Low Skullduggery

The Blair government was, of course, infamous for the way they timed the release of news they'd rather we didn't see.

While I'm all for giving Brown a chance to show that he really does intend to respect parliament and do things differently, the fact that over 100 ministerial statements have been released just before MPs break up for the summer is not exactly inspiring.

Still, it does give us a chance to see just how many minor celebrities Blair schmoozed last year. Richard Madeley, Fiona Phillips and June Sarpong, all notable for their *ahem* tough questioning of the PM when given exclusive access, were on the list. That must have been what Blair meant when he talked about politics being all about "the pursuit of noble causes".

That's not the way to do it

I've just been watching this week's PMQs and the thing now seems to have descended completely into farce. What ever happened to shiny PR man's vow to avoid Punch and Judy politics? He's going through the same stages as Blair only more quickly.

Actually, there was a point in Blair's career where many people genuinely and optimistically did believe that he could lead us all to the promised land. Cameron seems to have missed out that stage altogether. All things considered, this is probably not a bad thing.

And what's with the speaker allowing Blair to go on and on about Conservative policy? OK, credit where it's due for managing to find anything to say about Tory policies given their scarcity but that isn't what PMQs is supposed to be about.

But then, what would be the point in asking quacker Blair about policy? You might as well ask a man standing on a gallows with a noose round his neck what he wants for breakfast tomorrow.

And when Sir Menzies did actually ask a serious question about the unsustainable role of the Attorney General, an area in which public confidence is eroding by the day, Blair simply gave him the brush off:

The position of the Attorney General, and the role that he carries out, has been there for hundreds of years, in our constitution, and I believe it to be the right role.

This from Blair, the archetype of the pathological moderniser. This may very well be the first and only time in Blair's career that he's decided he doesn't know better than hundreds of years of history and tradition. How unsurprising that it's in an area which really does need reform but where the maintenance of the status quo is of benefit to the ruling party.

By all accounts, we're going to have to put up with a few more weeks of this before Blair finally goes. Most pundits now seem to agree that Blair will announce his departure after the local elections in May. In one sense, this unprecedented long goodbye is sort of fascinating. Like a car crash is fascinating.

And remember that memo?

He needs to go with the crowd wanting more,
He should be the star who won't even play that last encore.

And he's planning to leave after the local election results have come in.

You've got to wonder whether he even realises that his departure will be marked by a chorus of boos as he and his entourage struggle to avoid the hail of rotting vegetables.

Update

Here we go. Do your own booing.

Golden Years

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and impatient of restraint.
- Hesoid, circa 700BC (possibly)

Not much has changed over the last 2,700 years.

Obviously, the previous sentence is complete crap. Lots of things have changed. But nostalgia for a non-existent utopian past is definitely still with us.

Philip Cowley, reader in parliamentary government at the University of Nottingham, has written a couple of articles on Comment is Free about how this nostalgia affects our view of the House of Commons. His latest is well worth taking the time to read.

Much as I loathe Blair, I have to say that I think he's got a point. There seems to be an awful lot of harking back to "the good old days" going on at the moment but those good old days never did exist. Blair has undoubtedly attempted to sideline parliament and his instincts are clearly undemocratic but the notion that parliament was the very model of representative democracy B.B. (before Blair) just doesn't stand up.

In fairness, the dissatisfaction many people feel towards today's MPs is about more than just nostalgia. For me, and I'm sure for many others too, parliament's failure to hold Blair to account for Iraq was an unforgivable abdication of responsibility. On a matter of the utmost importance, too many Labour MPs put their loyalty to Blair and the party above their responsibility to the nation and too many Conservative MPs were more concerned with political positioning than with doing the right thing.

More widely, in the information age with the Commons televised, 24 hour news channels, TheyWorkForYou and the rest, the public has the opportunity to be much better informed about the workings of parliament than was possible in the past. This means that the weaknesses and failings of the House of Commons are more visible than ever before. This, of course, adds unwarranted credibility to feelings of nostalgia but it really wasn't a whole lot better back then.

On the positive side, this new information age presents a genuine opportunity for real change too. As Cowley says, there is much that is wrong with the current system and much that can and should be improved. Stage one in the process should be to make sure we're not looking back at the golden years through rose tinted spectacles.

What Would Sophocles Do?

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.

Victory!

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.

Not merely inadequate but also misleading

Yesterday's High Court ruling stating that the government's consultation on energy policy had been "seriously flawed" was both extraordinary and totally unsurprising. As with consultation on the possible replacement of the U.K.'s WMD delivery system, it was always clear that the decision had preceded the "consultation". In fact, these consultations were actually government attempts to sell decisions which had already been taken.

As Blair continues to drag out his departure to the detriment of his party and the country, what was most extraordinary about yesterday's ruling was his response to it. The judge agreed with Greenpeace's contention that the consultation had not adequately addressed the issue of radioactive waste and the costs of dealing with it.

It's a major area of concern with regard to nuclear power and one which has been consistently marginalised over the years. There is a very real possibility that the costs of dealing with nuclear waste (and of decommissioning of obsolete plants) will have to be paid for with large public subsidies at some future point. The judge ordered the government to conduct another consultation so that these issues could be properly considered.

And Blair said:

This won't affect the policy at all.

So there you are.

At least he's decided to drop any pretence that the government ever intended to conduct a meaningful consultation with the public before making a decision.

By the way, underneath all this, there's an interesting discussion to be had on the strengths and weaknesses of representative democracy as compared to direct democracy. Roy Hattersley, a representative democracy sort of chap, raised this on Question Time last night. What I would say is that representative democracy in what is essentially a two party system, particularly one in which the party whips play such a powerful role, isn't working. Public confidence in the current system is at an all time low and Blair's pretend consultations have made that worse, not better.

Anyway, with modern technologies now creating new possibilities for expanding the role of direct democracy, this whole area needs to be looked at very carefully. And the first question is, should decisions on this issue be taken by our elected representatives or by the people a whole?

While you think abut that, I'm off to chase my own tail.

Brian 1 - 0 Politicians

Brian Haw has won this year's Channel 4 award for Most Inspiring Political Figure.

Mr Haw received 54 per cent of the votes cast by the public in the channel's political awards for 2007.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, who embarrassed the Government by saying troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, came second with 18 per cent.

Tony Blair was backed by eight per cent and David Cameron by six per cent.

Excellent.

Like one tiny water molecule in a very large wave, my own small effort to encourage people to vote for Brian was entirely surplus to requirements.

The boy wonder's six percent really is quite astonishing. He polled even fewer votes than the stupendously unpopular Mr Blair.

When Cameron told Blair that "he was the future once" he was right. Now, of course, he's finished (although he appears not to have realised it). It's hard to even be interested in pointing out the absurdities of what he says any more. Proper enquiries into his behaviour during his time at Number 10, particularly with regard to Iraq, are what I'm waiting for now.

And yet, the boy wonder, as leader of the opposition to a government which is widely reviled, still doesn't seem to be the future.

(And the Lib Dems are not going any better either. They really need to up their game.)

We can safely assume that the result of the Channel 4 vote demonstrates the unprecedented levels of public dissatisfaction with politicians of all stripes which currently exists in this country. Rather than fighting over the scraps using the same methods (sometimes wrapped up in shiny new packaging), politicians should be attempting to rebuild confidence and genuinely re-engage with the badly disillusioned public.

The opportunity is there. People still care about politics; they just don't care for scheming politicians.

PS - "Guido" is a tool.

The Long Goodbye, Part 94

The captain is merrily steering the ship directly towards an enormous iceberg, every alarm on board is flashing in that way that really alarming alarms do, and the crew are still busy discussing the finer points of a smooth and orderly transition.

Those of a sensitive disposition may want to look away now.

Who Wants To Be President?

The other day, while watching Blair make a bad job of delivering a televised speech, I was struck by one thought; that's it, he's finished. I was just about to articulate this when the other person in the room turned to me and said "he's finished, isn't he?"

Thursday's QT saw Matthew Parris say "I honestly think that he's losing his reason" to much applause. Parris pointed out that Blair's refusal to attend the Iraq debate in parliament was far more damaging than anything that could have happened to him if he'd attended the debate. I doubt there's more than a handful of Labour Party member in the whole country who would disagree. Leaving aside the morals of it, avoiding the debate was an absolutely awful political judgement. He's lost it.

Over at Blairwatch, Tom asks if Tony is fit to govern. I wonder if even his closest supporters could look you in the eye and tell you that he is.

But the Labour Party, aware that he's going soon and worried about creating a scene, are now content to let him have his final few months. Why they think that it's a kindness to Blair or to the Labour Party to allow this shell of a man to continue as leader is one of life's little mysteries. The Tories are the only one's who're actually going to benefit.

Tom picked out a quotation from Blair's interview with Jon Soppel:

I won an election in 2005.

This isn't a further sign that he has lost it; it's been clear for a long time that Blair has no respect for the conventions of British parliamentary democracy. He's thought of himself as Presidential in even his most rational moments. In the U.K, we elect a parliament of MPs and everything else is built on that. Blair's inability to understand that fundamental principle (and its implications) was one of his greatest failings.

It is interesting to note that Blair Lite appears to think exactly the same way. Voters did not vote for Blair at the last general election just as they won't vote for Dave in the next one. If the boy wonder wants to be elected President, he should say so and start campaigning for a new constitutional arrangement.

Instead, he appears to have accepted Blair's doctrine. Rather than promising to repair parliamentary democracy, he accepts that Blair's abuse of the unwritten rules of the current system has created a Presidential Prime Minister and he wants to be the next one at the earliest opportunity.

But what about Brown? I don't have the faintest idea what he thinks. Between the Blairite spinning against him, the Brownite spinning for him and his own supine acquiescence and his endless positioning to keep Blair onside, it is impossible to know.

If Brown's refuses to hold an early election, especially if Labour goes through a boost in the polls when he takes over and it looks like they could win, this could, perhaps bizarrely, be a demonstration of his commitment to British parliamentary democracy. A snap election during a poll bounce, on the other hand, would be cynical indeed.

Either way, Brown's continuing involvement in the Blair government means that he already has a whole lot of baggage to contend with. It'll take a lot more than a few headline grabbing initiatives to shake that legacy off his back. To be honest, I can't see how it can be done.

I know this is fanciful but wouldn't it be great if democracy was about more than just choosing the least worst option?

Why now?

Tony Blair's answer to the House of Commons was this:

The current Vanguard submarines have a service life of 25 years. The first boat should leave service in 2017. We can extend that for five years, so in 2022 that extension will be concluded, and in 2024 the second boat will also end its extended service life. By that time, we will have only two Vanguard submarines. That will be insufficient to guarantee continuous patrolling.

The best evidence we have is that it will take us 17 years to design, build and deploy a new submarine. Working back from 2024, therefore, that means that we have to take the decision in 2007.

So the Vanguard submarine has a maximum lifespan of 30 years.

Richard Garwin (whose title may be Mr, Dr or Professor depending on who you believe) gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee yesterday. He said:

US Trident submarines operate two-thirds of the time at sea, the UK subs about one-quarter of the time. The lifetime of the US submarines has been extended to 45 years.

He said:

I would expect that the UK submarines, from the point of view of wear-out, would last 100 years.. I see no reason why they shouldn't last 45 years.

He said the steam generators would wear out but that they could be replaced easily and relatively cheaply.

He said:

If Britain wants to preserve a strategic nuclear choice, then taking a decision now to replace the Trident submarines is a highly premature and wasteful approach. Unless some grave error has been made in the design of the Vanguard, it should last 100 years.

So there's a problem and when it comes to matters of trust, Blair starts with an obvious disadvantage. Even if he didn't though, I'd still be inclined to believe that it's the nuclear physicist who's right.

Why now?

It might be possible to spot the answer in this article which manages to be on exactly the same subject and on an entirely different subject at exactly the same time.

(A note for clarity - the U.S. navy doesn't use the Vanguard. They have their own design, the Ohio class. Comparisons are similar for similar, not like for like.)

Quote of the year?

One Cabinet colleague said Blair would go of his own volition if he felt it necessary. 'The stakes are immeasurably high. But what he will never do is to be pushed. About the only circumstances in which he would say "I will call it a day" is if he really felt he was damaging the party.'

How can something so extraordinary be so unsurprising?

I've never been a member of the Labour Party (or any other political party for that matter) but there must surely be some sort of mechanism for making him understand.

Bravery in the Face of Defeat

Blair likes to praise the bravery of our troops on occasion. There are those who think this insincere but I disagree. It is often the case that those who lack a certain characteristic genuinely and sincerely admire those who have it in abundance.

He has sent others to their deaths but does not have the bravery to personally face the barrage of nasty words which might come his way in this debate. Perhaps he lacks a sense of perspective. Perhaps he thinks nasty words are more dangerous than the bullets and bombs he has ordered others to face.

I'm being facetious. It's not just nasty words. As has been obvious for a very long time now, Blair has gone to great lengths to avoid having to participate in an honest debate about Iraq. He clearly feels that such a debate would damage his reputation, his legacy and the length of his career. He undoubtedly considers putting those at risk a far more serious and troublesome undertaking than merely risking the lives of a few unimportant squadies or a few tens of thousands of Iraqis. It's a risk he's simply not prepared to take. The stakes are just too high.

He is, in short, a self-serving coward.

The Legacy

Ruth Turner, Blair's Director of Government relations, has been arrested.

She was questioned over honours allegations and suspicion of perverting the course of justice. She has issued a statement denying any wrongdoing.

Interesting.

Whatever happens with this, it amazes me that there are still so many Labour MPs and activists prepared to let Blair depart "with dignity". Faced with distrusted, disliked and laughably inept Tory opposition during his entire time in office, Blair has still, almost single-handedly, managed to totally destroyed Labour's reputation. That's quite a feat.

Those who continue to support him are only making it even more likely that the whole Party will go down with his sinking ship. There are signs that self-interest has finally started to motivate them in ways that mere principles never could but it may very well already be too late.

Blair is in trouble if even John "dodgy dossier" Scarlett won't back him up. Stinky.

Remember when Blair approved the sale of a hugely expensive BAE Systems military air traffic control system to Tanzania despite the fact that Tanzania had almost no military aircraft? The SFO has discovered that BAE paid a middleman a $12 million "commission" to grease the wheels of that transaction. I wonder how Lord Falconer will quash that investigation?

And what's this? Remember Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate Blair helped out with various deals after he donated £125,000 to the Labour Party? You know, the man Blair claimed he helped because he was the owner of a British company despite the fact that the company in question was actually registered in the Dutch Antilles? Well, he now intends to donate £2 million to the Labour Party. Well I never.

Do you think Polly still as a few of her nosepegs handy? The stench is getting to be almost unbearable.

Repeat until Believable

Edward Pearce on Blair:

"The point about Blair is that he combines maximum assurance with maximum delusion." The comment, made privately by the leader of a Labour council, is the exact and perfect judgment. No other analyst need apply.

Indeed but here's a little bit more analysis anyway. This particular topic has been covered here before but if the PM is going to continue to say it, it seems only fair to continue to point out that he's talking utter garbage.

In his "warfighter" speech, he argued that this country must continue to be willing to participate in the illegitimate use of violence as a means to combat the illegitimate use of violence of others. He didn't phrase it that way of course but that's essentially what he said. He also blamed the media, the public and the military for that fact that the policy wasn't working.

He said:

They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in Baghdad, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Iraqis who voted for a non-sectarian government, then the image presented to a Western public is as likely to be, more likely to be, one of a failed Western policy, not another outrage against democracy.

The majority of Iraqis voted for a non-sectarian government?

If you are a dedicated sophist, you could just about argue that there's a tiny sliver of truth in that but sophistry and the power of Blair's delusions and pronouncements have no impact on the real world. Blair's refusal to accept that may be one of his most alarming traits.

The reality is that the vast majority of Iraqis voted along sectarian lines. Even Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, could not avoid concluding that "it looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities". It's not in any way controversial.

And yet Blair continues to make these absurd claims, lies in fact, and the majority of MPs and activists in the Labour Party continue to let him. And the Tories, the party who did/didn't support the war (delete as appropriate), are not exactly doing a sterling job of holding him to account either. When our PM can repeatedly lie about the situation in Iraq without facing any consequence whatsoever, is it any wonder confidence in politicians is at an all time low?

Still, I suppose that's all our fault too. If only we were the credulous, unquestioning fools Blair would like us to be, our democracy would be in the best of health.

The Beat Goes On

By all accounts, it appears that President Bush is about to send more U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new surge and sacrifice strategy. Blair's refusal to meaningfully discuss any aspect of the Iraq war makes it impossible to know for sure what our great leader thinks of this extraordinarily stupid idea but given that it is in direct conflict with Blair's stated policy of transferring more control to Iraqi security forces, it does look like Blair's influence on Bush is operating at the level we've all become accustomed too. Any guesses what Blair will say when Bush announces that new strategy? Will he say anything at all?

A woefully under-reported Military Times poll meanwhile, reveals that U.S. active service personnel, for all the propaganda they're subjected too, are losing faith in the war (poll methodology here). 41% now believe the U.S. is not very or not at all likely to succeed in Iraq and 42% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. There is some support among the troops for a increase in troops numbers but that's hardly surprising; self-preservation and the need to provide force protection in an extremely hostile environment are the key motivators here.

But U.S. troops are not overly confident that Blair's slightly less extraordinarily stupid strategy will work. Confidence In Iraq's security forces is pitifully low.

How soon do you think the Iraqi military will be ready to replace large numbers of American troops?

• Less than a year - 2%
• 1-2 years - 20%
• 3-5 years - 36%
• 5-10 years - 22%
• More than 10 years - 12%
• No opinion/no answer - 7%

This, after nearly four years of training. Down in the south, the British government is talking about a substantial transfer in the next few months. In the rest of the country, 58% of active duty U.S. troops think it'll be between three and ten years before the Iraqis are substantially able to control their own country without large scale coalition military assistance.

This reinforces the enormous difficulties of stabilising Iraq as a country. The Blairite line is still to minimise the realities on the ground. Des Browne recently said "I make no apology for reminding people that 14 of the 18 provinces are relatively peaceful" and other ministers do the same when unable to avoid discussing Iraq. Baghdad, by far the most populous of Iraq's provinces, is of course one of those which is not "relatively peaceful" but that sort of number crunching really misses the point. When, for example, did you ever hear any government minister point out that suicide bomb attacks have only ever occurred in one of England's nine regions? To play down the seriousness of the situation in that way while Iraq's capital slowly but surely descends into violent anarchy is just the sort of disingenuous sophistry this government revels in.

But what, I hear you ask, is the point of continuing to highlight this? Previously, I wrote this sort of thing in part to point out that the situation was not improving as was claimed by our government and that it was in fact only going to get worse. In the last year, the credibility of the fiction that success in Iraq is just round the corner has been all but destroyed. (I should add again that it gives me no pleasure to have been right.)

Only the most deranged still maintain that the Iraq's "problems" are largely manufactured by the media. You'd like to think that Malkin will have her eyes opened by her forthcoming visit but it seems far more likely that she'll take with her a set of blinkers which will only allow her to see to those things which confirm her already existing view. She may be there for some time.

There's no point arguing the case with someone like that. As the Flying Rodent pointed out the other day, the self-correcting mechanisms of the bl#!#$!@#ere only works "if the blogger in question has a shred of intellectual honesty".

But there is still a purpose. There's a war on and this country is on the losing side. People are dying every day. Our Prime Minister would rather we didn't think too much about that. He would rather we didn't demand that he be held to account for the entirely predictable catastrophe he has embroiled this country in.

Well, I for one do not think he should be allowed to get away with it. For that reason, posts on the bloody mess that Iraq has become will continue to be a feature of this blog in 2007.

Defending The Indefensible Squared

For some inexplicable reason, Lance Price has written an article in defence of Margaret Beckett.

Listening to her on the Today programme and elsewhere recently has been to hear a woman aching to be put out of her misery. Beckett deserves to be acknowledged as a formidable politician, underestimated by the media and admired by all who have worked with her. Instead it will be the sight of her trying vainly to defend a foreign policy with which she plainly disagrees for which she'll be best remembered. Sadly, it is not just Tony Blair's legacy that will be defaced by Iraq.

[...]

It can only be that she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired, responsible for a policy she finds close to impossible to defend.

A wave of sympathy completely fails to stir within me.

The problem is the notion that "she has found herself in a position to which she never aspired".

Blair: Margaret, do you want to be Foreign Secretary? I know it'd mean you'd have to defend a policy which you plainly disagree with but go on. It'd look good on your C.V. and it'd help me keep power for a bit longer. You know I want to leave with dignity at a time of my own choosing...

Beckett: No Tony. Your foreign policy has been a disaster. The world is more dangerous, British interests have been damaged, Iranian power in the Middle East has been hugely boosted and an uncounted number of people have been killed as a result of your policies. For that, you deserve to by hounded out of office at the earliest opportunity. I hope my resignation from your government helps bring that about.

That wouldn't have been so difficult. There would have been no need to "vainly" defend Blair's policies if she'd taken that path.

Instead, she decided to put career and narrow party interests above principle and country. She decided to continue to support Tony Blair. She decided that she would remain part of the cabal which enables Blair to continue with his failed foreign policies despite her obvious opposition to those failed policies.

As a result, she can now regularly be heard making an arse of herself on the Today programme and elsewhere. That's what happens when you decide you're willing to defend the indefensible.

Given that that was a central theme of the article, you'd think Lance would have realised that he should avoid doing the same.