The Nether-World

Sycophancy Or Mere Idiocy?

2007-08-20T05:55:00.000+01:00

I realise that the Observer has recently become something of a Brownite propaganda sheet lately but this vomit-inducing article takes the biscuit:

I admit it. I have a secret, embarrassing crush on Gordon Brown. Actually, it's not that secret because as soon as I discovered it - right about the time he coolly chose not to wear a stetson to meet George W Bush - I started to confess it to everybody like an awkward case of athlete's foot. He's a real man, I said, a man who puts the tension into pensions. He's happy to holiday in Dorset. He's wonderful with children and bunnies. He's simply marvellous under pressure. Even the half-blindness and weird gabby thing he does with his jaw didn't seem to matter.
As it turned out, I was preaching to the converted. A quick poll of my friends revealed that an astonishing seven out of 10 also secretly fancied him or, at least, had had very un-Fife-like thoughts about him. 'He's a father of the nation,' cooed one gay friend, 'a father you'd secretly like to shag.' Other attractions included his cleverness, stony good looks, 'surly manner' and - from my mother - 'the determination to wear a suit at all times'.

Read on

Someone fetch me a bucket please.

Tags: Gordon Brown, NuLab, Media, UK Politics

Another Step Closer To Internment

2007-07-16T06:26:00.000+01:00

Before becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown made no secret of his support for 90 days detention without charge for suspected terrorists and plans were already being drawn up to revive the idea which resulted in Tony Blair's first parliamentary defeat when it was first tried in 2005. After the spectacularly incompetent car 'bomb' attacks in London and Glasgow at the end of June which thankfully resulted in no loss of life or injury except to one of the would be terrorists, it seemed inevitable that we would be hearing more about 90 days detention or internment without charge. The Government was originally praised for its calm response following the attacks and for the lack of knee-jerk legislation that we were so used to under Blair's premiership. However it was only a matter of time before unnecessary draconian legislation was back on the agenda and lo and behold both 90 days detention and indefinate imprisonment withoout charge are once again being considered. As before, it is a senior police officer lobbying for this plan and the media seem happy to help.

One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.
The proposal, put forward by the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers (Acpo) and supported by Scotland Yard, is highly controversial. An earlier plan to extend the amount of time suspects can be held without charge to 90 days led to Tony Blair's first Commons defeat as Prime Minister. Eventually, the government was forced to compromise on 28 days, a period which Gordon Brown has already said he wants to extend.
The Observer understands that the Acpo proposal has been discussed in meetings between Brown and senior police officers. Whitehall sources said the PM was receptive to the association's demands, but believes an upper detention limit is essential to avoid a de facto Guantanamo Bay based in the UK.

The officer proposing this controversial plan is Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. He denies that he wants to introduce internment but when you look up the word "internment" and compare the definition to to what Ken Jones is proposing, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some sort of internment is what he's asking for. Several issues are being raised here. Firstly, as Shami Chakrabarti, of campaign group Liberty, says:

"We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment," said Ms Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.
Source

Secondly, extending the amount of time a suspect can be held without charge is unnecessary. In Britain suspects can be held for 28 days without charge and that is longer than most democracies allow. As we've seen in the recent attacks, suspects have either been charged, released or are still being held pending possible charges. Scrapping the time limit on how long a suspect can be held without charge would set a very dangerous precedent and would be a significant erosion of habeas corpus. The way this possible legislation is being pushed follows a familiar pattern with New Labour. A radical and dangerous plan gets proposed, is given favorable coverage in tabloids and then gets watered down a little so that some sort of consesus can be reached and to create the illusion that the Government is taking notice of peoples concerns about civil liberties. After that there will be a short wait and then the measure will be extended in the same way so that eventually we end up with the initial proposal without too many people noticing. Blair did this throughout his premiership. It would be a huge disappointment (though probably not surprising) if Gordon Brown did exactly the same thing after all his talk about change and a new kind of politics.

Spy Blog has more.

Tags: Internment, Gordon Brown, Civil Liberties, UK Politics, Habeas Corpus, Terrorism

In Case You Were Wondering...

2007-07-10T17:03:00.000+01:00

For those readers who may have been wondering why I haven't posted anything about Alastair Campbell's over-rated, over-priced, heavily censored book, here is an explanation.

Cheers Tim.

*UPDATE*
From Bloggerheads (July 25):

For All Participants: It is now two weeks later. Alastair Campbell's book has been marked down to less than £13 by Tesco and Amazon. Copies are trading on eBay for less than £7. I thank you all for your input (or, rather, the admirable restraint that led to a notable lack of it). Cheers all.

Ahahahahaha!!!

Tags: Alastair Campbell, Arseholes, Books, New Labour

Beyond 'Ridiculous'

2007-06-21T05:57:00.000+01:00

Planning on visiting the UK for a holiday? Need a tourist visa? If so, be careful what reasons you give the Foreign Office for choosing the UK as your holiday destination. It seems merely being a tourist and wanting to do some sightseeing is not a good enough reason.

UK tourist visas are often denied to would-be visitors because they "plan a holiday for no particular purpose other than sightseeing", a report says.

It gets better. Here are a couple of the other "ridiculous reasons" used by the Foreign Office to reject visas.

"you wish to go to the UK for a holiday. You have never previously undertaken any foreign travel before and I can see little reason for this trip".

Having "little or no idea what you plan to see or do".

The UK tourism industry is one of the largest in the country accounting for approximately £85 billion in 2005 and employs two million people. You'd think tourists from overseas would be encouraged to do a bit of sightseeing wouldn't you?

Tags: UK Tourism, Ridiculous, Foreign Office

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

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

April Foolery

2007-04-01T06:52:00.000+01:00

Last year a story that I suspected was an April Fools joke turned out to be real which is a reversal from the norm where a convincing story turns out to be a prank. So this year I've been a bit more careful in reading the news. I'm sure there are lots of April Fools jokes going around, but my favourite so far is this one from the Telegraph which almost had me for a minute:

Revealed: cash-strapped London ready to share Olympics with France
The Government is drawing up plans to "farm out" several events at the 2012 London Olympics - including the showpiece opening ceremony - to Paris.
Steeply rising costs and unexpected delays in developing the London site have forced the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to draw up the radical contingency proposals.
Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, is understood to have set up a top level, inter-departmental working party to consider the options.
One idea is to stage some of the events in Paris, which was narrowly beaten by London to host the Games when the International Olympic Committee made its choice in 2005.
Miss Jowell is adamant that London will not lose any of the major athletics events, but some of the track and field heats could take place in Paris.
The opening ceremony, which is costly and not truly sports-related, could even be transferred to the Stade de France. A memorandum from the Foreign Office to the working party, seen by this newspaper, notes: "The French are very good at fireworks."
Read on

Of course considering the pig's ear that Tessa Jowell has made of the financing of the Olympics so far, and Britain's performance in completing Wembley Stadium, it was only remembering what day this is that stopped me believing this story. Once you get further down the article there are some other clues such as Ken Livingstone denying that he was:

in favour of allowing some of the "softer" Olympic events, such as beach volleyball and synchronised swimming, to be transferred to Caracas, as a mark of his admiration for Venezuela's Left-wing president Hugo Chavez.

Ho Ho, very droll... And then there is the name of Avril Bouffonnerie as being the spokesman for the original French bid. So I'm fairly confident this time that this is an April Fools joke (even though it's a damn good idea - in fact I'd go further and give the whole thing to Paris; Britain under New Labour proves every day that it couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery). It's nice to see that Iain Dale has also gotten into the spirit of the occasion, and, I have to say, did it very well too - it had me going for about as long as the Telegraph article did.

What I'm wondering now is whether or not this is an April Fool's joke:

Clarke ready to run for leader
CHARLES CLARKE is ready to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership if David Miliband fails to mount a bid.
Confidants of the former home secretary say he will consider a leadership challenge to deprive the chancellor of a “coronation” for the top job if the environment secretary refuses to do so.

I suspect that ludicrous as it sounds, it isn't, but then I've already commented on on his plotting and his prospects as well as the song that came to mind when I first heard of the possibility.

Tags: April Fools, Olympics, Charles Clarke

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

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 Shameful Day For Blair And Britain

2006-12-15T02:27:00.000Z

There was no shortage of interesting news stories in Britain today, from the on-going horror of the Ipswich murders to the official release of Lord Stevens inquiry into the death of Princess Diana ("tragic accident"), to the news that the Government intends to close 2,500 post offices. So this would be the perfect day to slip out two other stories that the Government would rather not draw too much attention to. It didn't work; the stories are so big that they were obviously going to top the headlines.

Both these stories demonstrate the depths to which this government (and also the country) has sunk to. Firstly we have Tony Blair being the first sitting Prime Minister to be questioned by the police in connection with a criminal investigation. This is of course the cash for honours scandal in which we knew that the Prime Minister would eventually be questioned. What is surprising is that he was not questioned under caution, which implies that he is being treated as a witness rather than a suspect. This is very odd; the buck stops with the Prime Minister and Blair himself said as much when the story first broke early this year. One can only speculate that our honourable leader is leaving his friends to take the rap for him. Right in the frame is Blair's fundraiser in chief and Middle East envoy, Lord Levy who has already been arrested, bailed and questioned under caution. I suppose it's not so surprising that 'Teflon Tony' once again escapes the consequences of his actions, however his reputation is now further tarnished with sleaze. No doubt there will be further revelations as the investigation nears its conclusion. We've already heard that Gordon Brown, despite previous denials of having anything to to with the scandal, is in fact deeply involved. Iain Dale has some more on Blair's defence and like Iain, I'm not convinced.

Worse than this piece of common sleaze however, is an even more disgraceful revelation which came out today, and this is the one that turned my usual disgust with New Labour into a fit of anger.

The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Lord Goldsmith told the Lords he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
Lord Goldsmith also told peers that Prime Minister Tony Blair had agreed that the continuation of the investigation would cause "serious damage" to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
Source

This is appalling! The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, under pressure from the Saudi government BAE Systems and, of course, Tony Blair, decides that a small matter like the law shouldn't get in the way of huge British arms deals with Saudi Arabia and relations between the two countries. What does that say about the rule of law and British justice? Maybe I was being naive but I didn't think that even New Labour would stoop so low as to halt an on-going corruption investigation by the Serious Fraud Office because of threats from a foreign government and fear of losing lucrative contracts. This is not so much sleaze as pure corruption. Just as galling are the reasons given for this extraordinary decision; "national security" and nothing at all to do with commercial considerations... Bullshit! Newsnight has good analysis of the story which you can see here (for a short while).

The decision to abandon the investigation makes a mockery of Labour's own anti-corruption legislation which is part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

108 Bribery and corruption: foreign officers etc.

(1) For the purposes of any common law offence of bribery it is immaterial if the functions of the person who receives or is offered a reward have no connection with the United Kingdom and are carried out in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

(2) In section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (c. 34) (corrupt transactions with agents) insert this subsection after subsection (3)-

"(4) For the purposes of this Act it is immaterial if-

(a) the principal's affairs or business have no connection with the United Kingdom and are conducted in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;

(b) the agent's functions have no connection with the United Kingdom and are carried out in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom."

Once again I find myself agreeing with Iain Dale on this matter. Some of the comments on the hurried post I wrote on Blairwatch when the story broke are also worth reading. Also, check out Chicken Yoghurt and A Big Stick And A Small Carrot to get an idea of the sense of outrage over this.

Tags: Blair, NuLabour, Cash For Honours, Sleaze

Matthew Taylor: Hypocrite

2006-12-01T07:53:00.000Z

Last week Matthew Taylor, Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser, provoked uproar among bloggers by attacking their tendency to criticise politicians.

"What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are."
Source

Well now he is in the news again, this time doing exactly what he accuses bloggers of doing.

One of Tony Blair’s closest advisers has issued a devastating critique of the Prime Minister’s time in power, confessing that the Government’s arrogance undermined public trust.
Matthew Taylor, who was Downing Street chief of strategy until last Friday, has admitted that No 10 “liked the image of being brilliant media operators” and found it hard to make the transition from opposition to government in 1997. This meant that there was a “certain amount of creativity” with the truth when dealing with the media in the early years. [My emphasis]
Source

So the question I have is this: How come it's okay for Matthew Taylor to criticise the Government but not bloggers? Could it possibly be that Matthew Taylor, as well as being an arrogant, patronising, condescending twat, is also a complete hypocrite?

Tags: Blair, NuLabour, Blogging, Matthew Taylor

Git of the Week #1 (of an occasional series)

2006-11-19T22:12:00.000Z

I meant to comment on this earlier so by now it's already all over the blogosphere, but this story does need to be recorded here too. Actually "git" is probably too polite a word to describe Matthew Taylor, Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser who has decided that the reason people are turned off by politics is not the lies and corruption of the politicians but the people who have the audacity to comment on them, particularly bloggers. Talk about shooting the messenger. Anyway, judging by the reaction from the blogs I've read so far there is a rare (but unsurprising in this case) show of unanimity, with everyone having pretty much the same message for this patronising idiot. Let's have a closer look at the comments he made at an e-democracy conference in central London.

Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fuelling a "crisis" in the relationship between politicians and voters.

If by "crisis" you mean that more people are able to scrutinse and debate Government policy Matthew, that's not a crisis but a very positive development, one you should be encouraging rather than criticising.

Matthew Taylor - who stressed he was speaking as a "citizen" not a government spokesman - said the web could be "fantastic" for democracy.
But it was too often used to encourage the "shrill discourse of demands" that dominated modern politics.
He was speaking on the day Mr Blair carried out an online interview.

I thought we were all citizens in a democracy, whether we are a part of the Government or not. Are you suggesting that if you were speaking in your capacity of a government spokesman you would have a different set of views? Yes, the web could be "fantastic" for democracy if only you lot would stop meddling with it and trying to impose unnecessary restrictions on it.

Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters - and other initiatives such as environment secretary David Miliband's blog and Downing Street's new online petition service - showed the government was making good progress in using the internet to become more open and accountable.
But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.

The Government is slowly waking up to the power of the internet and I applaud some of those initiatives, but I hardly think it's making the Government more accountable. Mr Blair answered only a small handful of questions selected by the journalists conducting the interview. It wasn't exactly a "grilling" was it? David Miliband's blog is the laughing stock of the blogosphere. Has it ever veered off message? As for the petition service on the Downing Street website, well the jury is still out. We don't know if the Government will take any more notice of the petitions than it does of the votes at the Labour Party Conference.

One of the problems the web community is trying to solve is the undemocratic, mendacious and illiberal actions of this government, I'm afraid that requires a little criticism... deal with it! Politicians are servants of the people, so the people are quite right to make demands on them. If Politicians don't like that then they should be in another line of work.

Speaking at an e-democracy conference in central London, he said modern politics was all about "quality of life" and that voters had a "very complex set of needs".
The end of deference, the rapid pace of social change and growing diversity were all good things, he argued, but they also meant governments found it increasingly difficult to govern.

Voters do have a "very complex set of needs" and it is the job of the politicians to try and address those needs. Many of those needs are being expressed on the internet. Because there are so many people on-line, there are obviously going to be a lot of differing opinions. Rather than complain about it, look at what people are saying. The end of deference is a good thing, as you say Matthew, but you don't really mean that do you, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this:

"We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government," Mr Taylor told the audience.
Like "teenagers", people were demanding, but "conflicted" about what they actually wanted, he argued.
They wanted "sustainability", for example, but not higher fuel prices, affordable homes for their children but not new housing developments in their town or village.

I've been trying to avoid expletives up until now but ... Fuck right off you arrogant, patronising, condescending twat. Yes, we are increasingly unwilling to be governed by a bunch of lying, corrupt, greedy hypocrites like yourself and the rest of the NuLabour junta who are not held to account for their actions. Democracy is supposed to be self-government you idiot. Look it up in a dictionary. Of course people are demanding, and they have different views. Your generalisations of the "conflicted" people are offensive in the extreme which is exactly why you should expect some reciprocation. The examples you give show nothing new. It's up to governments to balance those conflicts as best they can. If you can't do that or complain about having to do it then piss off and we'll find people who can.

But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or "mendacious" by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage".
Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that "leaders are out there to shaft you".

Now where would we get the insane idea that our leaders are corrupt, mendacious and out there to shaft us? The media reporting on the cash for honours investigation, the lies we were told in the run up to the war with Iraq...? Calling the media "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage" is a little disingenuous when what it does is report on your actions, and anyway, what about NuLaour's conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of fear?

He went on: "At a time at which we need a richer relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had, to confront the shared challenges we face, arguably we have a more impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens than we have ever had.
"It seems to me this is something which is worth calling a crisis."

Yes Matthew it is a crisis, one entirely of the Government's making. The impoverished relationship between politicians and citizens you lament is because of the dishonesty and lack of accountability. The richer relationship you want is partly possible because of a vibrant media and on-line community.

The internet, he told the conference, was part of that "crisis".
"The internet has immense potential but we face a real problem if the main way in which that potential expresses itself is through allowing citizens to participate in a shrill discourse of demands.
"If you look at the way in which citizens are using technology and the way that is growing up, there are worrying signs that that is the case.

No, the internet is part of the solution. What you call a "shrill discourse of demands" is in fact citizens discussing, debating, arguing and informing. What is wrong with that, and why shouldn't they use technology to do those things more effectively?

"What is the big breakthrough, in terms of politics, on the web in the last few years? It's basically blogs which are, generally speaking, hostile and, generally speaking, basically see their job as every day exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are.
"The internet is being used as a tool of mobilisation, which is fantastic, but it only adds to the growing, incommensurate nature of the demands being made on government."

Yes, blogs like the mainstream media, can be hostile and if they expose how venal, stupid, mendacious politicians are then they are doing a valuable service. If you don't like it, why not try being less venal, stupid and mendacious? Anyway not all blogs provide this service, you've already mentioned David Miliband's blog, and there are other blogs which will happily praise your illiberal policies, gloss over your dishonesty and be the deferential compliant citizens you obviously want. I seem to remember you wanting an official blogger for the recent Labour Party Conference. And what about Hazel Blears' blog? You seem to complain about blogs when they dare to disagree with you, but are quite happy to use them to spread your message.

He challenged the online community to provide more opportunities for "people to try to understand the real trade-offs that politicians face and the real dilemmas that citizens face".

In other words to shut up and get with the programme... No chance, if it's all the same to you we'll just carry on exposing how venal, stupid, mendacious you are. It's more fun anyway.

"I want people to have more power, but I want them to have more power in the context of a more mature discourse about the responsibilities of government and the responsibilities of citizens," Mr Taylor told delegates.

The last thing you want is for us to have more power which is why your government has put so much effort into removing as many of our liberties as possible. If you want responsible citizens then lead by example and empower people.

Part of the problem, he added, was the "net-head" culture itself, which was rooted in libertarianism and "anti-establishment" attitudes.

Oh dear! What on earth, may I ask, is wrong with libertarianism? Are you saying that you are opposed to liberty and free will? Judging by NuLabour policies, I suppose the answer is "yes" but that isn't specified in the rhetoric is it? As for "anti-establishment" attitudes, well Britain has a rich tradition in "anti-establishment" attitudes. It is not a new phenomenon that grew out of the internet, rather a continuation of an old tradition using the internet.

He told delegates: "You have to be part of changing that culture. It's important for people who understand technology, to move from that frame of mind, which is about attacking the establishment into one which is about problem-solving and social enterprise."
Technology should be used to encourage elected representatives to communicate better with voters, he told delegates.

Why exactly should users of technology not challenge their leaders and ask pertinent questions?

Government also needed to "develop new forms of consultation and engagement that are deliberative in their form and trust citizens to get to the heart of the difficult trade-offs involved."
And there should be more effort to make communities "work together to solve problems," said Mr Taylor.

This government has shown no trust in its citizens and should therefore expect no trust from its citizens. "Work together to solve problems," is a NuLabour euphemism for "keep quiet and do as your told". After ten years in power that has become fairly apparent to many people.

Mr Taylor is Tony Blair's chief adviser on political strategy and the former head of the centre left think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR).
He is leaving Downing Street next week, after three years, to become the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts (RSA).

I'm glad you're leaving Downing Street Mr Taylor. Hopefully you'll do less harm working in the RSA, but be warned, artists can be notoriously anti-establishment. I doubt they will be any more deferential and compliant than the numerous bloggers who have such a low opinion of you.

Bloggage
Blairwatch
D-Notice
Guido Fawkes
Iain Dale's Diary
Mr Eugenides
Not Saussure
Rachel
Paul Linford
Devil's Kitchen

Tags: Blair, NuLabour, Blogging

Knacker of the Yard is making "considerable progress"

2006-11-16T21:26:00.000Z

Scotland Yard's Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the policeman investigating the cash for honours inquiry, has written to MPs on the public administration select committee and reported that "considerable progress continues to be made". So far 90 people have been interviewed, 35 from the Labour Party, 29 Conservatives, four Liberal Democrats, and 22 non-party. The investigation is said to have uncovered "significant and valuable material".

This might explain why Tony Blair has been so worried and angry lately, and also why lawyers for Downing Street have launched a pre-emptive strike against the police by challenging any prosecution using the excuse that the investigation has been compromised by unauthorised leaks. This incidentally, is the same defence used by Abu Hamza and Gary Glitter. The accusation that the police are guilty of leaking information about the case is ridiculous of course. Why would the police jeopardise their own investigation? Yates doesn't strike me as being that stupid. As Iain Dale points out, if anyone is trying to influence the proceedings it is the the Labour leadership who have consistently encouraged journalists to report that the Police have found nothing and the inquiry is going nowhere. Mr Yates seems to be replying to these accusations by saying that "the major developments" in the inquiry remained confidential and that, security surrounding the investigation "remains very tight" despite what has been reported.

You can read the full text of the letter sent by Yates to MPs here. Needless to say, Guido got there first.

Tags: Blair, Nu Labour, Cash For Honours

Blunkett confesses to urging Blair to commit a war crime

2006-10-12T08:46:00.000+01:00

As confessions go this one is a blinder (no pun intended). It's not just George Bush who tried to convince Tony Blair that bombing Al Jazeera was a good idea, David Blunkett is claiming that he also told Tony to attack the news outlet. On this occasion it was the transmitter in Baghdad which was later bombed by the Americans during the invasion of Iraq.

DAVID Blunkett has admitted he urged Tony Blair to break international law and bomb al-Jazeera's Baghdad TV transmitter during the Iraq war.
The disgraced ex-Home Secretary makes his astonishing revelation in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme, to be shown next week, saying he viewed the Arab television station as a legitimate target.
He brushes aside protests that, as a civilian organisation, the bombing of al-Jazeera would have been illegal under international law.
The amazing exchange will be shown on Monday in the second episode of a two-part screening of the audio-diaries he kept during his time in the Cabinet.
Mr Blunkett tells Dispatches he suggested to the war cabinet that al-Jazeera's Baghdad transmitter be attacked.
Asked whether he was not worried that this would be "outside the rules of engagement", Mr Blunkett says: "There wasn't a worry from me because I believed that this was a war and in a war you wouldn't allow the broadcast to continue taking place."
Dispatches reporter Isabel Tang protests: "But al-Jazeera was a civilian target."
Mr Blunkett replies: "Well, I don't think that there are targets in a war that you can rule out because you don't actually have military personnel inside them if they are attempting to win a propaganda battle on behalf of your enemy."
Tang goes on: "But surely that's against international law." Mr Blunkett says: "Well I don't think for a minute in previous wars we'd have thought twice about ensuring that a propaganda mechanism on the soil of the country you were invading would actually continue being able to propagandise against you."
Two weeks after Mr Blunkett pressed the Prime Minister to attack al-Jazeera, the station's Baghdad offices were bombed by the Americans, killing journalist Tareq Ayoub.
Source

So if Blunkett can come clean about suggesting a war crime, isn't it time Blair owned up about his little discussion with Bush. Over at Blairwatch I have been following the case of David Keogh Leo O'Connor who are accused of violating the Official Secrets Act by leaking what is now known as the Al Jazeera memo. It seems a striking coincidence that this revelation should come now just as we are told that the trial David Keogh Leo O'Connor is postponed until next year and will be held in secret.

Tags: Al Jazeera Memo, Blair, Blunkett, Iraq

Blunkett explains himself

2006-10-07T07:50:00.000+01:00

David Blunkett has given an interview with the Guardian. Much of it concerns his depression after the end of his relationship with Kimberly Quinn (and the end of his career) but there were a couple of other bits which I found more interesting. First the easy bit:

"The main task for all of us is to make sure that in years to come Iraq is not seen as [Blair's] legacy," Mr Blunkett says. Instead, he asserts, the legacy will be "the complete transformation of Britain's economic, social and political culture".

Fat chance!

More interesting is Blunkett's admission that the UK had no real influence on the USA over Iraq (imagine my surprise) and that he failed to question the intelligence over Iraq in the run-up to the war.

A member of the war cabinet, he reveals that Britain battled with the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, and defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, not to press ahead with dismantling "the whole of the security, policing, administrative and local government system on the basis of the de-Ba'athification of Iraq.
"The issue was: 'What the hell do you do about it?' All we could do as a nation of 60 million off the coast of mainland Europe was to seek to influence the most powerful nation in the world. We did seek to influence them, but we were not in charge, so you cannot say that if only the government recognised what needed to be done, it would all have been different. The government did recognise the problem."
He admits: "We dismantled the structure of a functioning state," adding that the British view was: "Change them by all means, decapitate them even, but very quickly get the arms and legs moving."
Recalling his role in the war cabinet, he says: "I did two things, one that was good, and one that was not so clever. I asked rigorous questions to the point when Peter Mandelson said 'Are you onside with Tony?' and secondly I did not take enough notice because I was home secretary, and I did not argue enough about what we were doing presentationally about the dossiers. I just did not. There is no point pretending I did and I was right. I just did not."
He says he is not criticising the then head of the joint intelligence committee, Sir John Scarlett. "People took things in good faith, the pressures on people were enormous. If for the first time ever you are going to have a vote in parliament about going to war, and you are trying to win the country over, and you are trying to send signals that might in the end avoid war, you get into that kind of momentum which is very difficult to get out of."
Mr Blunkett likens Mr Blair's close relationship with George Bush to that of members of a joint cabinet, with collective cabinet responsibility.
He insists Mr Blair stood up to the president in private. He argues: "You influence someone not by abusing them, but by persuading them. I do not think that in politics there is a betrayal in privately telling the US the truth, and being supportive as it is possible to be, given the difficulties that causes you politically at home."
Source

So it looks like Blunkett's influence over Blair is comparable to Blair's influence over Bush. What comes across to me loud and clear is just how necessary his resignation was. It's just a shame that his successors were even worse

You can read the interview here

Tags: Blunkett, Nu Labour, UK Politics

That awful John Reid speech

2006-09-29T07:28:00.000+01:00

Unsurprisingly, we've heard a lot of crap from the Labour Party Conference, from Gordon Brown's lackluster attempt to look electable, to Tony Blair's polished but deluded messianic garbage to John Prescott's apologetic swansong. However, the most dreadful speech of the conference was delivered by the Home Secretary, John Reid. For those wanting to see the really scary side of New Labour in all its horror and hypocrisy, it didn't disappoint (no wonder Roy Hattersly contemplated shooting himself if Reid ever becomes Prime Minister, an idea that Reid seemed to relish). Other bloggers with stronger stomachs have covered his performance so there is no need for me to repeat what they have been saying, except for this point which does bear repeating [links added by me]:

There are, and there will be, no "no-go areas" in our country for any of our people, whatever our background, colour or creed.

We will go where we please, we will discuss what we like and we will never be brow-beaten by bullies.

That's what it means to be British.
Source

New Labour is responsible for prohibiting protests outside Parliament without prior permission. The very conference hall where Reid spoke these words was a "no-go area" for all but the most sycophantic New Labour loyalists. Reid is being presented as the Blairite alternative leader to Gordon Brown. I wouldn't want either of these clowns as Prime Minister, but the thought of Reid at the helm of New Labour's sinking ship is a nightmare scenario that should have us all very worried indeed.

Here's what some other bloggers have been saying:

BlairWatch
Big Stick and a Small Carrot
Obsolete

Tags: New Labour, John Reid, UK Politics

Time to tell Blair to go

2006-09-19T06:22:00.000+01:00

This weekend the Labour Party will hold its annual party conference in Manchester. With all the recent drama over the leadership of the Party, the litany of policy failures and a looming NHS strike, it should be an interesting event. Not that New Labour is planning to let anyone but the most loyal of party members into the conference. Rather than have another repetition of last year when an 80 year old refugee from Nazi Germany was roughed up and manhandled out of the auditorium for shouting "nonsense", the Party intend to strictly veto attendees.

However, this is the best chance we will have to send Tony Blair an unequivocal message:

It's Time To Go!

The Stop The War Coalition, with other groups, is organising one of its most important demonstrations so far. A huge protest is planned in Manchester on September 23 at 1:00 pm. If you are able to make it to Manchester this Saturday, I urge you to attend an help deliver to Tony this very simple message which he is having so much difficulty understanding. For full details of the protest including information on coaches and trains as well as a map of central Manchester with relevant meeting points and the route, please click here.

Tags: Blair, Protest, Labour Party Conference

New Labour getting its priorities right

2006-09-15T13:01:00.000+01:00

New Labour appear to be trying to figure out a way to close hospitals without it costing them votes.

Ministers have denied reports that prominent Labour ministers and officials have met to work out ways of closing hospitals without jeopardising marginal seats.
The Times on Friday revealed an email passed which showed that the meeting included Labour chairman Hazel Blears and political advisers from Number 10.
The emails show that health secretary Patricia Hewitt asked for 'heat maps' to be provided, which indicate where hospital closures or reorganisation of health services could cost votes in marginal constituencies.
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "There is a secret political debate going on to try to minimise the damage to the Labour Party."
But speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, health minister Rosie Winterton said the meeting was simply seeking to take "a longer view in terms of political developments".
She said it was "absolutely not" the case that decisions on hospital closures were taken at the meeting.
Source

It's nice to see Labour's priorities; not 'how do we stop this sort of thing?' but 'how do we get away with this sort of thing?'. One way of getting away with it seems to be to close hospitals in constituencies not held by Labour.

Tags: Nu Labour, UK Politics

The Government starts to implode as Lebanon suffers and Blair catches some rays

2006-08-10T05:12:00.000+01:00

I might be a bit premature in showing this old joke from Private Eye, but it didn’t take very long after Blair’s departure for his rebellious MPs to start coming out of the woodwork. 24 hours into John Prescott’s tenure as acting Prime Minister, we have one resignation (so far) and up to 150 MPs demanding a recall of Parliament as the situation in Lebanon gets significantly worse after the draft UN resolution (that Blair tells us he postponed his holiday to achieve) collapses.

THE Labour revolt over Lebanon grew last night as an aide to the Government’s defence ministers quit his post in protest at Tony Blair’s stance.

Jim Sheridan, MP for Paisley & Renfrewshire South, became the first parliamentary private secretary — the unpaid assistants to ministers who are one step away from ministerial rank — to go public with his concerns about the Middle East. He criticised the decision to allow American planes carrying bombs to Israel to refuel at Prestwick airport.

Other aides, including Ann Keen, Gordon Brown’s PPS, supported the growing calls for an immediate recall of Parliament to discuss the crisis, a move that ministers were resisting. However, there were growing signs that they will eventually agree to a special sitting early next month.

Mr Sheridan’s resignation is damaging to Mr Blair because he is seen as a loyalist and he backed the Iraq war. “The reason I am resigning is the current conflict in the Middle East and once again the Palestinian situation has been put on the back burner,” he told Sky News.
Source

All the Labour MPs who spoke at last Saturday’s protest in London demanded a recall of Parliament. Yesterday a letter was delivered to Jack Straw from the MPs of several parties demanding that Parliament be recalled. That list of angry MPs has now grown longer. It is up to the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin MP to recall Parliament but Jack Straw as Leader of the House can recommend the recalling of Parliament. He has already spoken out against Israel’s ‘disproportionate’ actions in Lebanon on the prompting of Kofi Annan. Jack Straw, once a loyal Blarite, is now thought to be very angry with Blair after allowing the Bush Administration to sack him. So Jack may well feel inclined to wreck Blair’s holiday.

The situation in Lebanon is deteriorating rapidly. Israel has not been able to defeat Hezbollah and is suffering heavy casualties in its attempt to carve out Greater Israel. Israel has now sacked the General in charge of the operation and replaced him with a more aggressive one. A huge invasion is now being prepared and the tanks are rolling into southern Lebanon despite rumours that the invasion might be postponed to ‘give diplomacy a chance’. The operation is said to go on for at least a month, probably longer. Israel intends to capture all the land up to the Litani River, a vital water supply which dry Israel has always coveted. Hassan Nasrallah has warned Israel that Lebanon will be their graveyard. So, the machinations at the UN seem to be largely irrelevant, as was predicted when the UN draft resolution, hammered out by France and the USA, was exposed as being basically a handover of Lebanon to Israel. The Arab League demanded changes which has thrown the whole negotiation into disarray and destroyed the consensus reached by France and the USA. While there is no agreement at the UN, Israel will try to grab as much land as it can in order to strengthen its position. Hezbollah will fight like mad in order to gain more Arab support. As Israel will not be able to defeat Hezbollah, it will do what it always has done and bomb civilians.

Whether recalling Parliament can make any difference whatsoever is, of course, open to question. Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells has already said:

"I'm not sure what a recall of parliament would do to alter the situation."

Which is pretty much admitting how little influence the British Government now has. But the anger of MPs over Britain’s unconditional support for the imperial policies of America and Israel and the help it gives in supplying WMD to Israel for use on Lebanese civilians can be debated and hopefully stopped.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Blair, UK Politics, Nu Labour

Rats leave sinking ship

2006-07-10T08:38:00.000+01:00

More problems for the Home Office are brewing.

A FORMER leading Home Office civil servant has accused Tony Blair and John Reid of failing to keep talented senior staff and trying to “buy off” the tabloid press.

Martin Narey said that it was clear from the Government’s repetition of tabloid headlines on a range of subjects that it had lost self-confidence and given up control of its own agenda. He also cautioned that there would be a loss of talented senior Home Office figures, and said that Charles Clarke should still be Home Secretary.

“There are some fine people in the Home Office. Never a week goes by without them ringing me to ask how I got out. There’s going to be a haemorrhaging of talent,” he said.
Source

I’m afraid I fail to see how Charles Clarke staying at the Home Office would be any improvement, over the new Home Secretary but then Martin Narey used be Second Permanent Secretary in the Home Office under David Blunkett.

Mr Narey made his comments after John Reid announced plans to bring in a UK version of ‘Megan’s Law’ which would provoke vigilante attacks on the homes of released sex offenders. As chief executive of the children’s charity Barnardo’s, he is in can speak about children’s issues with some authority.

“I want to speak out about the demonisation of children, not just by the tabloid press, but by Government, including the Prime Minister, even though I am a huge fan of his.

“They are routinely using the words ‘yob’ and ‘feral’ to describe young people. Can you imagine applying that to any other minority? It’s unimaginable.

“We have convinced ourselves that we are the first generation to be troubled by children, but we are not. The problem is that we have become more intolerant of a lack of conformity.”

It is interesting that David Cameron has been saying something similar.

Tags: Tony Blair, John Reid, Home Office

Has Blair’s ID Card scheme hit the buffers?

2006-07-09T06:36:00.000+01:00

The answer seems to be “yes” according to some leaked emails from the officials who have been assigned the task of realising the intrusive scheme.

TONY BLAIR’S flagship identity cards scheme is set to fail and may not be introduced for a generation, according to leaked Whitehall e-mails from the senior officials responsible for the multi-billion-pound project.

The problems are so serious that ministers have been forced to draw up plans for a scaled-down “face-saving” version to meet their pledge of phasing in the cards from 2008.

However, civil servants say there is no evidence that even this compromise is “remotely feasible” and accuse ministers of “ignoring reality” by pressing ahead.

One official warns of a “botched operation” that could put back the introduction of ID cards for a generation. He added: “I conclude that we are setting ourselves up to fail.” Another admits he is planning Home Office strategy around the possibility that the scheme could be “canned completely”.
Source

The leaked emails can be seen here. If this is the end of the ID Card fiasco then it is good news. But Blair does seem determined to foist this burden upon us one way or another even if it means he has to do it “incrementally”. People renewing their passports to avoid being put on the database are already being issued with biometric passports. (My effort to ‘Renew for Freedom’ met with much more success; I opted to apply for an Italian passport which has no electronic chip… so far. It cost less too.)

In our favour is the notorious incompetence of the Government with any IT project (now proved yet again), and the likelihood that New Labour will not be in power long enough to complete this imposition on us.

*UPDATE*

More details on Blairwatch.

Tags: ID Cards, Civil Liberties, New Labour

Message to the Government

2006-07-04T16:01:00.000+01:00

Photo from Bloggerheads

Democracy is rule by the people. We elect OUR Government to carry out OUR bidding. If a government fails to do what has been asked of it by the people, then the people are entitled to elect another government that will.

On the whole what the people ask of their government is not unreasonable. We ask to be kept safe, to have OUR money sensibly managed and for OUR public services to be maintained. In return we give the Government a mandate to carry out OUR wishes and we pay taxes so that those aims can be achieved.

If we, the people ask for OUR Government to hold a public inquiry into an attack on us that killed 52 of us and maimed many more of us, then the Government should do just that. We should not be forced to fight for it even though we are quite prepared to do so. On July 7 last year the Government failed in its duty to keep us safe. The people who elected it were fairly forgiving, after all, the security services cannot be expected to foil every single plot against us, and we also demand from our Government the protection of our civil liberties which have been fought for over many generations. However, we did ask for an inquiry into the atrocity in order to be better able to prevent a similar attack and to learn from any mistakes that may have been made so that if, God forbid, anything like this does happen again, we will be able to deal with it more effectively. Is that so unreasonable?

As everyone knows by now, we were denied our request. Instead we were fobbed off with a handful of conflicting reports that cleared the security services of any failings despite them not even being interrogated properly. The causes of the disenfranchisement of the people who carried out this horror have not sufficiently been explored. Worse still, we were lied to when we were told the attack came “out of the blue”. More and more information is emerging that shows the security services were at least suspicious of the bombers, and had been bugging them. We have learned that we were warned by other governments that they intended to attack us.

We are still demanding an inquiry and the pressure will not cease until we get it. The excuse that the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world cannot afford the resources to conduct an inquiry is, frankly, ludicrous and insulting to our intelligence. The arguments in favour of an inquiry are overwhelming and have been made many times and each new piece of evidence that emerges further reinforces those arguments. But even if the evidence didn’t support the argument for an inquiry, we still have the issue that the people are demanding one. It’s our government, our money and if we want to “waste” it on an inquiry, that is our choice and should be respected.

If the people of this country voted for the Prime Minister to address Parliament dressed in a pink tutu and a deep-sea diving helmet, then that too would be the will of the people and would have to be obeyed. As it is all we are asking for is an inquiry into an issue that affects us all. If our government is unable to carry out that simple request, then the solution is simple, we will elect another government that can.

Tags: 7/7, London Bombings, July 7, Terrorism