Chilcot

From the Grauniad's live blog:

Blair is planning to hold a press conference to deliver a robust response to the findings. He will insist the Shia-Sunni split in Iraq, one of the driving forces of the continuing violence, preceded the invasion and was not the result of the disruption created by the war.

It is good to know that 1400 years of history have not entirely sailed past Tony without making any impact on him. He's aware that there were Sunnis and Shias before 2003. Outstanding awareness, Tony!  If pushed, he might even be able to say he knew they didn't like each other much.

Which makes it all the more curious, Tony, that you did not foresee the possibility of sectarian violence.

Campbell and Corbyn

Now Alastair Campbell has weighed into the Labour leadership debate, begging people to vote for any candidate as long as it isn't Jermey Corbyn.

(Note to future left-wing contenders - don't have a family name beginning with C.  It is like having a great big brightly coloured target on your back.  With fairy lights around it.)

t must be galling to Campbell to know that it is lrgely down to his slick, sick inducing spintastic years in Downing Street that Blairism is being rejected by the party.  Whatever the accomplishments of the Blair years - and there were many, at least until megalomania, corruption, sleaze and hypocrisy corroded whatever patina of principle the administration retained in 1997 - they are obscured by the memory of puke inducing, wretched spinnery, dodgy dossiers, David Kelly and Iraq.  And no-one embodies those gut-wrenching qualities better than Campbell.

(Campbell actually comes across as a decent bloke in his memoirs.  But we're talking about perception here.   As with all things Blairite, it is about how things seem, how they play with the focus groups, not how they are.)

Now, ad hominems aside, about Corbyn.

Let's be honest. It is highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn will lead Labour into the 2020 election. I doubt Jermey Corbyn imagines he lead Labour in 2020. Not because he won't win (he might, though my gut is that Burham or Cooper will pick up enough 2nd and 3rd preferences to creep across the line) but because of his age. He'll be 70 in 2015.

The likelihood is he'll serve for a couple of years, introduce a few constitutional changes so it will be easier for the leftwingers to get on the ballot in the future, and then step aside for a younger candidate.

His greatest service will be stopping Burnham / Cooper / Kendall winning. In 2018 the likely candidates will be Keir Starmer Dan Jarvis, Lisa Nandy, Michael Dugher and (long shot, but my persponal preferred option from 2010) Jon Cruddas.

The astonishing thing is, none of these names make you want to punch the bearer of it repeatedly. Labour has some good talent coming through, they just have to wait until the Blairite bonehead wannabees in the current leadership round finally get the message that their time has passed.

Alternately, elect Naz Shah as leader, on the principle that anything annoying to George Galloway is a good idea.

Kendall speaks her branes

Liz Kendall has supported Harriet Harman's position that Labour should stop, you know, supporting working people and trying to share the wealth of the nation about a little bit more evenly:

“I think Harriet was right to say that we have to provide a credible alternative.  You said to us, we don’t trust you on the money, we don’t trust you on welfare reform,” Ms Kendall told BBC News.

“If we carry on making the same arguments as we have over the last five years we’ll get the same results. 

“I want to support what Harriet said, we have to listen to have people have said to us, that they didn’t trust us, and we have to change as a party.”

"Credible alternative."

That's the problem, Liz. You aren't providing an alternative. You're just agreeing with the Tories.

Alternative doesn't mean the same as agreeing.  If you have two things that are the same then one is not an alternative to the other.

Providing a credible alternative would involve describing and entirely different way of dealing with the problems facing Britain, rather than just indicating sheepish agreement.  It would involve speaking up in defence of the idea of redistribution - saying something simple and sane like, "Because it makes our society better and we all benefit from that."

You say that people don't trust Labour on "on the money" and on benefit reform.  You're response is to fall into line with George Osborne's plan to slash benefits to children.

That isn't offering a credible alternative.  A credible alternative would involve defending the positive legacy of Labour's years in power - and tax credits is one of them.

It would involve attacking the Conservative scaremonger on 'benefits' by exposing their benefits reforms for what they are - tools designed specifically to pauperise children, which will increase hardship and all the attendant social problems that accompany it.

You could mention that in your fantasy "credible alternative" speech and point out that "We all suffer from that" - a simple rhetorical device that has the advantage of being a truth, unlike your preposterous claim that aping Tory attacks on the poor - and the working poor at that - is offering a credible alternative.

Incidentally, you are wrong to suggest that carrying on having the same arguments will lead to the same results.  I'm sure you, Liz, are familiar with Schopenhauer's suggestion that "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Political parties - even socialist ones - can be right about economics.  People - even those who vote Tory -- can be wrong.  If you think Labour pursued good and valid policies in supporting the welfare state and redistributing wealth and in making work pay, then that should be defended, even in the face of ridicule and opposition.  Because it is true and events will show it to be true.

Embracing incorrect thinking as a means to power is surely some sign of madness, or (worse) Blairism.

By refusing to defend credible economic positions, you're either revealing that you thought they were wrong (i.e. you disagree fundamentally with the ideas of the welfare state, re-distribution and fairness) or you are too craven to defend them because you're afraid of the ridicule of the Daily Mail.

Neither makes you a very appetising prospect as a Labour leader.

Even if I thought hammering the poor and working poor was a legitimate means to gain power (it isn't, it's just being a shit) I'd still say it wasn't a smart move because - here's a blinding truth for you - the Tories will always do it better.  You see, Liz, Labour can not beat the Tories at this game.  They are always going to be willing to cut further and cap more ruthlessly than Labour, because it's what they believe in.

And if you believe in it, then you rally need to think about why you want to lead the party that is supposed to support and represent the workers, the poor and the disadvantaged.

Because at the moment it sounds like you don't give a fuck about those people.

In Tony's Shadow

Well, there have been better nights in the history of the left.

First of all, I would like to point out that I was, of course, completely right.  While suggesting a potential Labour plurality of seats was a likely outcome, I was sensible enough to add the crucial rider that, "anything up to and including a slender Tory majority is still possible, based on just minor shifts."

So unlike Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Jim Murphy, Ed Balls, Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy and many many others, I survive and with my reputation for prescience enhanced.  I may not be quite as good at calling elections as I thought I was, but I am good at covering my own arse.

Anyway, on to minor matters.

It was, without doubt, the most fascinating election since 1997.  And it managed to eke out it's drama to the very last few seats, when Cameron crept across the line and achieved a wafer thin majority.

Some thoughts.

First of all, commiserations to Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report.  He's been happily analysing and discussing polls from all parties for years, with an enthusiasm that even I find a little bit odd and unnerving.  He is always measured and thoughtful in his comments.  And, it turned out, completely wrong.  Not just him, but virtually every polling company as well, to the point where the few that might have been pointing to a Conservative surge looked like outliers.  If it is any consolation, he was working with evidence, and the evidence al pointed the way he said it did.  But it can't be fun watching your life's work go up in flames.  He's not the only one who endured that last night, of course, but the rest of them deserved it more, one way or another.

Second, a nod to Ed Miliband.  He's a decent man, but clearly, not the man needed.  He managed to be right on most issues and still lose.  It happens.  It must be galling to go through what he has done - the family trauma of his so-called 'betrayal' of his brother, the constant vilification in the press, the mockery and disrespect from his own party - and find it has all been for nothing.  Tactically, Labour fought a good campaign, strategically they lost this election about 20 years ago, when Tony Blair started his process of 'modernisation', dragging Labour to the right until it became the mess it is today.  Ed Miliband was praised for preserving unity after the 2010 defeat, keeping the left and the right of the Labour party together - but perhaps a more ruthless attitude towards the Blairite faction might have been preferable.  Too many of them were left to fester in high places.

Interestingly, for the first time in the history of things, perhaps, First Past the Post has delivered a representative result.  The combined Conservative and UKIP vote is about 50% of the total cast, and the Tories and UKIP hold about 50% of the seats.  The British people voted for a government of small minded, reactionary, xenophobic, economically illiterate, right wing buffoons, and that is what they got.  Still, this election has highlighted the screaming, desperate need for electoral change in Britain.  While I despise everything about UKIP, 3.7 million people voted for them, a massive increase on votes. But they managed to win just one seat, while less than 1.5 million voted for the SNP and they get 56. The Greens polled about as many votes as the SNP. And got one MP. Something has to change. Everyone, except the Tories, seems to understand this now. Scotland should not be virtually a one party state; The Greens and UKIP represent people whose voices should be heard, or people will continue to becom disengaged from politics; the political 'elite' can't be protected by an unfair anachronism of a voting system. Though as Labour found out last night, the protection is somewhat illusory.

There were many silver linings to be found amid the dark clouds that gathered last night.  First of all, the notion of the supposed political influence of Russell Brand will hopefully be consigned to the rubbish bin.  Let's never, ever, ever have to endure the sight of a Labour leader trying to win an endorsement from that self important, vacuous, hypocritical clown.  Second the Tories are effectively isolated.  No-one is going to go into coalition with them, ever, after seeing how the Lib Dems were punished by the electorate for this.  They have to win by themselves, and it looks like their final share of the vote in 2015 is 36.1%, virtually the same as in 2010.  They barely improved their standing with the electorate and I think this is their high water mark.  They are the party of the 36%, and the feeble majority Cameron obtained last night. His administration will be weak and ineffectual, plagued by rebellion and being dragged to the right by the gang of loons and xenophobic 'bastards' that made John Major's later years so miserable. And recall what happened after that miserable administration was put out of its misery. A Labour landslide and 13 years of opposition for the Conservatives, blocked from power by the combination of First Past The Post and Balirite cynicism.

There is a whiff of the mid-90s already about Cameron's new government.  A PM that no-one actually wants any more (even Cameron himself doesn't want to be PM), a dubious economy and the prospect of civil war in the party over Europe.  That 12 seat majority won't last long, and won't insulate him against any significant rebellion. Isolated from other parties terrified of catching the electoral plague that did for the Lib Dems so viciously, and with the British economy still looking a bit peaky, and the prospect of even more ghastly spending cuts to come over the next five years, as Osborne continues to hack away at the deficit that defeated him last time, in defiance of economic sanity, it seems likely Cameron's second term will be a painful one.

Still, a lot of the 'Old Guard' have gone, the Blairite poison is mostly flushed out of the system, though it is a shame that the patient has had such a hard tme of it. Because 2015 is very much the result made inevitable by Tony Blair's ascension to the leadership of Labour. And yet the Blairites never saw it, cawing after 2010 about how Labour won when it was New Labour, and lost when it reverted to Old Labour - as if there was any significant difference between the manifestos of 1997, 2010 and 2015. Blairism was sold as a process of modernising, which was essentially a hollowing out of the party, and an obsession with pleasuring the rich and powerful, followed by a cynical rejection of the democratic reform when it became selfishly expedient to do so. All those that lost last night did so in the shadow of Blairism.

... he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

Many found their graves last night, honourable or dishonourable or indifferent.  Or to borrow another much quoted line about statues, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.  Or to nick off with another bit of Will, the evil that men do oft lives after them.  Blair's baleful influence lives on, though perhaps now enough pain has been inflicted on Labour for them to realise it has had its day.  Or perhaps, lemming like, they will insist on being more like the Tories, more pro-business and cozy up ever closer to the right-wing media.  And continue to ignore the little people who are expected to actually vote for them.  Because, you know, that's what worked for Tony.

Looking ahead, it really does make you wonder how Labour rebuilds from here. Caroline Flint? Chukka Ummuna? Keir "But I only just became an MP!" Starmer? The talent pool was shallow when Ed was chosen. Now it it more a dried out waterhole with the bones of defunct animals in it. Dennis Skinner won Bolsover with more than 50% of the vote. Maybe he could be leader? I have a horrible feeling the Labour Party might go for Andy Burnham or Alan Johnston, the slimy Blairite relics. Or Chuka Ummuna, who looks and sounds suspiciously like Tony Blair re-imagined for the post 'Cool Britannia' Britain.

Today, I'm very glad I live in New Zealand.  I wish Britain well for the next five years, though you did kinda bring it on yourself, and I suspect good wishes may not help much.  And I'm not sure how much longer there will be a Britain to wish well to.

Disaster

Just what Labour didn't need. Tony Blair swooping in like the third string stand in for Voldemort in some really rubbish stage version of Harry Potter.

That should be game, set and match to the Tories, if they were half way competent.

So, fortunately for Labour, all is not lost ...

Meanwhile, in Egypt

The Guardian reports allegations that rape by the police is being used as a tool of state terror and 16,000 'dissidents' have been arrested arrested.

Tony "we should be supporting the new government" Blair must be nodding approvingly and wondering why he stopped at ASBOs.

I may have to reconsider my position on Syria

I've never been one of the wimps who thinks we should just leave the respective sides in the Syrian conflict to get on with it, partly because Russia and China certainly aren't going to, and partly because the Assad regime is a grotesque insult to decency and partly because I fear if we don't, fundamentalist terrorism will colonise the conflict.

I think this stance has been pretty much justified by developments over the last few years that the conflict has dragged on.  But this gave me pause for thought:

Speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday, Blair said: "We have not intervened in Syria. The consequences are, in my view, terrible and will be a huge problem not just for the Middle East region but for us in the years to come." 

Blair advocated military action against the Assad regime after a sarin gas attack on the Ghouta district, near Damascus, last August killed between 350 and 1,400 people. 

His stance placed him on the same side as David Cameron, who wanted to join the US in launching an attack on the Assad regime, but highlighted differences with Ed Miliband, who was highly sceptical of military intervention. 

Blair, who was speaking on the Today programme to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, made his remarks about the failure to take action in Syria when asked if it might still be right to take military action without domestic support.

Is this one of these rare-if-not-actually-extinct occasions when Blair is correct (like the minimum wage or ... nope, minimum wage is pretty much it), or proof that I've made a terrible blundering in supporting intervention in Syria?

Disaster

Arse and bastardry, we are undone ...

More than five years after he left Downing Street, Tony Blair was brought back into the Labour fold last night with the award of a role advising Ed Miliband's policy review.

The move – likely to delight and dismay party activists in equal measure – was announced at a fund-raising event ahead of the London Olympics.

... 

Mr Blair said: "It's an honour to be here to support our party, whose values and principles I have always believed in and always will, and to support Ed, support his leadership, support his drive to make our party win."

The current Labour leader replied by praising the former Prime Minister's record on the NHS, schools and cutting crime – and helping bring the games to Britain.

You may count me among the dismayed.

Blair admits, "I am hypocritical scum"

Kind of ...

Writing in the Observer, in his first public verdict on the riots, Blair says: "In 1993, following the Bulger case, I made a case in very similar terms to the one being heard today about moral breakdown in Britain. I now believe that speech was good politics but bad policy. Focus on the specific problem and we can begin on a proper solution.

"Elevate this into a highfalutin wail about a Britain that has lost its way morally and we will depress ourselves unnecessarily, trash our own reputation abroad, and worst of all, miss the chance to deal with the problem in the only way that will work." (1)

What a tosspot. He's saying, in effect, that it was okay for him to do it back in 1993, but not for others to do it now; or that he was voicing genuine outrage in 1993, but now realises it was misplaced, in which case he's tacitly admitting he was a lightweight fool, prone to over-reactions and rash judgement; with the further implication that he might not know what he's saying now, and we can expect a similar reversal on other vexing issuers such as Iraq.

Why can't this egregious arsewipe simply go away, forever?

1 - "England's riots shouldn't be blamed on 'moral decline', says Tony Blair," by Daniel Boffey and Toby Helm. Published in The Guardian, 20th of August, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/20/englands-riots-tony-blair)

Rupert and Tony (and Gordon and Dave and Ed)

Another scorcher from Peter Oborne, who might be re-classified as an 'honourary leftie' for his recent columns:

David Cameron and Tony Blair both flew round the world to make speeches to Murdoch’s News Corp while they were in opposition. Ed Miliband was primed to follow suit before the latest scandal broke.

There were those who believed that Murdoch had debased and debauched British public life, and there is indeed great evidence that this was the case. For example, the News of the World was a respectable – if racy – family newspaper before Murdoch brought it under his ownership. As we now know, it converted into a flourishing criminal concern that took an evil pleasure in destroying people’s lives.

Though many were appalled, Murdoch himself was protected by his potent political contacts. Tony Blair, for example, would do anything to help out his close friend and ally. I can even disclose that, before the last election, Tony Blair rang Gordon Brown to try to persuade the Labour Prime Minister to stop the Labour MP Tom Watson raising the issue of phone hacking. And as recently as two weeks ago both Ed Miliband and David Cameron attended the News International (News Corp’s British newspaper publishing arm) summer party, despite the fact that the newspaper group was the subject of two separate criminal investigations. (1)

Oborne really goes to town on Cameron's infatuation with Murdoch and the hiring of Coulson, which was apparently driven by George Osborne, who has been out of the shitlight thus far:

It was at this point that George Osborne, then shadow chancellor and also Cameron’s closest strategic advisor, entered the fray. The immensely ambitious Osborne – who was already cultivating his own links with News International – made the case that Cameron should hire Andy Coulson.

Gordon Brown, of course, tried to cultivate the Mail and Paul Dacre, and massive questions need to be asked about that relationship.

1 - "David Cameron is not out of the sewer yet," by Peter Oborne. Published in The Telegraph, 8th of July, 2011. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8626421/Phone-hacking-David-Cameron-is-not-out-of-the-sewer-yet.html)

Don't mention the war

To borrow from the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto, there is a spectre haunting those who seek to lead the British Labour party. Or - I prefer the imagery of Helen MacFarlane's original English translation - what is bothering them is not an austere spectre, but a "frightful hobgoblin." Spectre or hobgoblin, it likes to sneak up behind the various contenders and whisper, in the style of World War One recruitment posters, "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

The uncouth hobgoblin refers, of course, to the invasion of Iraq, which has been raised among the candidates for the Labour party leadership. This has resulted in various degrees of discomfort, squirming and self-righteousness.

Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have made an issue of the war. Neither was an MP at the time, so both were in the pleasant position of not having been forced to account for their support of it. Ed Balls - with uncharacteristic frankness - admits that he would have voted for it:

“I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it. It wasn’t really true, you know. I said to Gordon: 'I know why you’re doing this, but you’ll regret it’. France is a very important relationship for us.”

Although Mr Balls concedes that, had he been an MP at the time, he would have voted for the war on the basis of the facts provided, he now concedes that not only was the information wrong but the war unjustified.

“It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn’t have prosecuted the war. We shouldn’t have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives. Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong.” (1)

I think this is a pretty obvious attempt to pre-empt questions about Iraq. Balls is too closely associated with Gordon Brown to make any claim that he was always against it to hold up - the best he can manage is to admit that it was a mistake, But it's basically designed to make the whole nasty issue go away.

The Edward strain of Miliband has said pretty much the same, in a Guardian interview:

Ed Miliband was living in the US and was not yet an MP at the time. "I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here," he said.

"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it." (2)

Perhaps I am being to subtle here, but I detect a difference in emphasis between Milband and Balls. Miliband wants to "Draw a line" under the issue, which means confronting it. My sense is that Balls wants to escape further probing on this unpleasant topic.

Like Balls, Ed Miliband also has the luxury of not having been an MP at the time. So perhaps Balls is eyeing up his rival and trying to anticipate what could still be a major dividing line between the 'mainstream' candidates - Ed Miliband, who didn't, David Miliband and Andy Burnham who did, and Ed balls who didn't, but is so closely associated with those that did that it makes little odds. Balls, obviously, wants to be on the same side of the dividing line as Ed Miliband, but his close association with Brown means can't get both feet over. He's left in this rather awkward position of saying it was a mistake and that he would have made it. I suppose he gets points for candour.

Everyone knows Iraq was a tremendous fuck up and a really bad idea. Acknowledging that is meant to draw a line under it for Balls and Ed Miliband and put some pressure on their rivals to do the same. It might not be very effective, as there are two leadership candidates who voted against the war - Dianne Abbott and John McDonell. Though I suppose as long as they appear to be outsiders, presenting yourself as they least tainted of the old crew might have serve purpose.

But that's assuming it remains a fight between the members of the old cabinet, and Abbott and McDonnell remain outsiders - which may not be the case. I remember a time when a certain David Cameron was a rank outsider, and Ken Clarke was expected to be conservative leader. Ditto a certain Barack Obama, and a horny chap called Clinton from Arkansas.

Meanwhile, David Miliband thinks that the whole Iraq invasion, false intelligence and violation of the UN's authority thing isn't really worth talking about:

But David Miliband, who, unlike his two rivals, was an MP in 2003 and voted for the invasion, said much of the controversy about the war had dissipated.

"While Iraq was a source of division in the past, it doesn't need to be a source of division in the future," he said as he arrived at the annual conference of the centre-left Progress group in London.

"Iraq was a big issue at the 2005 general election, but the vast majority of MPs and candidates I have spoken to this time say that while it was a big issue then it was much less of an issue in 2010.

"I said during the election campaign that I thought it was time to move on."

Asked whether his brother and Balls were using the war to "score points" within the Labour Party, he said: "I think that is something you would have to ask them about."

Miliband said he stood by his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the war that if it have been known then that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no invasion. (3)

So the greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez (at least) isn't that important and we should worry about why it happened or why Miliband was so shockingly wrong-headed as to support it. There is a fucking huge, Iraq shaped elephant in the room, covered in the blood of western soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but we really mustn't talk about it, because it is time to "move on."

Note the careful wording in the final paragraph - "if it had been known then that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction ..." As if that could ever have been definitively "known." Remember Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that lack of evidence was in its own way, evidence? (4) This is the same idea. The invasion was wrong, but the error was acceptable, because those making the error had not received to concrete proof of Iraqi innocence that would have fores-stalled military action. Wrong. The Iraqis had been co-operative and inspectors had found no evidence of active - or even dormant - WMD programmes. That should have been enough to stop any invasion, not any preposterous requirement that the Iraqis do the impossible by proving they are clean. There had been no proof to the contrary, so there should have been no invasion.

David Miliband is a mealy mouthed, self serving, slimy git. Like Tony "This might cost me my job" Blair (5), he seems to fail to grasp that there are more important things than his career. He must never, ever be leader of the Labour party. It would be a dismal re-run of Blairism, and - to borrow from Karl Marx again - the first time it was tragedy, the second time feeble farce (6).

1 - "Ed Balls interview: Iraq war was a mistake," by Mary Riddell and Andrew Porter. Published in the Telegraph, 21st of may, 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7750935/Ed-Balls-interview-Iraq-war-was-a-mistake.html)
2 - "Ed Miliband: Labour's catastrophic loss of trust over Iraq," by Patrick Wintour and Allegra Stratton. Published in the Guardian, 21st of May, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/21/ed-miliband-labour-iraq-war)
3 - "David Miliband: Time to move on from Iraq," by David Batty and agencies. Published in the Guardian, 22nd of May, 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/22/david-miliband-iraq-war-labour-leadership)
4 - Rumsfeld's words are quoted in "No evidence is evidence: Rumsfeld's paradigm shift," by Carol Norris. Published in Counterpunch, 19th of January, 2003. (http://www.counterpunch.org/norris01182003.html)
5 - In fairness to Tony Blair, he didn't actually say that, but he did say something to that effect, quoted in "Blair talks of the strains of war, his family's unstinting support and his relief in victory," by Andrew Sparrow. Published by the Telegraph, 19th of April, 2003. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1427955/Blair-talks-of-the-strains-of-war-his-familys-unstinting-support-and-his-relief-in-victory.html)
6 - "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, " by Karl Marx, 1852. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)

Note his choice of verb ...

From Tony Blair's testimony to the Chilcott inquiry:

"Responsibility but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think that he was a monster. I believe he threatened not just the region but the world. And in the circumstances that we faced then, but I think even if you look back now, it was better to deal with this threat, to remove him from office." (1)

Note that he believes Saddam Hussien was a global threat. Couching it as a belief - by necessity, an idea held inspite of there being no evidence to support it - allows Blair to sidestep the pesky absence of evidence supporting his demented suggestion that a third rate gangster with some broken down tanks and a bit of a nuclear reactor posed a global threat.

It's a belief, not a statement of fact. A belief doesn't need evidence, facts, or any of that inconvenient stuff.

But his choice of verb is lawyerly - it reveals - subtly - that he didn't have the evidence. It's a sly admission that he sent British troops to war knowing that there wasn't an adequate pretext.

I'm sure this fervently voiced belief squares Blair with his conscience. He can - and undoubtledly has - convinced himself that he truly believes this, just as he has doubtless convinced himself that he is truly a follower of the Catholic faith. The man's powers of self delusion and self persuasion are remarkable.

But he has failed utterly to convince anyone who thought his decision to join the invasion of Iraq was at best stupid, at worst craven, hypocritical and reckless, to change their minds.

That needs evidence.

1 - "To gasps from the gallery, Blair says we should be proud of the war," by Nigel Morris. Published in the Independent, 30th of January, 2010. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/to-gasps-from-the-gallery-blair-said-we-should-be-proud-of-the-war-1883651.html)

When the going gets tough, the Tony starts running

.... away from their responsibilities, into the safe, snuggly security of Euro-office. For it seems that Tony Blair is to be Britain's official candidate for the EU presidency (1).

After shouting, "Dear God! No!" and thanking my lucky stars I'm no longer in Europe, I couldn't help wonder why the erstwhile envoy for the UN, EU, USA and Russia to the Middle East is looking for a new job.

The Middle East, after all, seems no more sorted out than it was when Blair took up the position in 2007. Could it be that Blair has realised that the region's problems are too much, even for his spectacular ego, and that generations of hatred, racism , bigotry, violence and injustice can't be resolved with some blinking, an insincere smile and a bit of spin?

Silvio Berlusconi is quoted as saying Blair had the "ideal personality" for the job (2). Apart from the (presumably) unintended comedy of Berlusconi vouching for anyone's character, this tells us everything we need to know about Blair's putative candidacy. Berlusoni likes him, so he must be unfit for office.

1 - "UK 'backs Blair for EU president'," unattributed BBC artilce. published 15th of July, 2009. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8152099.stm)
2 - ibid.

Oh, I'm so bloody proud to be British

MI5 and MI6 carried out a review of files after the launch of an unprecedented police investigation into claims by the former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed that British intelligence services knew he was being tortured.

The review has uncovered 15 cases in which the intelligence services carried out interrogations of suspects in US custody. Most of the cases relate to a period between 2002 and 2004 at American facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. (1)

Courtesy of The Independent.

I know it has always been a stupid lie that the British were decent, believed in fairplay, over arm bowling and the like. It is the national myth that we keep telling ourselves, conveniently ignoring the slave trade, throwing the Jews out, opressing the Catholics and the Irish, conquering quarter of the planet to make the British empire, our propensity for using war as a continuation of economics by other means. But it still makes me sick to be reminded how venal and savage we are, and how easily Osama Bin Laden has revealed our moral hypocrisy.

1 - "MI5 and MI6 admit fears over 15 new torture cases," by Ian Griggs, published in The Independent, 29th of March, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-and-mi6-admit-fears-over-15-new-torture-cases-1656625.html)

UN slams Britain for complicity in torture

The UN Special Rapporteur has identified Britian as one of the contries complicit in the torture of detainees by the USA and proxies:

The UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin said the US was only able to create its system for moving terror suspects around foreign jails because of the co-operation of allies, naming the UK alongside Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Canada and Georgia.

The report led to a clamour of calls for a full and independent investigation into the Government's involvement in the detention and movement of suspects since the start of the "war on terror" eight years ago.

Mr Scheinin's findings follow accusations made by British resident Binyam Mohamed, who claims to have evidence of MI5 telegrams sent to the CIA, which he says were used to direct his alleged torture during his 18-month detention in Morocco, before he was sent to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Some individuals faced "prolonged and secret detention" and practices which breached bans on torture and other forms of ill treatment, the report says.

"Evidence proves that Australian, British and US intelligence personnel have themselves interviewed detainees who were held incommunicado by the Pakistani secret intelligence service ... where they were being tortured," the report concludes. "UK intelligence personnel, for instance, conducted or witnessed just over 2,000 interviews in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq."

Mr Scheinin says countries are "responsible" if they help other states carry out human rights violations. (1)

This is where Britian's unthinking willingness to do whatever the Bush administration demanded of it has left the country.

Warnings of where this dumb obedience would lead were issued every step of the way, but they were ignored. Those giving the warnings were called cowards, traitors, unpatriotic, useful idiots, appeasers and terrorist sympathizers.

So it's only fair that those who spat out these vile epithets accept their due. they are complicit in murder, torture (here, here and here), and rape (4). They are murderers, torturers and rapists.

1 - 'UN condemns Britain's role in torture cases,' by Robert Verkaik, published in The Independent, 10th of March, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-condemns-britains-role--in-torture-cases-1641147.html)
2 - 'Senate report links Bush to detainee homicides; media yawns,' by Glenn Greenwald, published in Saloon, 15th of December, 2008. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/15/rumsfeld/)
3 - 'CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described,' by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, published by ABC News, 18th of November, 2005. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866). Second link is to 'Waiting for the Guards,' a short film made as part of Amnesty International's 'Unsubscribe Me' campaign, showing a real (i.e. unfaked, real pain) recreation of an actor holding a stress position. Linked 13th February, 2009. (http://www.unsubscribe-me.org/waitingfortheguards.php?)Third link relates to Binyam Mohamed, described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-why-we-are-hated-and-this-is.html
4 - 'The Other Prisoners,' by Luke Harding, published in The Guardian, 20th of May, 2004. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/iraq.gender)

Britain vetos elease of Iraq war minutes

From The Independent:

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, had ordered the release of the minutes, arguing that their publication was in the public interest. His decision was supported by an independent tribunal last month.

But for the first time, the Government has decided to make use of "Section 53" of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, allowing it to veto the release of the documents. The clause was added to the Act as a way of placating ministers who wanted final control over the release of sensitive documents.

Using the power, rather than challenging the tribunal's decision at the High Court, makes it almost impossible for campaigners to overturn the veto. They can now only challenge it by seeking a judicial review.

The Government decided to issue the veto during Monday's cabinet meeting in Southampton. The Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, said releasing the minutes risked doing "serious damage" to the frank discussions that take place around the cabinet table. (1)

As Ming Campbell, former leader of the Liberal Democrats commented in response to this, Liberal Democrat MP Sir Menzies Campbell said: "This is a Government which, when introducing measures to limit personal freedom, says that those that have nothing to hide should have nothing to fear." (2)

So what do the people that blundered their way into the iraq war have to hide? And how long will we have to wait before they can bear to be honest with the people that voted them into power?

When Labour were elected, back in 1997, one of their manifesto pledges was to bring about ""the democratic renewal of our country through decentralisation and the elimination of excessive government secrecy." (3)

1 - ' Release of Iraq war minutes vetoed,' by Michael Savage, published in The Independent, 25th of February, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/release-of-iraq-war-minutes-vetoed-1631365.html)
2 - ibid.
3 -'New Labour: because Britain deserves better,' the manifesto of the Labour Party for the 1997 general election, reproduced on labour-party.org.uk. Viewed 25th of February, 2009. (http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml)

TWOT's baleful influence condemned

Stella Rimington, ex-head of MI5, has condemned "certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy" (1). Her job put her in charge of Britian's internal security, and thus she might be expected to have a more understanding attitude towards the changes 'necessitated' by the War on Terror. But not so:

“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.

“The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” (2)

Rimmington also spoke out agaisnt the deeply dim ID cards scheme and the extention of detention-without-charge to 42 days (3).

Seperately, a report [PDF] from an International Commission of Jurists deplored how western social-democratic states

... have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses, introducing an array of measures which undermine cherished values as well as the international legal framework carefully developed since the Second World War. ese measures have resulted in human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, secret and arbitrary detentions, and unfair trials. ere has been little accountability for these abuses or justice for their victims (4).

The panel found

... many current counter-terrorist measures are illegal and even counterproductive ... the framework of international law is being actively undermined, and many States are reneging on their treaty or customary law obligations. The failure of States to comply with their legal duties is creating a dangerous situation wherein terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, are undermining basic principles of international human rights law ... the erosion of international law principles is being led by some of those liberal democratic States that in the past have loudly proclaimed the importance ofhuman rights. (5)

Not comfortable readng for Bush, Blair, Brown et al. I think, however, they'll pay as much notice to Ms Rimmington and the International Panel of Jurists as they do - or did - to their electorates. That means a bit of lip service, a few words and a smile that might be a smirk revealing the contempt they feel for us.

1 - "Spy chief: We risk a police state," by Tom Whitehead, published in The Telegraph, 17th of Februatry, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4643415/Spy-chief-We-risk-a-police-state.html)
2 - ibid, edited lightly.
3 - ibid.
4 - The report, "Assessing Damage, Urging Action: An initiative of the International Commission of Jurists Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights," the Executive Summary and the accompanying press release are avaialble online: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=4453&lang=en
5 - "Assessing Damage, Urging Action: An initiative of the International Commission of Jurists Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights" (http://www.icj.org/IMG/EJPExecutiveSummary.pdf) from the premable to the Executive summary.
6 - ibid, page 3.

Is there no evil lesson we failed to learn from Saddam?

First of all, we lied (more than once) (more than twice) and used our lies to justifiy a premptive attack on a sovereign nation (1). Just like Saddam (2). Of course, our war criminals are still at large - feted, even - whereas Saddam and his cohorts have met some sort of justice.

We used barbaric weapons that killed civilians (even unborn children) and combatants indiscriminately (3). Just like Saddam (4). And our wonder weapons have the added bonus of poisoning children not even conceived at the time of the war, through radioactive poisoning.

We kidnap and imprison people we suspected of being our enemies (5). Just like Saddam (6). We use torture. And more torture. And more torture (7). And we - allegedly, mind - resorted to the sexual humiliation and degradation of suspects break their spirit (8). Saddam Hussien had rooms where female prisoners were raped by guards and regime thugs (9). And we do that to (10).

More and more, I am struggling to see the difference between us and them.

1 - 'Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq,' unattributed report published on CNN.com, on the 7th of October, 2004. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/). And not forgetting the Nigerian Yellowcake fiasco, "White House Admits WMD Error," by Lauren Johnson, published by CBS News on the 8th of July, 2005. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/iraq/main562312.shtml). ANd, of course, the 'Dodgy dossier', as described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/draft-dodgy-dossier-online.html
2 - 'The Oilfield Lying Below the Iraq-Kuwait Disput,' by Thomas C. Hayes, published in the New York Times, 3rd of September, 1990. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D7173CF930A3575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print)
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/08/birth-defects-real-surge-in-iraq.html
4 - '1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack,' unattributed BBC report, date of original publication uncertain. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm)
5 - 'Terror Suspect Alleges Torture,' by Dana Priest and Dan Eggen, published in The Washington Post on the 6th of January, 2005. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51726-2005Jan5.html)
6 - Courtesy of zfacts.com, viewed on 13th of February, 2009. (http://zfacts.com/p/571.html)
7 - 'CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described,' by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, published by ABC News, 18th of November, 2005. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866). Second link is to 'Waiting for the Guards,' a short film made as part of Amnesty International's 'Unsubscribe Me' campaign, showing a real (i.e. unfaked, real pain) recreation of an actor holding a stress position. Linked 13th February, 2009. (http://www.unsubscribe-me.org/waitingfortheguards.php?)Third link relates to Binyam Mohamed, described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-why-we-are-hated-and-this-is.html
8 - 'Female FBI officer 'tortured Mumbai terror attacks suspect with sex',' by Ben Leach, published in The Telegraph, 12th of February, 2009. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/4587941/Female-FBI-officer-tortured-Mumbai-terror-attacks-suspect-with-sex.html)
9 - 'This dictator will continue to haunt Iraq' by Robert Fisk, published in The Independent, 16th of December, 2003. (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-this-dictator-will-continue-to-haunt-iraq-576749.html)
10 - 'The Other Prisoners,' by Luke Harding, published in The Guardian, 20th of May, 2004. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/iraq.gender)

Jackass

Tony Blair has told America - and by extension the rest of us - that we need to rediscover religion:

Tony Blair gave an extraordinary speech about the global importance of religion yesterday, telling an audience which included the newly-inaugurated President, Barack Obama, that faith should be restored "to its rightful place, as the guide to our world and its future."

The former prime minister also said he believed the 21st century would be "poorer in spirit" and "meaner in ambition" if it was not "under the guardianship of faith in God." He had been invited by President Obama to lead the prestigious US National Prayer Breakfast, a spectacular event in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Mr Blair also managed to rain on Gordon Brown's parade, meeting the President before any European leader. He dashed ahead of the Prime Minister and other political heavyweights, including Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Vladimir Putin, to lay on the hands and tell the President: "It is fitting at this extraordinary moment in your country's history that we hear that call to action; and we pray that in acting we do God's work and follow God's will." (1)

But he is wrong, of course. Religion, with out the underlying values of humanism and compassion, is just a tool for dividing people and an excuse for suspicion and prejudice. Pretty much the whole history of the world is evidence of this. And if you have humanity and compassion, you don't need religion to reinforce it.

Also, Blair's sudden volubility on this topic raises some interesting questions. He didn't make it a big issue while he was Prime Minister, and certainly didn't demonstrate the values of compassion, honesty, integrity or humanity.

Did he find his faith on the steps of Nukber 10 as he left for the last time? Or did he just forget about it for a while, while it was more convenient for him to play the hard nosed realist? If so, he might be getting himself into a lot of trouble with his God, who isn't known for tolerating hypocrites and those who deny their faith.

He'd better hope he is wrong about this religion thing, and that there is no god. Fortunately for him, he has a tendency to be wrong about important things.

1 - "At last, Blair is free to 'do God' – and America loves it" by Leonard Doyle, published in The Independent, 6th of Febbruary, 2009. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/at-last-blair-is-free-to-do-god-ndash-and-america-loves-it-1547656.html)

Unhappy anniversary

This month - the 22nd of October, to be exact - will mark a year since River's last post on Baghdad Burning (1). That final message indicated she was in Syria, with her family. They didn't sound like they were in any grave or immediate peril, merely enduring the everyday misery of refugees caught up in the War on Terror - the sort of thing we pretend to give a fuck about but don't really, since we happily return the politicians who perpetuate the vicious, lying, ineffectual war - but since then, we've heard nothing.

I hope River has simply given up trying to communicate with a world that doesn't give anything more than lip service to its promises and ideals. That would be sad, but would be the best possible cause of her silence.

1 - "Bloggers Without Borders...," posted by River on Baghdad Burning, 22nd of October, 2007. (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#3939951753835220137#3939951753835220137)