IRAQN

Since John Bolton was ousted from his position as US ambassador to the UN, he appears have taken up permanent residence in the Newsnight studios. Last night, complaining that the IAEA under Elbaradei has refused to say exactly what the neo-cons want him to say on Iran, Bolton came out with this:

"All that Elbaradei has said, and he is an apologist for Iran, in effect, is that he doesn't have evidence of the programme. I think the intelligence is there for all to see."

Has a familiar ring to it, wouldn't you say? Hands up all those who remember being called an apologist for Saddam back in the day.

Bolton was, of course, one of the cheerleaders for the war against Iraq. And he was in the lead in the Bush administration's attempt to block Elbaradei's reappointment as head of the IAEA in 2005. Being good at the job and displaying integrity in the face of enormous pressure is not acceptable when it exposes the extent to which political dogma overrides the facts in the Bush Whitehouse. Fortunately, Bolton lost. For the record, 34 of the 35 members of the IAEA board member countries supported Elbaradei's reappointment. Only one was opposed.

In the now traditional ironic style, the war on Iraq which Bolton was so enthusiastic about has actually strengthened the position of the Iranian regime to unprecedented levels. Bolton should have himself shot for aiding the enemy.

And Iran, unlike Iraq, could theoretically acquire the ability to build nuclear weapons in the not too distant future. Whether they are attempting to, as Elbaradei rightly points out, remains open to doubt. Not for Bolton and chums, of course, but for rational people not blinded by ideology.

There are plenty of commentators who argue that after the monumental disaster of Iraq, the US would not possibly take military action against Iran. I disagree. It is important to realise that Bolton, and indeed the Bush regime generally, are absolutely unable to learn from their own mistakes because they are almost entirely impervious to the facts.

And if that doesn't scare you, you're a lot braver than me.

So Brown has decided to review the decision to refuse asylum to Iraqis who are in specific danger because they worked for the British armed forces. Des Browne will report back in the autumn.

What's that over there in the long grass? Why, it's people having their kneecaps drilled out. Still, out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Please consider signing the petition and writing to your MP if you've not already done so.

Inflatable Fun Time

On Comment is Free yesterday, Roy Hattersley wrote about liberty and the "out-of-date" views of John Stuart Mill. Describing Mill's view of liberty, Hattersley wrote:

The first principle asserts that "all errors which (a man) is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good". Only cranks believe that now. If it were a generally held view, we would not prohibit the use of recreational drugs or require passengers in the back seats of motor cars to wear safety belts.

I was a member of the cabinet that first discussed the desirability of making back-seat safety belts compulsory. Millite ministers initially objected. They were reconciled to the "infraction of liberty" by the argument that a passenger flying through the windscreen might injure the pedestrian whose life had initially been saved by the emergency stop. And Mill's second precept makes a distinction between "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others". In short, we are free to damage ourselves but are not at liberty to behave in a way that harms other people.

Roy appears to be getting rather confused in his dotage. He's used Mill's second precept to argue against his first in a bizarre attempt to do something or other. In truth, compulsory seat belts for rear seat passengers protects the safety of those in the front seats, a position entirely consistent with Mill's views on liberty. It is true that the distinction between self-harm and harm to society is more difficult to draw in today's world - who pays the bills for the emergency services when an impoverished libertarian accidentally crashes into a tree at 120mph at 3am on an empty road and has to be cut from the mangled remains of his vehicle and fed through a tube for the rest of his life? - but that does not negate Mill's basic principles.

Nevertheless, the conviction underpinning Roy's position, that in an interdependent society the State must place limits on personal liberty, does have some validity. It is how we act on this that matters. In this country, we have newspapers from opposing ends of the traditional political spectrum (I'm thinking the Daily Mail and the Guardian) constantly telling us of the need to place controls on the great unwashed for their own good and for that of society. Likewise with politicians. What's missing from the debate, it seems to me, is any real consideration as to what this sort of attitude does to our notion of personal responsibility.

Here's a little incident which will hopefully encapsulate what I'm getting at. It doesn't concern the State but does say something about British attitudes towards freedom and responsibility. (Warning: conclusions may contain some generalisations.)

For the last two weeks, we played host to a Dutch family with four children aged eight to fifteen. The whole family loves swimming so we arranged to visit the local swimming pool one morning during one of their "Inflatable Fun Time" sessions. This, it turns out, was something of a misnomer. To set the scene, there were about thirty people swimming and five supervisors/life guards. It's a 25m pool and two thirds had been roped off for the one large inflatable; swimming and mucking about (within reason) was only allowed in the shallow third. Access to the inflatable was controlled by one of the guards - one at a time please - and when one person fell off - swim to the left only please, the left only, quickly please - the next person was allowed on. The Dutch father was whistled at twice within the first three minutes. He then politely asked one of the guards if they might explain exactly what he was allowed to do to save any further confusion.

My Dutch friends were absolutely astonished by all of this and ended up rather enjoying the absurdity of it all. On the way out, the eldest daughter filled in a Comment Form stating that "you weren't allowed to do anything". That was inflatable fun time, British style.

Later that day, to much wonderment, I explained what Aberdeen city centre is like on a Friday or Saturday night. In the Netherlands, they live in a city of pretty much exactly the same size but of an entirely different character. Sure, it has problems, but nothing like the drink fuelled mayhem which descends on British towns and cities at the weekends.

Why that's the case is all about our two societies' very different attitudes to freedom and responsibility. In the Netherlands children are taught about freedom and responsibility from an early age and encouraged to demonstrate their understanding at every opportunity. They are not distrusted and controlled by authority at every turn. As such, they are much better able to handle the transition from child to adult than those nannied to distraction by the British system.

The freedom they learn about is not the freedom of the "cult of the individual"; The distinction Mill drew between "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others" is fundamental. Parents seek to teach their children that for a society to be truly free, each person must respect the rights of others and understand the impact of their actions on those around them. This philosophy creates not a nation of selfish "me first" individuals but a genuine feeling of society, a society where people believe in people.

To create such a society in this country would obviously require an enormous sea change in attitudes. For a start, Dutch people don't have the same rabidly scaremongering tabloids constantly telling them how dangerous everyone and everything is. (Our Dutch family's reaction to the Sun "newspaper" and to the news that it's the highest selling paper in Britain was something to behold.) In Britain, our faith in the ability of people to safely think for themselves and take decisions for themselves is under constant attack. Given the way we treat each other, it has now become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The question is, can we break the chain and if so, how?

New Front In War on Terror

The world is stunned today after new evidence emerged which proves that the U.S. Government is supplying arms to evil Iraqi insurgents. Up to 190,000 U.S. supplied weapons may have made their way into the hands of our sworn enemies in the War on Terror. The word from Washington is that President Bush has decided to declare war on his administration in the autumn of this year...

I'd could expand that out but the reality is quite ridiculous enough. It's a recurring theme of U.S. and U.K. foreign policy in the 21st Century.

Something like 30% of the weapons supplied to Iraq over the last three years are missing. The U.S. government really has flooded the streets of the highly unstable sectarian battleground which is today's Iraq with large numbers of AK47's and pistols. The distribution method the Pentagon decided to adopt was apparently modelled on that of Widow Twankey giving out sweets at the Christmas panto. Guns anyone? Who wants guns?

Here's the intro to the report (PDF):

As of July 2007, DOD and MNF-I had not specified which DOD accountability procedures, if any, apply to the train-and-equip program for Iraq. Congress funded the train-and-equip program for Iraq outside traditional security assistance programs, providing DOD a large degree of flexibility in managing the program, according to DOD officials. These officials stated that since the funding did not go through traditional security assistance programs, the DOD accountability requirements normally applicable to these programs did not apply.

Read that first sentence again. Note the "July 2007" and particularly the "if any".

Here are the "Recommendations for Executive Action" from the report:

To help ensure that U.S. funded equipment reaches the Iraqi security forces as intended, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:

1. Determine which DOD accountability procedures apply or should apply to the program.
2. After defining the required accountability procedures, ensure that sufficient staff, functioning distribution networks, standard operating procedures, and proper technology are available to meet the new requirements.

Four years on and countless dead and they've still not decided on an accountability procedure for the hundreds of thousands of weapons they're shipping to Iraq. Four years on, they still need others to tell them the tragically bloody obvious.

Generally speaking, anyone whose staggering incompetence results to massive loss of life can expect to find themselves in a spot of bother. Promotion probably isn't on the cards for the policeman who leaves his loaded Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine gun in a kebab shop for some drunken fool to find and take on a killing spree down the high street. Saying "yes, it was my gun but it was the evil drunk man who pulled the trigger, not me" probably won't be enough to save his career.

In politics, apparently, things are rather different.

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".

I don't want to go on the cart

First of all, I'd like to offer an apology for going completely missing from the interwebs for the last wee while. It wasn't a planned absence and I'm slightly shocked to discover that it's been literally months since I last posted. Extra large apologies to those who've emailed or commented and not received replies during the hiatus. Also great big thanks to those who've offered kind words.

Without going into the gory details (which are neither particularly gory nor particularly interesting), let's just say that a combination of factors led to an overpowering case of Wonko the Sane syndrome.

Fortunately, or perhaps not, depending on your point of view, it does now appear to be passing. Proper posts on the way.

In the meantime, here's an article from the Gran:

The British government granted asylum to about 100 Iraqis between 2003 and 2005, but figures since then are unknown. It has refused to consider applications from among the 2 million Iraqis who have fled to Jordan, Syria and other neighbouring states.

And here's a related campaign to pressure the British government to offer asylum to Iraqis who have worked for the British government since the invasion and are now in grave danger as a result: We can't turn them away

The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops ‘register with the UN refugee agency’.

It's a shameful state of affairs. The campaign aims to make sure that MPs are unable to avoid facing up to it.

Spread the word.

Update

My email is away. Moved house so I've got a new Liberal Democrat MP, one Robert Smith. (Not the one from The Cure unfortunately.) I'm told he's a decent chap.

You might also want to sign the petition set up by Davide.

Fools

Apologies for the absence. Things will get back to normal shortly and I'll soon be replying to the emails which are piling up too. Honest.

In the meantime, I couldn't help but notice a completely pointless bit of nonsense in a local Labour election leaflet (it's not my own constituency but a nearby one). It's one of those classic "local people" things.

Here's the relevant bit of the leaflet.


James "I'm keen to know what local people would like done" Noble has quoted two "local people" on his leaflet. Can you guess what's coming next?

The first supporter, Bridget "James Noble is committed to the people of West Aberdeenshire" O'Hare is, yes, a Scottish Labour Party candidate in the council elections.

The second supporter, Ricky "I know James is on my side on the issues that matter to me" Simpson is, yes, also a Scottish Labour Party candidate in the local elections.

There is no mention of this on the leaflet. Both stooges are presented in a way which suggests that they are local people (true) and unaffiliated supporters of Mr Noble (false).

It wasn't hard to find out the truth though; both of the above links were found via James's website. But as Mr Noble no doubt knows as well as I, almost no-one who sees the leaflet will bother to check out the website so the illusion that these are just interested local people with no party political affiliations will stand up reasonably well.

Who are the fools really? Us or them?

By the way, this is completely pointless because James doesn't have the slightest chance of being elected as the 2003 result clearly demonstrates. Mr Noble appears to be honing his ability to mislead the public purely as an investment in his future political career. After all, if it worked so well for Blair...

You Say Potato

And I say Potato

Hmm, that title doesn't really work too well in text form. Oh well, try singing it to yourself.

Anyway, those Iranians, eh? What are they like?

Craig Murray was on Newsnight yesterday making the mostly overlooked point that neither the British nor the Iranian governments were being honest about the situation. The fact is that the border between Iran and Iraq is not clearly defined; it's not actually possible to say with certainty which side of the border these sailors were on because it's not actually possible to say with certainty where the border is. That hasn't stopped both sides from claiming to be absolutely sure of their case though.

So Iran has now held the 15 British hostages for 11 whole days in clear breach of international law. Outrageous!

During the course of those 11 days in an entirely unrelated incident (note: not sarcasm) British resident Bisher al-Rawi was released from US custody and allowed to return to the UK. He had been held for more than 4 years, mostly at Guantanamo Bay. His colleague, Jamil Al-Banna, who was taken into custody at the same time, has not been released.

Last year, The Independent provided a good summary of the situation. It appears that the UK government, through MI5, was complicit in the detention of the men. That was, apparently, his reward for working as a go-between for that same MI5.

According to Amnesty International:

Their initial transfer to Bagram and subsequent one to Guantánamo Bay took place despite the fact that they had not been allowed to consult with lawyers, and despite the fact that a habeas corpus petition on their behalf was pending in the courts in Gambia.

Amnesty International has also been informed that the Gambian authorities, through the Gambian High Commission in London, hindered attempts by relatives of Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil Al-Banna to ascertain the whereabouts of the two men by refusing to authorize power of attorney instructing a lawyer in Banjul to act on their behalf, thereby significantly delaying introduction of the habeas corpus petition.

Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil Al-Banna were rendered to US custody in a manner which circumvented any judicial process, including extradition procedures, in further violation of their internationally recognized human rights.

But only a hard-left cheese eating surrender monkey would even think to suggest that Al-Rawi was kidnapped by the US authorities.

After more than four years of imprisonment and questioning, the authorities were still unable to charge Al-Rawi with committing any crime but Beckett's statement to parliament concerning his release nevertheless implied that he was still a security risk:

This decision follows extensive discussions to address the security implications of Mr. Al Rawi's return. The UK will continue to take the necessary measures to maintain national and international security.

Charming. Innocent until proven guilty is just soooo last Century...

Let me stress that the treatment of Al-Rawi does not in any way excuse the behaviour of the Iranian government in holding the 15 British sailors in the way that they have.

The Blair government's attempts at moral high ground pronouncements and complaints of Iranian breaches of international laws, however, are hard to take seriously.

Representing

The Blo****ere

"Guido's" appearance on Newsnight last night was both entertaining and educational. Paxo telling him that he was talking "complete bollocks" was a personal highlight for me.

See Guido Fawkes 2.0 for analysis of the aftermath.

Nick Robinson's acceptance of "Guido's" apology contains an archived version if you missed it.

As Nick is busy (and possibly even gracious), he doesn't seem to feel the need to stick the knife in. Ah well...

Here's a transcript of the relevant section of "Guido's" interview. Sir Michael asks him to give examples of stories he's broken.

"Guido": The whole question of the second email system. The lobby was following me on that for two days...

Sir Michael: It isn't true.

"Guido": Well, it turned out it wasn't an email system. There was a second system for doing documents with Lotus Notes. We've established that.

Sir Michael: I don't think we have actually. That illustrates the difficulty. I think you got that wrong.

"Guido": Well, my source for that was Nick Robinson so maybe.

He shoots. He scores.

Shame it was the wrong net.

And "Guido's" apology:

Incidentally - want to clarify something immediately re Nick Robinson - that last line about Nick being the source, did not mean he was the source for the original much contested Guido "email" second system story. Nick has never been a source. We had a discussion re the Ruth Turner document after doing his interview. That was what the reference was to, pretty sure that came over all wrong, and genuinely apologise for any embarrassment caused to Nick.

"Guido" 0 - 2 "Guido"

Getting confused on the telly and making yourself look like a gormless twit is one thing but making two simple but entirely contradictory statements in the space of a couple of hours is something else entirely.

So, what's the truth? Is it:

a) Well, my source for that was Nick Robinson.
b) Nick has never been a source.
c) "Guido" carries a small fire extinguisher on his person at all times in order to douse the frequent pant fires which plague him so.

I guess we'll never know...

The sad part is, I do agree with some of the stuff in "Guido's" piece (you have have noticed that I've taken to calling Michael White "Sir Michael"). The lobby does have a problem with having to cosy up to politicians in order to secure access and politicians do try to manipulate that to their advantage. It is undoubtedly an issue. Shame "Guido" ended up making it look like conspiralunacy.

Anyway, Newsnight viewers who had been considering whether there was anything worth checking out in this with blogging lark will not exactly have been won round by last night's bumbling performance. Let's hope "Guido" does us all a favour and keeps his self-promoting silhouette off the telly from now on.

Who Invented the Internet?

Apologies for the lack of activity here recently. There are a number of real world reasons for this which I won't bore you with. Normal service will resume shortly.

In the meantime, here's a little something for you. I started writing this last weekend before the offline world so rudely interrupted. This is a reworked version.

The question which has been on my mind recently is, can there ever be objective reality in political debate? (For a deeper discussion as to whether there even is such a thing as objective reality, you'll need to go to a philosopher. For the purposes of this, it is enough to accept that a tree in the woods has either fallen down or it hasn't. It's status can be checked and an objective reality can be agreed.)

Politics is all about differences of opinion of course but it seems to me that more and more time is spent arguing over the facts rather than the policies which address the facts. This is, I believe, one of the reasons why so many people are disillusioned with politics. The economy is booming/on the verge of collapse, crime is rising/falling, we're winning/losing the war and so on. It's not an edifying sight so see politicians squabbling over the facts in this way. Who wants to live in a world where nothing is real and everything is a matter of opinion?

Here's an example. Rather than tackling a big issue, I thought I'd start with an inconsequential one. The opportunity arose when Dizzy wrote a response to Tim's post on Dizzy. I felt no need to leap to Tim's defence, he's a big boy and can certainly look after himself, but I did decide to try to make a wider point.

Dizzy had written this:

Where [sic] Gore invented teh Interweb (All Praise the Gore!), he invented the blogosphere.

The "Gore claimed he invented the internet" meme is pretty widespread, it has to be said, but is it actually true?

On the face of it, it appears unlikely. Why on earth would a politician make such an extraordinary claim, one which was certain to be subject to endless ridicule?

Objectively, we can say that Gore never said the words "I invented the internet", What he actually said is recorded here.

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

And, as Snopes points out, what Gore meant was that "he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet". In context, this is obvious; he just said it very clumsily. Indeed.

As to whether that claim was valid, here's what two of the "founding fathers" of the internet had to say about Gore and the claim:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

And he won an award for it too.

So, although it may be a matter of opinion as to the extent of Gore's contribution, his claim certainly wasn't entirely baseless. Essentially what we have here is a politician bigging himself up clumsily but with some amount of justification for the part he played in promoting the internet.

Objectively, we can say that Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet in the way that was claimed by Republicans.

I decided to see whether Dizzy would agree so I submitted this comment:

"Where Gore invented teh Interweb..."

Urban myths are neither clever nor funny.

There is, I think, a difference between being politically partisan and being a truth distorting propagandist.

That was a bit rough but it's my understanding that Dizzy's a big boy too. Dizzy's response:

Curious Hamster, urban myth are funny if their intended target audience is Adam from Cross Pond who is, of course, simple great.

I have to admit to not understanding fully what he's saying here (and I've not had the time to find out about Adam and what he has to do with this) butDizzy does at least seem to accept that the Gore claim is an urban myth. Fair enough.

Not everyone was convinced though. Since PragueTory also appeared in the comments to that post, I also had a go at asking him the question that he's gone through hoops to avoid answering recently. Slightly cheeky perhaps but I couldn't resist:

Apologies for going off-topic but since PT is here, I would like to ask he ever got round to looking at the evidence of Guido's "beyond the pale" activities? (I won't "spam" the relevant link. PT knows what I mean.)

I only ask because people may be starting to think he's a coward who runs away when he's not got any answers and I'm sure none of us wants that.

Anyway. Must dash, Got stuff to do this afternoon. I'll check back to see if any answer is forthcoming later.

And, when I came back later, PT had responded. Of sort:

Stop giggling at the back. He only said he created the internet. Oh forget it. Let's all laugh and point.

Oh, how I laughed.

The effortless way he avoided the question is evidence of a real master at work. I did reply but, alas, although my comment was submitted well before Dizzy shut the thread down (due to a discussion between him and Tim, it seems), it never appeared. It has, I'm afraid, disappeared into the interweb ether.

In any event, attempts to get PragueTory to answer a straightforward question are probably doomed to failure from the very start. Perhaps that's why my comment didn't get through; maybe Dizzy realised that I was wasting my time with him. And what chance do you think I'd have had of getting PT to accept that Gore never actually claimed to have created the internet if the thread had remained open?

No, me neither. For PT, reality can go whistle. It's certainly not nearly as important as the opportunity to take cheap shots against political opponents. And there are more and more bloggers who do this. The accepted granddaddy of this sort of thing, "Guido Fawkes", likes to claim that Tim Ireland's exposés of his behaviour are somehow part of a Brownite plot orchestrated by Tom Watson. Anyone who's read Bloggerheads for any length of time will know that that's utter bilge of course but repeated often enough, some will start to believe it. And with that, objective reality in politics becomes just that little bit further away.

George Orwell famously wrote that "politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia". Sadly, the political blo****ere now looks to be going the same way.

It could be argued that this invasion of partisan spin and bull onto the interwebs is an unstoppable and inevitable result of modern politics and human behaviour. Perhaps it is but we'll never know for sure if we don't at least make the effort to stop it. And that's one of the reasons why I'm on the blogroll here (not the bogroll) and why I think you should be too.

(By the way, in the interests of transparency I should also say that I think Al Gore is a bit of a git. But not because he claimed he invented the internet. He didn't.)

Still no responses to the question I asked in the previous post from Iain or anyone else from the "yes" lobby.

Iain has posted again on Trident though (with a post which has a hint of the "Moving on..." about it) so, obsessive nutter that I am, I've tried again too.

Will anyone answer? Place your bets now...

Good grief! (via)

It really has come to something when a congressional bill which merely reaffirms the provisions of the U.S. constitution is considered controversial.

The only reason that this was even necessary was because the Bush administration has made it clear that they do not believe they need congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Wonder is this decision has caused them to think again?

Well done Democrats.

*slow hand claps*

The International Commitment Buffet

Here's a wee follow up to yesterday's post on weapons of mass destruction.

It looks increasingly likely that Tony will need Tory support to get the vote on Trident through the Commons. As such, I was particularly interested to see what Tory blogger Iain Dale had to say about the issue. All the boxes were ticked.

Always nice to see Labour MPs reverting to type and playing fast and loose with the defence of the nation, isn't it? Predictably they are likely to be joined in the No lobby by the LibDems who can't quite make up their minds as to whether Britain should even have its own nuclear deterrent.

Fast and loose indeed. That'll be that radical, dangerously naive, irresponsible minority of crazies...

Then, Iain demonstrated perfectly the point I made yesterday about what renewal at this time really means.

They say that in this post cold war era it is not as relevant and therefore could be scrapped. The truth is that we don't know who our enemies are likely to be in ten, twenty or thirty years time. It may indeed be ragtag terror groups like Al Qaeda, but it may also be nation states with nuclear capabilities. The precautionary principle ought at least to come into play here.

So, when would Iain agree to fulfil our commitment to work towards disarmament? I tried asking:

The truth is that we don't know who our enemies are likely to be in ten, twenty or thirty years time...

I'm curious to know how this fits in with our commitment under the NNPT to "pursue negotiations in good faith on... a Treaty on general and complete disarmament" (Article VI).

If you base this decision on the precautionary principle, it seems unlikely that you could ever commit to complete disarmament. In that case, you would certainly be in breach of the disarmament pillar of the NNPT. How then could you expect to have the moral authority to insist that other countries abide by the non-proliferation pillar?

Is it Tory policy to withdraw from the NNPT or would they, like Tony, just ignore the international obligations they don't fancy adopting?

And do you know what? Not one single person replied or even acknowledged that comment.

As you can imagine, my surprise at encountering this turn of events was entirely non-existent. It's the radioactive elephant in the debating room.

A few principled souls, probably from the left of the Labour Party it has to be said, will undoubtedly raise the issue in the debate tomorrow. All they'll get for their trouble is a barrage of ridicule and scorn.

Because the idea that we should abide by our international commitments rather than picking and choosing to suit ourselves is patently absurd...

Selective "Outrage"

For those not aware of it, Tim posted about the hypocrisy of one PragueTory on Friday and there's a follow up here. Dear oh dear.

So, when is beyond the pale not beyond the pale? Personally, I'd say that unjustifiably smearing someone as a paedophile actually is beyond the pale in all cases. PT appears to think differently. I've been waiting all weekend for an explanation as to why this is but no answer was forthcoming.

So, here's a short post dedicated to PT (and one of his commenters).

Another Rightie Goes Beyond the Pale

The Right definitely dominate when the blogosphere comes to posting things that are completely beyond the pale. And it seems like the material is coming thicker (pun intended) and faster than ever.

"Guido Fawkes" (who has boasted of his use of illegal tax evasion strategies) wrote that Mark Oaten was "a slaphead who most mothers would feel uneasy seeing near a playground". This comment was made last year.

Remarkably "Guido" is allowing his comment to stand.

There can be no doubt that the left occupy the erudite, blogging high-ground while the right prefer the low swamp of attack and innuendo

Right?

No, obviously not. Because, you see, I realise that although "the right" has it's fair share of tossers, hypocrites and bastards just like any other group of human beings, it would be unfair on the many decent people of the right to extrapolate that sort of behaviour in this stupid generic way in an attempt to gain partisan political advantage. It would be misleading, dishonest and well, just not very nice.

That obviously isn't a concern shared by everyone though.

Irresponsibility

This week, the House of Commons will vote on whether the UK will commit to spending billions of pounds of our money over many years on a new nuclear weapons delivery system.

The government's argument is essentially that we need to maintain our own weapons of mass destruction to protect us against unknown unknowns. That's is a genuine argument but, as you may be aware, I don't believe that the debate we're having, if it can even be described as a debate, has made any attempt to seriously consider the implications of such an approach.

Taking the decision to retain nuclear weapons as a protection against potential future threats is very different from maintaining a deterrent against a specific existing threat as was the case during the Cold War. To do this now, almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, would be to make a very public admission that the UK does not believe that nuclear disarmament is a realistic goal.

Maybe that's true. But if it is, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with it's very clear commitment to work towards complete disarmament - the carrot given to the non-nuclear weapons states by the nuclear weapons one's - is a busted flush. Even now, before a decision on renewal, it is hard to argue that the UK is abiding by its obligation under Article VI of the treaty to "pursue negotiations in good faith on... a Treaty on general and complete disarmament". To take the decision to renew now would be to confirm categorically that the UK has no intention of disarming for decades to come.

That, ultimately, is the message which renewal of the UK's nuclear weapons systems at this time would send to the rest of the world. And that should be a major part of the debate. Instead, Des "I can't believe he's our Defence Secretary" Browne and the rest of the government have attempted to stifle that discussion at every opportunity.

In the name of protecting our freedoms, of course.

According to the BBC, many Labour MPs are opposed to taking this decision. I hope they've got their smear defences up and running because questions will almost certainly be asked of their mental health.One of the strangest things about the debate over the UK's nuclear weapons is that those who argue that the UK should no longer have nuclear weapons are somehow considered to be a radical, dangerously naive, irresponsible minority.

Here for the record is the list of current non-nuclear weapons states:

# Afghanistan
# Albania
# Algeria
# American Samoa
# Andorra
# Angola
# Anguilla
# Antarctica
# Antigua and Barbuda
# Arctic Ocean
# Argentina
# Armenia
# Aruba
# Ashmore and Cartier Islands
# Atlantic Ocean
# Australia
# Austria
# Azerbaijan

# Bahamas, The
# Bahrain
# Baker Island
# Bangladesh
# Barbados
# Bassas da India
# Belarus
# Belgium
# Belize
# Benin
# Bermuda
# Bhutan
# Bolivia
# Bosnia and Herzegovina
# Botswana
# Bouvet Island
# Brazil
# British Indian Ocean Territory
# British Virgin Islands
# Brunei
# Bulgaria
# Burkina Faso
# Burma (Myanmar)
# Burundi

# Cambodia
# Cameroon
# Canada
# Cape Verde
# Cayman Islands
# Central African Republic
# Chad
# Chile
# Christmas Island
# Clipperton Island
# Cocos (Keeling) Islands
# Colombia
# Comoros
# Congo, Democratic Republic of the
# Congo, Republic of the
# Cook Islands
# Coral Sea Islands
# Costa Rica
# Cote d'Ivoire
# Croatia
# Cuba
# Cyprus
# Czechia (Czech Republic)

# Denmark
# Djibouti
# Dominica
# Dominican Republic

# East Timor
# Ecuador
# Egypt
# El Salvador
# Equatorial Guinea
# Eritrea
# Estonia
# Ethiopia
# Europa Island

# Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)
# Faroe Islands
# Fiji
# Finland
# French Guiana
# French Polynesia
# French Southern and Antarctic Lands

# Gabon
# Gambia, The
# Gaza Strip
# Georgia
# Germany
# Ghana
# Gibraltar
# Glorioso Islands
# Greece
# Greenland
# Grenada
# Guadeloupe
# Guam
# Guatemala
# Guernsey
# Guinea-Bissau
# Guinea
# Guyana

# Haiti
# Heard Island and McDonald Islands
# Holy See (Vatican City)
# Honduras
# Hong Kong
# Howland Island
# Hungary

# Iceland
# Indian Ocean
# Indonesia
# Iraq
# Ireland
# Italy

# Jamaica
# Jan Mayen
# Japan
# Jarvis Island
# Jersey
# Johnston Atoll
# Jordan
# Juan de Nova Island

# Kazakhstan
# Kenya
# Kingman Reef
# Kiribati
# Korea, South
# Kuwait
# Kyrgyzstan

# Laos
# Latvia
# Lebanon
# Lesotho
# Liberia
# Libya
# Liechtenstein
# Lithuania
# Luxembourg

# Macau
# Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
# Madagascar
# Malawi
# Malaysia
# Maldives
# Mali
# Malta
# Man, Isle of
# Marshall Islands
# Martinique
# Mauritania
# Mauritius
# Mayotte
# Mexico
# Micronesia, Federated States of
# Midway Islands
# Moldova
# Monaco
# Mongolia
# Montserrat
# Morocco
# Mozambique
# Myanmar (Burma

# Namibia
# Nauru
# Navassa Island
# Nepal
# Netherlands Antilles
# Netherlands
# New Caledonia
# New Zealand
# Nicaragua
# Niger
# Nigeria
# Niue
# Norfolk Island
# Northern Mariana Islands
# Norway

# Oman

# Pacific Ocean
# Palau
# Palmyra Atoll
# Panama
# Papua New Guinea
# Paracel Islands
# Paraguay
# Peru
# Philippines
# Pitcairn Islands
# Poland
# Portugal
# Puerto Rico

# Qatar

# Reunion
# Romania
# Rwanda

# Saint Helena
# Saint Kitts and Nevis
# Saint Lucia
# Saint Pierre and Miquelon
# Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
# Samoa
# San Marino
# Sao Tome and Principe
# Saudi Arabia
# Senegal
# Seychelles
# Sierra Leone
# Singapore
# Slovakia
# Slovenia
# Solomon Islands
# Somalia
# South Africa
# South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
# Southern Ocean
# Spain
# Spratly Islands
# Sri Lanka
# Sudan
# Suriname
# Svalbard
# Swaziland
# Sweden
# Switzerland
# Syria

# Taiwan
# Tajikistan
# Tanzania
# Thailand
# Togo
# Tokelau
# Tonga
# Trinidad and Tobago
# Tromelin Island
# Tunisia
# Turkey
# Turkmenistan
# Turks and Caicos Islands
# Tuvalu

# Uganda
# Ukraine
# United Arab Emirates
# Uruguay
# Uzbekistan

# Vanuatu
# Venezuela
# Vietnam
# Virgin Islands

# Wake Island
# Wallis and Futuna
# West Bank
# Western Sahara

# Yemen
# Yugoslavia

# Zambia
# Zimbabwe

Here's the list of what I'll call potentials:

# Iran
# Korea, North

And here's the list of nuclear weapons states:

# China
# France
# India
# Israel
# Pakistan
# Russia
# United Kingdom
# United States

So there you are. The radical, dangerously naive, irresponsible minority is maybe just a little bit bigger than those leading the debate in the UK would have us believe. And, at the risk of sounding overly dramatic, I firmly believe that the decisions we make today will have a significant impact on similar lists drawn up by our children in decades to come.

That's the debate we should be having and the one the government seems desperate to avoid. Instead, we've got Browne and Blair trying to frighten us into submission with bogeymen who don't even exist yet.

And there's an irony here. Foreign policy blowback is now a well recognised phenomenon. It is not a stretch to suggest that the government's actions today might actually create the conditions which could give rise to these future bogeymen. And, as recent experiences have already shown us, a self-fulfilling prophet will still claim that he was right.

You don't need to be a prophet to know that that won't be part of the debate.

PR, Not Principles

Dear oh dear. I wasn't going to blog this but Alan Duncan's waffle on Question Time has spurred me on.

Here's the original interview with Patrick Mercer in the Times. It doesn't seem to me that his comments have been reported out of context. Bear in mind also that the interview was specifically concerned with the formation of a new anti-racism trade union being set up by servicemen from former colonial countries, an idea Mercer described as "complete and utter rot".

With that in mind, Mercer has only himself to blame. The main problem, it seems to me, is that he demonstrated a far too relaxed attitude towards racist abuse in the army.

On the one hand, the situation which he describes is probably an accurate reflection of life in the British army. On the other hand, he doesn't appear to be in any way concerned about that situation. His attitude does, in fact, come very close to condoning it as part and parcel of army life.

Racist abuse is unacceptable. End of. Mercer appears to have a rather more ambivalent attitude towards it when it comes to the army. It may very well be the way it is but that doesn't mean that it's the way it should be. And yes, the army is a tough place but that doesn't mean that gratuitous racial abuse is acceptable there any more than it is in any other walk of life.

His second controversial statement, that he "came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours" may well have some degree of truth to it. Although Mercer's claim that he'd seen "a lot" of this is highly questionable, I'm sure that it does happen on occasion. If you want to claim that a particular ethnic group doesn't have it's fair share of chancers, layabouts and scroungers, you're probably not quite connected to reality (white Europeans included of course). But the way Mercer expressed that was clumsy in the extreme.

What really interests me is the way that Tory HQ handled this and that's where Alan Duncan started to stray into the realms of fantasy. Duncan seemed to think that the BBC was somehow to blame for the initial lacklustre reaction of the Tory party. He suggested that BBC Online had phoned Tory HQ and put a partial quote to the spokesman and that that was the source of the initial minimal "it's a private matter" response (it's about 7:30 mins in to QT if you want to check).

Here's the quotation from the original Times Online article:

The Conservative Party, in which Mr Mercer serves as a frontbench spokesman with responsibility for homeland security and anti-terrorism issues, said that his comments were a personal matter and refused to discuss them.

"These are the personal views of a highly decorated former commanding officer talking about his real life experiences in the British Army," a party spokesman said.

Nothing to do with the BBC then and if the Tory spokesman didn't get the full picture before supplying that reaction then they should be sacked too.

It was only after the bad publicity generated by the remarks that Dave decided to take bold action and announce that Mercer's comments were "completely unacceptable". It was nothing more than an empty exercise in damage limitation after Dave realised that to do nothing would be to damage his shiny new Conservative brand.

He's so like Blair, it's almost become parody.

Politics
pol·i·tics (pŏl'ĭ-tĭks)
noun.

1. The art or science of vacuous marketing goons attempting to sell their worthless wares to the gullible.
2. The activities or affairs needed to fool just enough of the people for just enough time.

Someone wake me up if we ever actually get politics for adults in this country.

On a positive note, I see that the Gurkhas are finally going to treated fairly for risking their lives to protect us. I wonder if Mercer thinks that that's "complete and utter rot" too?

In the Public Interest

How much police and court time and public money went into convicting the cannabis granny? I don't know the answer but it obviously wasn't cheap.

Hands up who thinks that this was a wise use of what we're constantly told are limited resources? Nobody?

Hands up who thinks that the police and the CPS would have served the public interest more usefully if they'd spent that time and money going after the organised criminals who make huge amounts of cash importing crack and heroin into this country? Everybody?

But, of course, the cannabis granny was an easy target. She may not have been any threat to the public interest but a stress free arrest and conviction were in the bag from the start. Crack dealers on the other hand are difficult to catch and dangerous too.

This story might be amusing on one level but it also shows that there's something fundamentally wrong here.

On yesterday's news coverage of the trial, an expert warned that long term use of cannabis can cause serious mental health problems. This is undeniably true and it is right that the fact should be publicised. As an argument for maintaining possession of cannabis for personal use as a criminal offence however, it just doesn't stand up. Heavy, regular, long term consumption of Red Bull would undoubtedly also cause serious mental health problems. (Anyone who doubts this hasn't drunk enough of it over a long weekend.)

There's a report out today on illegal drug use. I've not read it yet but intend to do so later this afternoon and then hopefully update this post with some further thoughts.

In the meantime, here's something to think about. George Best drank himself to death; thousands of less well known alcoholics do the same thing all the time. Where are the politicians calling for possession of alcoholic beverages to be criminalised?

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.

Apologies for the lack of posting over the last week or so; I've not been well. Astonishingly, the world seems to have managed to soldier on without my words of wisdom.

Should be back up to full speed shortly.

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.