if the Bush administration asked Britain to supply more troops or maintain the current numbers for longer.

Peace and stability in the region seem further away than ever.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Bush, Blair, US Politics

Cherie's Lecture Circuit Brochure

2007-01-08T15:28:00.000Z

Image by Beau Bo D'Or

This picture made me laugh out loud and brought back memories of 70s bands. After returning from their holiday at the Miami mansion of Robin Gibb of Bee Gees fame (there was some confusion as to whether they actually paid for it this time or whether it was yet another freebie), we find out a little bit more about the Blair's plans for when they're finally booted out of Ten Downing Street - unfortunately these plans don't seem to involve obscurity. No, it looks like they're heading for that gravy train known as the lecture circuit.

Tony Blair is gearing up for life after Downing Street by setting up a charitable foundation in his name to launch himself on the multi-million pound lecture circuit, it was disclosed yesterday.

With only months to go before he steps down as Prime Minister, Mr Blair's inner circle is said to be developing an organisation similar to the William J Clinton Foundation established by Bill Clinton after he left the White House.

A website, www.blairfoundation.org.uk, has already been registered in the name of Martha Green, the New York businesswoman who is thought to have replaced Carole Caplin as Cherie Blair's great confidante.

Well, it's hardly a great surprise is it? What is amusing though is the website name, www.blairfoundation.org.uk. It's not vastly different from the totally unrelated www.blairfoundation.com. There's also Beau Bo D'Or's Blair Foundation. I forsee some confusion in the not too distant future. Still, at least it's not as ridiculous an idea as the Blair School of Government.

*UPDATE*

Guido has some more details.

Tags: Blair, Sleaze

More on the Saddam Lynching

2007-01-04T15:22:00.000Z

The Lynching of Saddam Hussein is, unsurprisingly, still dominating the news. The deeply disturbing images from both the official video and the cell phone video are causing many to ask questions both about Saddam's execution and the wider issue of the death penalty in general. Perhaps this is one positive development to come out of this saga. More worrying is the precedent this sets for an increase in public executions. It is interesting to watch the protagonists in this sordid business either frantically try to distance themselves from the role they played in this lynching or avoid making any comment on it in the hope that it will be forgotten.

Most dishonest of all is the American position which is an attempt to fool the world into thinking that this was entirely an Iraq affair. It was America that led the invasion of Iraq, toppled Saddam's regime, started the sectarian violence, captured Saddam and held him until he mounted the scaffold, organised and paid for the show trial, loudly called for his execution and finally, an American court dismissed the call for a postponement of the execution which took place in a prison surrounded by American troops with the witnesses and the victim transported by American helicopters. Saddam's corpse was delivered to his family by the Americans too. It was the Americans who were in charge of confiscating mobile phones and therefore the Americans who allowed camera phones to enter the squalid execution chamber.

That of course does not absolve the puppet Iraqi government which was so desperate for revenge that it pushed for an execution as quickly as possible and on a "special day". It was al Maliki's regime that signed the death warrant and finally delivered Saddam into the hands of the extremist Shia lynch mob who were allowed to taunt Saddam before pulling the lever which plunged him to his death as he prayed. Saddam has now been made into a martyr, something he was intent on being as soon as his fate became obvious. But turning a monster into a martyr was foolish in the extreme as well as being very difficult considering the litany of Saddam's crimes for which he was not even tried for.

Now despite their obvious involvement, the Americans are trying to pretend that the execution had nothing to do with them and that they actually tried to postpone it because of the sensitivity of Eid and on the grounds that it may have been illegal, but eventually relented to pressure from the Iraqi government.

As the shock of those scenes reached a new crescendo in Iraq, U.S. officials revealed that they had worked until the last hours of Hussein's life to persuade Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to delay the execution. The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be named, said they appealed to al-Maliki not to proceed with the hanging at dawn Saturday because of the onset of a major Islamic festival and because of unresolved constitutional and legal questions that the Americans believed threw the legitimacy of the execution into doubt.

The US military is also saying that they would have handled the execution differently had it been in charge.

As the storm over the handling of the execution gained strength, Caldwell was among several U.S. officials who suggested displeasure with the conduct of the execution.

``If you are asking me: 'Would we have done things differently?' Yes, we would have. But that's not our decision. That's the government of Iraq's decision,'' Caldwell said.

Perhaps the Americans would have done things differently but America too is known for its botched executions. Also I would have thought more care would have been taken if the Americans were really concerned about the effects of another video of the lynching, seeing as they were responsible for confiscating the phones. Perhaps if this wasn't incompetence, they actually wanted to cause further sectarian conflict or discredit the supporters of Moqtada Sadr. We already know that the Bush administration is losing patience with al Maliki's government. Bush will soon have to justify to the new Democrat Congress the sending of thousands of extra troops into Iraq. Maybe the increased violence over this incident will help.

Britain too is guilty of hypocrisy over this lynching. It's no good stating Britain's opposition to the death penalty and then supporting a kangaroo court that was covened for the sole purpose of providing a semblance of legal cover for a revenge execution. Other than backing the Iraqi inquiry into the botched execution, Blair has still absolutely nothing to say about his involvement in this sordid affair. John Prescott called the filming of the execution "deplorable" but interestingly had no comment on the execution itself. Blair (like his White House masters) wouldn't even go that far. Presumably he has no objections to the conduct of the ~~executioners~~ lynch mob. I wonder if he'd have more to say if it was the image of someone else on the scaffold.

Of course this in no way is meant to encourage the execution of Tony Blair (like Tony I'm opposed to the death penalty, even for mass murderers). Saddam was executed for being responsible for the deaths of Iraqi citizens whereas George Bush and Tony Blair seem to have gotten away with the same crimes on an even larger scale and in a much shorter period of time.

Meanwhile the arguments over who it was who filmed the lynching on a camera phone and put the images on the internet goes on. According to Munkith al-Faroun a prosecutor at the trial and the one who appealed for the taunting of Saddam to stop, two government officials were filming with cell phones. One of them was Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie. However blame has been laid with one of the guards who were apparantly under al-Faroun's observation. A guard has now been arrested and al-Faroun is now saying that he did not see al-Rubaie taking pictures. Somehow I doubt we'll ever know the truth. There is also confusion as to whether a date has been set for the executions of Barzan Al-Tikriti and Awad Al-Bandar. The fiasco over Saddam's trial may have given them some more time. The UN is trying to halt the executions on the grounds that the trial was flawed. This news comes shortly after the new Secretary General Ban Ki Moon expressed ambivalence over the death penalty unlike his predecessors.

It seems that recent events have proved to be too much for Nuri al-Maliki who has said that he won't be seeking a second term as Prime Minister and wants to step down. I can't say I blame him. Maybe there is room for him too on the lucrative lecture circuit along with Tony Blair. It's got to be better than staying in Iraq.

Blair Ratchets Up The Hate on Iran

2006-12-21T04:32:00.000Z

I've lost count of the number of times I've worried about a possible attack on Iran over this last year. There have been plenty warning signs but my predictions as to when the attack might come have so far been wrong, thankfully. That doesn't mean however, that there is no danger of an attack, all the signs are still there and I still fear that Bush and Blair are actually stupid enough to do such a thing. I'll get to the latest developments shortly, but first let's look at some of the events that cause this speculation.

We have Jack Straw being fired from his post by the Bush administration for suggesting that an attack on Iran would be "inconceivable" and "completely nuts". Then we have a continuing media-driven hate campaign against Iran perpetrated in some cases by neo-conservative stooges. We have Condoleezza Rice saying that security assurances for Iran are not on the table in any talks with the Iranian leadership. And Blair himself had a speech re-written by the White House in which any references to British doubts about attacking Iran were removed. The recent war in Lebanon increased the pressure being put on Iran and further demonised that country leading to the USA conducting provocative military exercises in the Persian Gulf. Iran, predictably, responded with some military exercises of its own.

This week we have heard that Iran is exchanging the Dollar for the Euro in all transactions and assets held abroad, obviously worrying to the Americans. Within hours of that news, we hear of further military maneuvers in the Gulf and some more sabre rattling from America, not from the Bush administration this time but from Democrat Senator and possible Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Blair of course, doesn't want to be left out when it comes to spewing out extremist bile against Iran. Unsurprisingly, he's singing from the same hymn sheet as the Bush administration (and Democrats too apparently). He is stating that all the problems in the region have nothing to do at all with the Anglo-American destruction of Iraq and the punitive, Israeli led policies on the Palestinian people. No, it's all Iran's fault.

"Iran is deliberately causing maximum problems for moderate governments and for ourselves in the region - in Palestine, in Lebanon and in Iraq."

He goes on:

"There is no point in hiding the fact that Iran poses a major strategic threat to the cohesion of the entire region,"

Not only that but Iran is such a problem apparently that it overshadows the "major, major problems" of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. He tops these asinine statements with an incredibly bellicose piece of rhetoric:

“They seek to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine. Our response should be to expose what they are doing, build the alliances to prevent it and pin them back across the whole of the region,”
Source

Let's get something straight here, the Iranian regime is not very savoury. It oppresses its people and has a bad human rights record. According to Amnesty International, it has the second highest number of executions after China (America has the fourth) and it can be antagonistic to its neighbours and the West. Its President seems to be as religiously driven as Bush and Blair. Iran may or may not be producing nuclear weapons (the CIA has found no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme). But it is not Iran that is invading Middle East countries or bombing civilians on a daily basis. The chaos and misery in Palestine is caused by Israel with the help of Bush and Blair. In other words Iran is not the "major threat" to the region Blair says it is. If anyone is a threat to the region it is America, Britain and Israel. The last time Iran was a threat to Europe was in 479 BC (the Persian Wars) and the threat was dealt with successfully. The current demonising of Iran is reminiscent of the demonising that occurred during and after that ancient conflict. What Blair is doing here is accusing his enemy of the crimes he himself is committing. Blair is just as much of an extremist (if not more so) as Ahmadinejad.

Attacking Iran will not improve matters any more than the invasion of Iraq improved things in that country. An attack would have catastrophic consequences for the region and beyond and would probably hand Ahmadinejad even more support. It seems incredible that Blair is speaking of an "alliance of moderation" to combat Iran when his actions have done the complete opposite, something recognised by just about everyone except himself and George Bush. The recent Chatham House report is a testament to this.

Hopefully the tensions will ease, or Bush and Blair will be out of office before their terrifying plans can develop any further. There is serious doubt as to whether the British armed forces can undertake another campaign, especially one as massive as an attack on Iran would be. The army is already overstretched to breaking point. But sanity seems to be in short supply in Downing Street and the White House.

Tags: Bush, Blair, Iran