Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Why do I get the feeling that this will be more Chucklevision than 2020 Vision? The website, and especially that photo (New Labour: now with added symbolism and sexiness and everything), almost provoked an inadvertent tea/nostril interface. My snort was somewhere between amusement and derision.

And Alan and Charles would clearly make excellent Chuckle Brothers. Which one has the guts, not gut, that’s obviously Charles, the guts to stand against Gordon?

“To you.” “To me.” “To you.” “To me…”

On the face of it, the project itself is not a bad idea. On the face of it. But there’s obviously a bit more to it than that.

Personally, I’d very much like to see Brown face a credible challenger when Blair finally departs but there isn’t exactly an abundance of those doing the rounds. Meacher and McDonnell have no realistic prospect of winning, Reid is the scariest man in British politics, Alan Johnson’s bid was a busted flush, David Miliband has repeatedly ruled himself out and John Denham doesn’t seem interested either.

And really, Milburn and Clarke? Politics is about the future not the past.

(Those philistines unfamiliar with the Chuckle Brothers artistic output can start their education here.)

As you may be aware, Professor Juan Cole disputes that President Ahmadinejad ever said that Israel should be wiped from the map. He argues that Ahmadinejad actually said that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time”.

In a private email which was hijacked by Christopher Hitchens without permission and subsequently published on Prof. Cole’s blog, he wrote:

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

There are those who argue that this is a triviality, that the two translations have essentially the same meaning but there are important differences. Prof. Cole has alluded to one of them in the above.

Firstly, the notion that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel from the map can be used to evoke Hitler and the Holocaust. Yesterday, everyone’s favourite propagandist, Con Coughlin, provided a perfect example of how this is done:

Most Israelis believe their country will do the same again if the outside world fails to call a halt to Iran’s controversial uranium enrichment programme, which few in Israel doubt is ultimately aimed at giving the ayatollahs a nuclear weapons arsenal to fulfil Ahmadinejad’s pledge to erase the Jewish state from the map.

Having already suffered a near-apocalypse in the form of the Holocaust, the Jewish people have no intention of being the hapless victims of Ahmadinejad’s genocidal designs.

Textbook.

Secondly, the phrase “wipe Israel from the map” evokes a literal meaning which conjures up images of mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv.

For those attempting to portray the Iranians as desperate to acquire nuclear weapons so that they can physically destroy Israel, the initial translation of Ahmadinejad’s phrase was a gift. With bows on. No wonder they’ve been so reluctant to give it back.

But there are a number of problems with this whole line of reasoning. The most glaring is the fact that Israel is home to some of Islam’s most holy sites. The idea that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran would turn the Dome of the Rock into radioactive slag seems rather far-fetched. Also, the right of return of Palestinian refuges, one of the keys to the continuing antagonism towards Israel in the Middle East, isn’t going to be greatly aided by destroying the country. And, like pretty much any other government, the Iranians are strongly motivated by a desire to hold on to power. They know that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would mean the end of the Islamic Republic.

And what does Ahmadinejad himself say about the infamous quotation? TIME magazine asked him:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad wants to see the end of the “occupying regime over Jerusalem”; he has said so repeatedly. There is, however, an enormous difference between that and the suggestion that he has said he wants to physically destroy the country of Israel along with all of the people living in it.

Iraqis are already suffering the disastrous consequences of one war justified by spin and misrepresentation. It would be the direst of follies to allow that to happen again with Iran.

Strawman Disclaimers in Full

• None of the above is meant to suggest an opinion as to whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Evidence is thin on the ground but there is a possibility that they are.
• None of the above is meant to suggest that it would be no bad thing if Iran developed nuclear weapons. It would be a bad thing.
• None of the above is meant to suggest that Ahmadinejad is a good President of Iran He’s not.
• None of the previous disclaimers are a sop to those on hawks on “the right”. They are my actual views

18 Doughty Street’s fearless campaign to attack strawmen in full public view continues apace. Iain is pleased. Look at that straw fly!

The strawman that Iain and co. are proudly thrashing this week is that everyone on the left hates Bushmerica. It’s hardly an original construction, it has to be said. In fact, you’ve got to wonder whether they had to pay royalties to the Republican Party for use of that battered old thing. Surely not. Look at the state of it.

Still, let’s get into the spirit of things and add a couple more blows to the mix

The Little One

1. I am opposed to the foreign policies of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
2. I am not opposed to the existence of the United Kingdom.

There’s a difference, you see. I strongly suspect I’m not the only person on the left who realises this.

The Ironic One

Using accusations of anti-Americanism in an attempt to stifle, disparage or misrepresent political dissent is, well, unAmerican. Well it is, isn’t it?

There are lots of “adult” reasons why 18 Tory Street’s “attack ad” is unconvincing. The whole premise of the thing is wrong on many levels. In fact, it’s just the sort of thing you could imagine the Swift Boat Veterans for the Tories doing.

By the way, viewing the video in question will confirm beyond doubt that Beau Bo D’Or was bang on the money.

Remember that Beckett interview with John Humphries on Today a while back? Here’s a reminder:

Beckett: Mr Ross’ basic thesis is that in some way, there was an assertion that Saddam Hussain was a threat directly to the U.K. You and I are both speaking from memory now but I don’t recall that argument being one that was used. It…

Humphries: Sorry, Tony Blair didn’t tell us Saddam Hussain was a threat to the United Kingdom?

Beckett: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What was said throughout was that Saddam Hussain was a threat to his region and that he had the intention and the desire to be a threat much more widely…

Humphries: 45 minutes?

Beckett: John, you and I both know that was a statement that was made once and it was thought to be of such little relevance and perhaps people began to quickly think ‘I’m not sure about that’. It was never used once in all the debates or questions in the House…

Humphries: It didn’t need to be. It was on the public record.

Beckett: Oh come on. No-one thought it was relevant. Nobody thought it was actually a big sweeping statement.

It’s still extraordinary.

Anyway, I was just poking around TheyWorkForYou looking for something else when I found this written Q&A from 19th March 2003:

Paul Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish amendments to his assessment in the document ‘Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction‘ presented to the House in September 2002 arising from the evidence of UNMOVIC inspectors on Iraqi (a) bases, (b) presidential palaces and (c) uranium imports.

Tony Blair: I have no plans to publish an amended version of the dossier presented in September 2002, the contents of which still accurately reflect our assessment of the position with regard to Iraq’s proscribed weapons programmes.

Let’s play spot the liar.

If Beckett was telling the truth about the 45 minute claim, if, as she put it, “people began to quickly think ‘I’m not sure about that’”, the statement by Blair six months later and one day after the war started is totally indefensible.

Perhaps Gilligan was wrong to say that the government “probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable” when the dossier was released. Perhaps. Beckett certainly appears to have confirmed that the government knew it was questionable before the war started.

And when Nick Robinson* stripped down Blair’s waffle today, it laid bare the ridiculous nature of his position. Again.

Iraq is what should have brought Blair down. Here are some clues as to the reasons why it won’t.

And here are the dots being joined up beautifully.

The people who attended the largest demonstration in this country’s history weren’t fooled by Blair’s “evidence”. To hear various Conservatives, the very people whose job it is to scrutinise the activities of the government, complaining that they’d been being tricked is derisory. They could have listened to Robin Cook but they were too busy cheering Blair on.

And all this in the name of defending democracy.

If the ancient Greek playwright’s were still with us today, I don’t think they’d be struggling for inspiration.

* I’d like to say a few more things about Nick’s post and might do later if time allows.

For some unknown reason, I’d got it into my head that the mayor of London could only serve a maximum of two four year terms and that Livingstone was therefore not going to be able to run in the 2008 election. That was totally wrong. There is no two term rule and Ken has already said he wants to stand again in 2008.

But hey, I’m 500 miles away from the capital.

Bloody provincials…

As Bush’s Iraq surge struggles to do more than add even more chaos to an already highly unstable situation, Blair is about to make an announcement on British troop withdrawals.

The timing is all about the situation on the ground in Iraq; it has absolutely nothing to do with Blair’s date of departure. After four years of occupation, it is a coincidence that these two events just happened to, well, coincide. In fact, Basra, Maysan, Muthanna and Dhi Qar, the provinces administered by the British in the south of Iraq, are all jolly peaceful places. Any cynical journalist who doubts this can go see for themselves…

Well, no, they can’t. Not easily anyway. One of the ways to understand a little of what the situation is really like in Iraq is to look up the Foreign Office’s travel advice. It’s one of the few places where the government simply cannot spin.

We strongly advise against all travel to Baghdad and the surrounding area, the provinces of Basra, Maysan, Al Anbar, Salah Ad Din, Diyala, Wasit, Babil, Ninawa and At- Tamim (At -Tamim is often referred to as “Kirkuk Province”).

We advise against all but essential travel to the provinces of Al Qadisiyah, Muthanna, Najaf, Karbala, and Dhi Qar. [my emphasis]

So if you want to go and see whether the benefits of the war now outweigh the enormous costs, particularly in human lives, the government advises against it. Even the supposedly peaceful provinces are too dangerous. And as British troops withdraw from these provinces, Western journalists are going to find it increasingly difficult to gain access to these areas. The fog of war, already heavy, will become almost impenetrable.

Perhaps that’s why Blair still feels he can spin this as a success.

As General Dannatt famously noted, British troops have been serving no useful purpose down in the south for some considerable time. Any moves to bring them home are long overdue. But as Baghdad continues to unravel and with the government increasingly divided along sectarian lines and fragile in the extreme, any pretence that the operation in Iraq has been a success is clearly risible. Blair’s almost certainly about to give it a go all the same.

One further point. That we now know of the existence of a detailed U.S. plan of attack against Iran is not of itself particularly informative; the U.S. military has all sorts of plans for all sorts of everything. That “diplomatic sources” in the U.S. have passed information from that plan to BBC journalists, however, is significant; they don’t do that with all of their plans.

There is still the possibility that this is all part of a well constructed bluff, that Bush does understand that attacking Iran is not a credible option. While this would mean that the protests of those opposed to any military action are giving credibility to the bluff and effectively becoming useful idiots for Bush, it’s still a comforting possibility. Perhaps he’s just bluffing.

Considering everything we know about the man and his still influential vice-Dick, this comforting possibility doesn’t appear to be built on anything.

And if Bush makes a move on Iran while there are still a few thousand British troops in the south of Iraq, that could turn really ugly. It’ll be bad news for everyone but it could be really bad news for them.

This post is about 18 Doughty Street. Yes, yes, we’re all obsessed leftist moonbats over here.

The thing is, living in a country where the Sun and the Mail are the two best selling daily newspapers, us on “the left”are quite used to having our views misrepresented, marginalised and ridiculed. We’re used to not getting a fair hearing in the mainstream media.

(In recent weeks, I’ve submitted three comments to right of centre media websites; two to the Telegraph and one to the Sun. Not one of the three made it past their moderators. On the other hand, I’ve never had a comment removed from Comment is Free and it’s awash with people expressing anti-Guardianista views. There may be an interesting point there about hypocrisy and defence of the right to free speech in the media.)

We tend to be less hostile to Auntie because she’s obliged to be politically neutral. As a result, of course, the Beeb looks to be to the left of much of the rest of the media. Claiming that this is proof of a left bias at the BBC rather silly. This claim is part of a concerted effort to move the “centre” to the right. That’s not to say there’s a grand conspiracy at work, just a number of right wing media owners and editors all working towards a goal which they believe will benefit themselves and their companies.

This would be all well and good if Murdoch, Wade and Dacre played fair but they don’t. For example, the Scum currently sells in Scotland for 15p and it has boobs. I know a fair few people who buy it, some for the sport, some for the boobs but I’ve never heard anyone say they buy it for the news. But there is a drip, drip, drip effect going on there which pushes a particular political agenda and ridicules another.

And it’s worth restating the suggestible nature of the human condition. You, yes, you, are suggestible. Advertising is a multi-billion pound industry for a reason. Have a quick peek in your kitchen cupboards and check how many brand names are in there. Why didn’t you buy the cheaper no brand option? We’re all suggestible to some extent.

And it’s the way that Wade and co. go about things which really damages any possibility of honest political debate. As I’ve already said, a key component is misrepresentation of the other view. Us “leftists” are well used to having our views turned into strawmen.

So, it’s just a tiny bit irritating to see the same thing starting to happen on the interwebs.

Anyway, on Friday, Iain Dale wrote that:

Leftist bloggers seem to think that this blog and 18 Doughty Street are somehow funded by some shady Americans.

As a “leftist blogger” who has been writing about 18 Doughty Street, I decided to make it clear that I wasn’t in that camp. I was also curious to know whether Iain could provide any examples of leftist bloggers making these claims:

Iain, could you could provide information as to which “leftist bloggers” have been writing about that? The only time I’ve ever seen that suggested was in anonymous comments made on your blog. These suggestions are very easy to refute and to ridicule.

In fact, in the spirit of “reaching out”, if you point me at any leftist blogs making such claims, I’ll happily tell them they’re talking crap. 18 D… is funded by Stephan Shakespeare, Tory candidate for Colchester at the 1997 G.E. and ex-mayoral campaign manager for Jeffrey Archer. 18 D… is funded and run by British Conservatives, not Republicans or neo-cons.

Fair enough, I thought. Attempt at a little humour without being needlessly rude. To be fair to Iain, his reply was quick and courteous (he’s also fixed the link to individual comments feature which is nice):

Curious Hamster, I have seen it on several sites over the last few weeks, ever since the onslaught on me started. People have queried both my funding and that of 18DS. Someone kept editing my Wikipedia entry to that effect too.

As you say, the only source of funding for 18 Doughty Street is indeed Stephan Shakespeare, something we were totally open about right from the start.

So, no examples for me to go poke fun at. I was disappointed. I did have a sniff around the history of Iain’s Wikipedia page - didn’t find any mention of funding but it was hardly an extensive search - but it was really the leftist bloggers making those claims I was interested in. Guess I’ll just have to keep an eye out for these elusive creatures.

But Iain is quite correct about the openness of the declaration of funding for 18 Doughty Street. Sort of. The relevant section of the 18 Doughty Street FAQ says:

Doughty Media Limited is the company that owns www.18DoughtyStreet.com. The directors of the company are Stephan Shakespeare, Iain Dale, Tim Montgomerie and Donal Blaney. The company is wholly owned and funded by Stephan Shakespeare, the co-founder and Chief Innovations Officer of YouGov Plc.

And I’ve no reason to doubt that this information is absolutely true. Other information which might be considered relevant, however, makes no appearance.

It is perhaps understandable that Mr Shakespeare is no longer keen to remind people of his close asociation with Lord Archer but some sort of indication of his party political affiliations on that page might just add a little bit more credibility to Iain’s claim of total openness. At the moment, the inclusion of his YouGov credentials and omission of his party political credendials creates an impression of political impartiality which isn’t entirely accurate.

I also asked Iain another question but over-egged the pudding slightly in my attempt to keep my comment reasonably short:

On a related note, can you confirm that 18 Doughty Street placed an advertisement which stated that it would be “like Fox News”? (Please don’t try to spin this; the report I read suggested that 18 D… is a vehicle for the promotion of British Conservatives in the way that Fox News is a vehicle for Republicans in the U.S.)

That report appeared in the Register (via). Iain’s answer was interesting:

On your last point, we are not a news channel. However, if people want to say we are like Fox News, I have no objection to that at all. Fox News is highly professional. I am not aware of an advert that said that, and I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the editorial role of Fox News and the Republican Party.

Fox News is totally independent of the Republican Party just as we are totally independent of the Conservative Party. We have a centre right editorial line, in the same way that the Daily Telegraph does. That does not make us slaves to the Conservative Party and more than the Mirror is a slave to the Labour Party.

“I am not aware…”

I’m starting to understand how Paxo feels.

As I said, I over-egged the pudding slightly on the connection between Fox News and the Republicans but “Fox News is totally independent of the Republican Party”? Crikey!

No doubt, the Swift Boat Veterans were totally independent of the Republican Party too.

But let’s just repeat one of the lines above, written by 18 Doughty Street’s director of scheduled programming:

We have a centre right editorial line, in the same way that the Daily Telegraph does.

Given that that newspaper is commonly called the Torygraph, I can’t decide whether Iain is pulling my chain here or what. In any event, Iain’s description of 18 Doughty Street’s editorial line is not quite the same as the one in their FAQs:

Does 18 Doughty Street have a particular editorial line?

Yes. We are anti-establishment.

A large number of issues that matter to voters going about their everyday lives are deemed too sensitive to debate, or the major political parties have adopted a consensus that prevents fresh, innovative solutions being considered for problems that have plagued Britain for decades. We raise issues where an unhealthy consensus has developed (such as on state funding of political parties or on Britain’s membership of the EU) and we ask questions of our guests from a perspective from which they have rarely been questioned to date.

No mention of centre right there. Perhaps there should be. Just for the sake of openness and transparency.

(By the way, it surely can’t be just us lefties who think it’s bizarre that this venture, owned and staffed by conservatives, describes itself as anti-establishment. Unless I’ve misunderstood the whole point of conservatism, it’s just silly. We establishment radicals should not stand for it…)

The fact is that 18 Doughty Street is owned and operated by members of the British Conservative Party. The specific purpose of the channel is to promote a right of centre agenda. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to conclude that promotion of this agenda will include attempts to help the Tories win the London mayoral election, other local elections and the big one; the next general election.

Of itself, there’s nothing wrong with that. The way they’ve sought to present their agenda, however, doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence in the future of British politics.

Update

Credit Beau Bo D’Or

Update 2

And another. Heh.