Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Labour failed to win back Blaenau Gwent in yesterday’s by-election. And in Bromley and Chislehurst they came forth. Behind UKIP.

I wonder…

What would Aneurin Bevan do
If he was here right now,
He’d make a plan
And he’d follow through,
That’s what Aneurin Bevan’d do.

It’s highly unlikely that he’d be happy to participate in an attempt to deploy damage limiting spin so that the hugely unpopular party leader could survive just a little bit longer. Unlike Hazel Blears.

It’s much more likely that he’d be mostly interested in the long term implications of what’s actually happening in the real world. The Labour Party’s slow but entirely visible slide into another long period of unpopularity and unelectability might just be of greater concern to him than a futile attempt to prop up a failing, flailing leader whose moral authority is in tatters and whose only strategy is to try to keep right-wing authoritarian tabloid owners onside.

So, Labour Party types, the party leadership types are undoubtedly sounding like Lance Corporal Jones right about now. Well, they’re right that panicking won’t help. But they’re wrong about pretty much everything else. I suspect you know this already.

Action needs to be taken. The party will not recover if Blair is allowed to continue as leader and an “orderly transition” will simply transfer Blair’s unpopularity straight onto Brown. There needs to be, for want of a better word, a bloodletting.

Make a plan and follow it through.

And what would Aneurin Bevan do,
He’d call all the kids in town,
And tell them to unite for truth
That’s what Aneurin Bevan would do.

Or, alternatively, start preparing for a long period of opposition.

Tags: News, Politics, Labour, Tony Blair

Here’s a little riddle. Just complete this sentence in a way which doesn’t make a mockery of our democratic process:

Rupert Murdoch, the Australian media baron who lives in the United States, is entitled to wield enormous influence over British politics because…

Anyone? Because he’s very rich? Because he can? Because all British politicians are scared of the Scum?

If there is an answer, I’ve yet to think what it could possibly be.

The man who owns the Scum, the NotW, the Times, and Sky News has been speaking rather a lot recently about the possibly of switching his support from Labour back to the Tories under Cameron. This, I really don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say, could have a crucial effect on the outcome of the next general election.

Only the most cynical of people could possibly argue that the new Home Secretary’s recent actions, which prompted the NotW to proclaim that it had won a “massive victory“, are in any way related to Murdoch’s not even thinly veiled threat to switch sides. I mean, this government pandering to a right wing authoritarian media baron in an attempt to garner his continuing support? The very thought…

This week, Murdoch, not content with that “massive victory”, has continued to play coy about his intentions. Clearly, the current electoral position, where the outcome of the next general election is very much up for grabs, gives him added leverage over the politicians who seek his approval. It’s no wonder he doesn’t want a snap election. Why on earth would he want to cut short a period in which the leaders of the two parties are both going to be dancing to his tune?

Tags: News, Politics, Ruper Murdoch, Media

Last week, I wrote about our government’s flagrant disregard for the disarmament provisions of the NNPT. Today at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn asked a question along the same lines. What was Blair’s answer?

Jeremy Corben: The Prime Minister, I’m sure, would accept that the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commits this country and all other declared nuclear powers to long term disarmament. In the light of that, could he explain why the government is even considering an extension or replacement for Trident. Shouldn’t we seize this historic opportunity to start a process of nuclear disarmament around the world?

Blair: Well of course we do do an immense amount in this area and there is nothing inconsistent with renewing our own independent nuclear deterrent to be in favour of non-proliferation. But I think my honourable friend’s remarks are an indication that it’s going to be a lively debate.

Ah, he didn’t answer. I’m not what you’d call overcome by surprise.

The point is that it *is* inconsistent to insist that other countries abide by the non-proliferation provisions of the treaty while simulateously ignoring the disarmament provisions which are an essential part of the same agreement.

The NNPT has been signed by 188 nations. Of those, less than 10 actually have nuclear weapons. Many, if not most of the remaining countries signed the treaty and promised not to seek to aquire nuclear weapons on the understanding that the nuclear powers were commited to work towards “general and complete disarmament”. This wasn’t woolly headed peacenik optimist on their part; it is what the treaty actually says.

Our government cannot seriously expect to be able to insist on the continued selective application of the provisions of the treaty without doing enormous damage to our country’s moral standing in the international community. Either we take the treaty seriously or we do not.

I think we should. Others disagree but seem reluctant to withdraw from it, prefering instead to simply ignore an international commitment which they believe goes against our national interests. This is certainly an understandable position. But, by adopting that attitude you surely lose any right to criticise other governments when they do the same.

Tags: News, Politics, WMD, Tony Blair

Could there be anything more stomach churning than our great leader, the spinmeister general, calling for open and candid debate?

He has, for years now, done everything in his power to prevent open and candid debate within his party and the country. This is the man who has choreographed Labour party conferences to the extent that they have become vacuous, unthinking, flag waving homages to the great leader. Now, after all those years of marginalising and misrepresenting his critics, ignoring uncomfortable truths, silencing protestors and generally just being a lying, untrustworthy git, he wants to have a debate.

I think I’m going to throw up.

It is surely a sign of how detached from reality he is that he would even suggest such a thing. It has long since become clear that Blair is pathlogically unable to participate in an open and candid debate. And even if he was not, there is a certain level of trust which must exist before a debate can have any useful purpose. There are not enough people left in the country who trust the liar for a debate to serve any purpose whatsoever.

Here’s an uncoded message.

That’s the sign on the front door of the debating chamber.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

The Daily Mail has been at the forefront of the campaign to defend free speech against those insidious Muslim usurpers which are such a threat to our great society. We must not allow freedom of speech to be constrained in the name of preventing offence, they trumpet. It is an absolute.

Well, not exactly. The right to free speech apparently doesn’t apply when someone wants to make offensive comments about the divine leader of their religion. That’s Mrs Thatcher, obviously.

Moronic…and Cameron should have known better

[O]nce in a while a moment arrives when it is impossible to sigh with resignation. Think what you like about Lady Thatcher or David Cameron, this is a civilised democracy in which the elected leaders of major parties are entitled to a minimal respect.

Mockery and satire are one thing - in fact they are an important way of sharpening political debate - but sheer, gross personal bad manners are another. The question put by Mr Ross to Mr Cameron was not mocking or satirical. It was moronic and infantile.

Remember that this passage was actually chosen by executives from a much longer recording. It is hard to resist the conclusion that they thought this was yet another opportunity to display their loathing for Margaret Thatcher, an unreasoning, obsessive, snobbish liberal bigotry that still grips BBC staff, and people such as Mr Ross, more than 15 years after her fall from power.

If no action is taken against those who allowed this distasteful exchange, then it will be proof that the BBC has lost all perspective and judgment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha…

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho…

Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee…

Dear oh dear. My sides. Someone call a doctor, they may have split.

Moronic hypocrites.

By the way, if you missed it here’s what Ross said. Distasteful to some perhaps, but he’s like that every week so it’s hardly what you’d call surprising or unusual. Lots of people like it apparently.

Tags: News, Politics, Daily Mail, Media

For a long time, I worked in a shop selling bicycles in an area with a fair few social problems.

One of the most difficult aspects of working in retail is dealing with people who want to steal your stock. Anyone who argues that shoplifting is a victimless crime has never had to confront a desperate drug addict attempting to aquire something, anything, which they can sell in order to afford their next hit. As deputy manager I had to take the lead and do that any number of times and I can safely say that it’s a very stressful business. I’ve been spat at, verbally abused and physically threatened more times than I care to remember. As such, I certainly don’t feel that I’m an ivory tower middle-class intellectual with no understanding of anti-social behaviour and the effects it can have on the “law-abiding majority”.

I have also had considerable dealing with the police, having caught a fair few shoplifters fair and square. In the many discussions I’ve had with police officers, I’ve aquired a reasonable understanding of what evidence the police need to be able to charge someone with shoplifing and what steps a person can take to hold someone until the police arrive (in Scotland that is, although I believe the law in England is very similar on these issues). Here’s an absolutely true real world example from a couple of years back.

It was a busy Saturday afternoon in the shop and I was serving a customer near the front door. While talking to this customer, I looked up and spotted someone, a man, probably 18 years old, walking towards the front door with a mountain bike worth £1,500. For security reasons, we had a rule that all customers leaving the premises with new bikes be accompanied to the front door by a member of staff and as no member of staff was present, I knew something was up. I tried to attract the guy’s attention and he immediately bolted with the bike.

I shouted to a couple of my colleagues (for safety, and under police advice on the need for two people to give evidence, you can’t go charging off on your own) and we were off out the door after him. He, on the bike, was already well on his way but as luck would have it, a regular customer happened to be driving past and saw what was happening. He stopped his car, I jumped in, and away we went, my colleagues pursuing on foot. We drove past the guy, stopped the car, and I jumped out in front of him, much to his surprise.

So he’s cycling towards me on the pavement, looking pretty determined not to be caught. I am clearly identified by my uniform and he’s clearly not going to just stop. What to do? I’m not a violent person, haven’t been in a fight since I was 10 years old, but it’s my job to try to stop him. So, as he approaches, I lunge for him, and try to grab him, bike and all. He falls off the bike and goes headfirst into a wall at the side of the road. He busts his nose open; there’s really quite a lot of blood. I tell him not to move, he tries to get up, and I sit on him. I shout to one of my colleagues running towards us to go back to the shop and phone the police.

A small audience forms around the two of us. Some of them, particularly those around the same age as the guy, are hostile; more than one tells me that I’ve assaulted him, that they’ve witnessed it and that they’ll give evidence against me and that I can’t hold the guy against his will. I tell them to tell it to the police officers when they arrive but that I know I can restrain the guy till they do. An off-duty police officer arrives. He’s also witnessed my rugby tackle and associated damage to the guys face from his car, sat in traffic at the other side of the road. The off-duty copper tells him not to move and I get off the guy. He stays where he is.

So what happened next?

In tabloid land, I, the law abiding citizen just trying to do the right thing, am done for assault. I did, in front of many witnesses, including a police officer, launch myself at him, bust his nose, albeit accidentally, and physically restrain him.

In the real world, no such thing happens. The uniformed police arrive. They take statements. The “hostiles” tell them that I’ve assaulted the guy. I explain exactly what I did. The police tell the “hostiles” that I have the right to use “reasonable force” to stop the guy and essentially tell them to piss off. This they do, grudgingly, their entertainment over. They take the guy away in handcuffs. I go back to the shop and, after a fag and a cup of tea to steady the nerves, go back to work.

The guy had previous, got bail but pleaded guilty before the case came to trial and was given a custodial sentence (I can’t remember how long if truth be told, but we did get a letter from the powers that be informing us of the outcome).

What chance the tabloids would bother to report this?

If I’d actually beaten the guy to a pulp however, if I’d used unreasonable force, I might have been done for assault, and rightly so. What chance the tabloids would have reported such an outcome in outraged tones as some sort of travesty, while playing down any suggestion that excessive force had been used?

The truth is that the guy’s behavior would not have been significantly different whether he was risking one day in prison or 10 years and there’s every chance that he went on to reoffend on his release. There was only one thing on his mind that day, the need to feed his habit, and it’s sadly quite probable that it’s the only thing on his mind today too.

In 2002, the Audit Office estimated that half of all crime is related to drug use. This problem cannot be addressed by new authoritarian laws, summary justice or longer prison sentences. Drug addicts couldn’t give a flying toss about any of that.

What this guy needed, not just for him but for society as a whole, was to be put on a drug treatment programme with a genuine chance of rehabilitation. Both north and south of the border, to give credit where it’s due, funding for drug treatment programmes has been significantly increased. But more is needed. This is an area which does require a revolution in approach. Today, most drug addicts still do not get the treatment they need.

The emphasis needs to be on tackling the root of the problem, not the symptoms. If Blair seriously wants to do something about improving the lot of society, that’s where he should be concentrating his energies.

Of course, the tabloids think of this sort of thing as “junkie scum loving, woolly headed, bleeding heart liberal leftie nonsense” and we know that a patient, well considered, and potentially successful strategy is never going to be at the forefore of Blair’s mind when there are tabloid headlines to appease. It just isn’t the New Labour way.

Tags: Politics, Civil Liberty, Law, Media

So Gordon has announced that he wants the UK to retain an independent nuclear deterrent thus prejudging the “debate” we’re all going to be allowed to have on this. Hurray! Is he Prime Minister already then?

And I was hoping he’d be an improvement. Yeah, I suppose that was daft. What can I say? I’m an eternal optimist. Well, I used to be anyway. This government, to give them credit where it’s due, does a good line in ruthlessly crushing any sense of optimism you might have been foolish enough to hold on to.

Here’s what Brown actually said in context (just for laughs, note the tortuous attempt to make the statement appear part of his actual brief).

What I said when I made the Bank of England independent remains even more true today, I said that our new monetary and fiscal regime was founded on stability first, foremost and always, stability yesterday, today and tomorrow.

And I mean not just stability by securing low inflation but stability in our industrial relations, stability through a stable and competitive tax regime, and stability through a predictable and light touch regulatory environment – a stability founded on our strength to make the right long term decisions, the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term – strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.

In an insecure world we must and will always have the strength to take all necessary long term decisions for stability and security.

He hasn’t explicitly stated that he believes Trident should be replaced but he has dropped a rather enormous hint.

If the UK government does make a policy decision to “retain” our nuclear deterrent and replace Trident with a new nuclear weapons system, will we also be withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Just a reminder of Article VI:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
[my emphasis]

The UK government surely couldn’t simply be planning to ignore the provisions of this hugely important international treaty. I mean, to deliberately flaunt the spirit, and almost certainly the letter, of this treaty would make our government an international pariah, a rogue state with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It would make a mockery of our obligations to the international community. The UN Security Council would undoubtedly have to impose some sort of sanctions…

Oh, hang on. I forgot that we’re the indisputable good guys. These obligations don’t apply to *us*. The idea that *we* should be constrained by international treaties we’re a party to is just silly.

(As a side issue, there’s some considerable debate as to how independent it really is. We buy the Trident missiles from the US government. What chance we could actually use any of it independently (not that I’d like them used at all obviously)? There’s every chance that these missiles would mysteriously not work if the UK government tried to use them independently of the US. The “independent” nuclear deterrent may very well be a complete misnomer.)

Update

For those who have a care about the misuse of the English language, I’m reliably informed that it should be “flout the spirit”, not “flaunt the spirit”. It’s a common error apparently. I really should have paid more attention in those English classes.

Tags: News, Politics, Gordon Brown, WMD

Listening to Prime Ministers Questions today, its easy to see why its not called Prime Ministers Answers. Actual answers to the questions asked are rare indeed.

Blair and Cameron had another of their long pantomime “I’m tougher than you” sessions. In the midst of this, Blair revealed the true extent of his thinking. This, in his most gleefully accusatory tone:

He tried to suggest that the Sentencing Guidelines Council was the reason he voted against the 2003 [Criminal Justice] Act. Actually… the reason they voted against the 2003 act was because of the withdrawal of the right to trial by jury, which incidentally they were also wrong on. It [Tory opposition to the act] was not because the measures were too soft. It was because they were too tough.
[Transcribed from the BBC player]

Blair is proud of it. The withdrawal of the right to trial by jury.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 withdrew the right to trial by jury in specific circumstances. There are very good reasons why it might be a good idea to oppose setting such a precedent.

What does it say about the current political landscape when defending the right to trial by jury is open to mocking ridicule and scorn? To me, it says today’s political landscape is a malaria infested swamp. But it’s not mosquitoes which are causing disease. It’s Blair, his cronies and their borderline proto-fascist posturing.

I think Blair might have got on quite well with Il Duce. Blair might not share a penchant for “outright violence” against his political opponents (well, not domestically anyway), but he would surely approve of the intimidation tactics Il Duce employed.

Seriously, he and his cabal are becoming dangerously deluded and increasingly detached from an understanding of the consequences of their policies and actions. I shudder to think what they’re going to propose next.

Tags: News, Politics, Labour, Tony Blair