2011: A review of the year's news

The Arab Spring; intervention in Libya; the Japanese tsunami; the death of Bin Laden; phone hacking; riots; and the Euro crisis, for news junkies like me, 2011 has been the year that kept on giving.

To band around terms like tumultuous or world-changing can be a foolhardy pastime.  It leaves a writer open to the charge of hyperbole, vulnerable to events.  Something could emerge tomorrow, making everything else look like the librarian of the year awards.  That said, it would take an extraordinary set of events to surpass this year’s news – maybe a Godzilla attack on Tokyo – but 2011 was, well, interesting.

It has been a year of protest.  Greece appears more like an apocalyptic film set with each passing day of rioting.  There have also been tamer anti-capitalism protests in North America and Europe, seemingly composed of middle-class people in tents.  In many ways it reminded me of camping holidays in Cornwall.  But the real cauldron of protest has been the Middle East and North Africa, the ‘Arab Spring.’  Dictators have fallen in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, but still cling to power in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen.  How each of these uprisings will pan-out is unclear, and while optimism is always a virtue, history suggests virtually all revolutions ultimately lead to tyranny.

Intersecting the falls of Mubarak and Gaddafi, the Japanese tsunami reminded us of nature’s terrible power and man’s incredible penchant for short-sightedness.  Building nuclear power plants along one of the most geologically active coasts in the world seems foolhardy enough, but building inadequate sea defences to cut costs demands incredulity.  The explosions at Fukushima revitalised the anti-nuclear lobby, leading the earthquake and tsunami ravaged country of Germany to announce the closure of all atomic power plants.  Who cares about global warming anyway?

 

The Arab Spring emboldened the West, who dug up the corpse of interventionism that they had buried after Iraq, and they started bombing for peace in Libya.  Napoleon once said: “I have plenty of clever generals, but just give me a lucky one.”  Fortunately David Cameron has so far been lucky.  The country was delivered into the hands of the opposition and Colonel Gaddafi to a murderous lynch mob.

 

In any other year, Bin Laden’s death would have dominated the news for months.  Instead, the death of the man who helped define the previous decade has become something of a footnote, popping up occasionally in newspapers or television shows like a hazy half forgotten memory.

 

The phone hacking scandal had been slowly brewing since 2007, but in 2011 it delivered a different tyrant to the hands of his enemies.  News International’s claims that illegality was limited to a ‘rogue’ reporter was obvious hogwash, but it seemed that they were going to get away with it until the Guardian revealed Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked.  Coming shortly after the conviction of her murderer, public outrage ensued, giving Murdoch’s enemies, then belatedly his friends, the courage to attack both him and his publications.  Murdoch took the desperate decision to shut the News of the World, but not before he lost his political influence and was even hauled before the Media Select Committee.  The real shock for those who had built Murdoch into a bogey man was that he gave an admirable impression of a rather pathetic and tired old man.  Perhaps more significant were the revelations of widespread corruption at the Metropolitan Police, with officers being paid by journalists and close relationships existing between senior officers and Murdoch’s newspapers.

Just when it began to look like the rest of the year would be dominated by phone hacking, along came the English riots.  Much has been spoken without anything being said on this subject.  There has always been an element of society prepared to riot, for various reasons, and they have done sporadically during summers for at least thirty years.  After each of these disturbances the government announce some draconian knee-jerk responses, which are later quietly forgotten.  Perhaps the difference this time was the proliferation of smart phones used by rioters to organise and bystanders to document every action in minutiae to feed to an increasingly ravenous media.

 

Rumbling in the background throughout the year was the Euro debacle, highlighting the political inadequacies of the EU.  It seems that the UK’s economic future will either be very bleak, or non-existent, depending on which commentator’s vast unfathomable procession of depressing numbers you care to listen to.

 

If these prophesies of doom are correct, then maybe we should expect a tumultuous or world changing 2012.

The hypocrisy of the phone hacks

The last week’s news has been dominated by moral outrage. From the re-emergence of the News of the World phone hacking scandal to Pakistan’s cricket players allegedly taking bribes in a scheme to rig spot betting at the bookmakers - uncovered, ironically enough, by the News of the World.

The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the New York Times, which claims to have sources who tell them that Andy Coulson (editor of the News of the World at the time and now the Prime Ministers ‘spin doctor’) was not only aware of the practice, but was actively involved in it. It has always struck me as eminently believable that the editor of the paper was unaware of the ‘dark arts’ employed by his reporters on some of their biggest stories. He has adopted a position of outright denial and provided that he is telling the truth, all is well – if he is shown to be lying on the other hand, then he is finished.

All of which is fascinating, not to mention a headache for David Cameron. If Coulson should start sinking in this scandal, he should not expect a lifeline from the Prime Minister. I noted that 10 Downing Street has referred to him latterly as a ‘media advisor’ rather than his grander title of ‘Head of Communications’ which may be a subtle distancing, just to play it safe.

The fact that this story petered out initially is at first a little puzzling. You would think that the rest of the press would unite to strike a blow at the Murdoch Empire and pursue this story relentlessly. The Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s Guardian as ‘an elephant in the room’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.

This story now represents a battle between the remnants of independent and left leaning quality news outlets, with Murdoch and his perceived influence with the seats of power. They have perhaps decided to follow Benjamin Franklin’s advice at the signing of the Declaration of Independence - that it is preferable to ‘hang together’ rather than ‘most assuredly hanging separately’. They have found a line of weakness that strikes through to both the heart of Murdoch’s media operations and the Conservative Prime Minister whom he has supported and they are determined to draw some blood.

There is however a broader lesson to be drawn from this episode, neatly summed in the old proverb that ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. Everyone was quick to condemn Pakistan’s cricketers, but was what they did really any worse than the office worker who helps them self to the stationary cupboard's contents or the plumber who does ‘cash in hand’ jobs at the weekend, other than scale?  Was what they did worse than hacking into peoples phones, breaching their human right to privacy in order to sell gossip and tittle-tattle?

The Labour leadership candidates have been quick to jump on to this story, but as usual, for the wrong reasons. As long as politicians seek to score cheap points against their opponents in sleaze stories, they should expect their careers ruined when inevitably they fall foul themselves in the future. They would be advised to remember their party’s relentless pursuit of ‘Tory sleaze’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.

The phone hacking scandal isn’t a political points scoring opportunity – it is about ending a culture where certain journalists believe (or are encouraged to believe) that any means justify the end. That Coulson is now part of ‘Team Cameron’ should be a marginal aspect in this story. It is of more interest that the same organisation which illegally breaches people’s privacy to fish for scoops feels it is perfectly justified in entrapping dumb ‘celebrities’ in its sting operations.  Stings have their place in journalism; but the accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the News of the World when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.

A Tale of Two Wars

David Cameron and Barack Obama met last week in Washington for their first bilateral talks. At the top of their agenda was how to extricate themselves from the wars they have inherited. With the announcement of a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2015, it would seem that neither administration is willing to stay any longer than expediency allows. The terrible cost in blood and treasure has turned public opinion firmly against the war, and both will be eager that they do not pay a political price. It is likely that Iran and North Korea also formed part of their discussions, but both men would do well to learn the lessons that their predecessors provided and should be wary of any future interventionist adventures.

In 1989 the world changed. The Berlin Wall was torn down, bloodless revolutions swept Central and Eastern Europe and by 1991 Boris Yeltsin rode on a tank into Red Square. The Cold War dissolved with the preconceptions of how global politics worked. The problem with this post-cold war idyll was that it took from our governments their raison-d’être, as leaders of the ‘free’. Into this vacuum entered Tony Blair, whose path to interventionism it would seem was initially an organic one. British troops were sent to Sierra Leone to free UK hostages from the rebel forces, but once on the ground they quickly realised they could end the civil war with ease, and did so, apparently without explicit government consent. Buoyed by this success, Blair turned his attention to Kosovo and led Bill Clinton’s America reluctantly to the conflict. It is hard to criticise either of these interventions, and in so far as any wars can be called good, these were.

After Kosovo, Mr Blair became a firm believer in interventionism as a force for good and when George W Bush’s hawkish Republican administration took office in 2001, he found a leader who shared this world view. The Republicans dreamt of creating a global democratic free-market utopia and they believed that US military power should be deployed to impose it, especially in the troublesome Middle East. The Muslim hardliners who preached of ‘The Great Satan’ - with its imperialist pretensions in the Arab world - felt vindicated and Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers. The philosopher John Grey, in Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern suggests that the ideologies of both the Western interventionists and Al Qaeda were born of contradictions and false premises - nonetheless they led us to war.

In his polemic three part documentary, The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis argues that the ‘war on terror' lies largely in the imagination of our elites as a post cold war narrative, and the resultant actions of British and American foreign policy have made the world less safe than it was before. He believes that Western governments were emasculated by the ending of the cold war, but by deluding themselves of a global terrorist nightmare and saving us from it - they could become powerful once more. The real threat to Britain lies in the disenfranchisement of youth from minority ethnic Europe, the oppression of Palestine, the manipulation of Pakistan, the nation building in Afghanistan and that we have ended up fighting a morally dubious conflict as part of a deeply misguided post colonial doctrine. These actions have created a discontented Islamic world, and a minority have been drawn to violence - but to characterise this as a replacement threat equal to the Soviet Union simply does not stand scrutiny.

David Cameron has already betrayed a poor grasp of history, when he described Britain as “America’s junior partner in 1940”; one might have thought an expensive Eton education would have taught him that Britain stood alone in that year - America would not join the conflict until December 1941. It is however a more recent history that Obama and Cameron must learn from if the damage to America and Britain’s reputations in the international community are to be repaired. When Nick Clegg stood at the dispatch box on Wednesday and denounced “the illegal invasion of Iraq” as “Labour’s most disastrous decision”, he may or may not have been materially correct, but he accurately articulated the deeply held view of a great many across the globe. It is a timely reminder that we must face up to what has been done ‘in our names’ to make sure that it can never happen again - and that the rule of law extends not just to citizens but to our leaders as well.

It would be naive to think endless peace is credible, but I believe that it is fundamental that Britain should only ever fight ‘the good fight’ in the future.

Uncertain times

If one thing appears certain in this period of uncertainty, it is that Mr Brown's days are numbered. I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for the Supreme Leader - his resilience is nothing short of phenomenal. He had to live in Blair’s shadow for thirteen long years, he has faced down a number of coup attempts from his own party, and has suffered a sustained character assassination from the right wing press which most of us mere mortals would have found difficult to survive. By the end of the campaign it was beginning to show on his time wearied face. But the die is cast and the daggers are poised, Mr Brown can fall on his sword or he will be decapitated. For the good of his party and the good of the country and for his own good, he must go.

Mr Brown and Mr Darling will be much better treated by historians than by us, because of the vital job they did stopping this country from folding during the banking crisis, which nearly caused the Western financial system to collapse and which certainly wasn’t Labour's fault. Britain plc came within a hair’s breadth of going bust, something a great many still do not seem to fully grasp and something which we will still be paying for perhaps two decades from now. Our bile should be directed at the bankers who bet the house and lost, taking us down with them and who are now dictating demands for cuts in public services for those of us who bailed them out. Our politics however dictated that Brown and Labour had to take the flak. It is a repeating feature of our history that the British public may be thankful for your services, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote for you come polling day. Churchill was beloved by the nation after the war, but he was still swept away by a Labour landslide. Mr Brown was by no stretch of the imagination Churchill and he was most defiantly not beloved, however he will be shown to be the longest serving and most successful Chancellor in our long history.

The election has delivered the hung parliament that we were vociferously warned about by Ken Clarke and the poisonous right wing press – and so far the sky hasn’t fallen in. Welcome to ‘grown up politics’ everyone, where a fraction of the population aren’t able to exercise a five year tyranny over the rest of us. It is worth noting that Britain and the Vatican City are the only states in Europe to not have a proportional system, so one assumes the rest of Europe are watching the media whirlwind here with mild amusement – or they would be if Greece wasn’t weighing so heavily on their minds.

The Lib-Dem bubble was blown by our old nemesis, First Past the Post and when it came to it, the charge of ‘vote Clegg get Brown’ from the Tories and ‘vote Clegg get Cameron’ from Labour, coupled with anti-Tory tactical voting made liars of the opinion pollsters. We increased our share of the vote and those sneering from the Labour ranks should note they got just six percent more than us, or two million more votes from an electorate of forty five million. The Conservatives with two million more than Labour, or four million more than us, do not under any definition have a mandate from the nation.

I have deep, deep misgivings about any suggestion of a coalition with the Tories. I have been impressed by the conciliatory nature of their leadership’s rhetoric since the negotiations, but the vile hot air blowing from the party’s right wing mean that we would get bugger all from Cameron et al, other than sharing the blame for the inevitable savage cuts and punitive tax rises that have to come. I do not think cabinet jobs are in anyway worth the cost without a cast iron guarantee for a Single Transferable Vote PR system – something Cameron cannot deliver. As for a ‘rainbow coalition’, as much as I would like to see it ideologically and as Labour would give us whatever we wanted, it doesn’t seem likely and it would not go down well with the nation. The charge of a stitch up would be difficult to defend.

There is a growing movement for electoral reform, a so called 'purple revolution' which possibly before too long could force this issue out of the politicians’ hands – it has outgrown being simply the ‘third’ party’s concern, there is deep anger and resentment bubbling beneath the surface. The current system is indefensibly corrupt. More people didn’t bother to vote than those who voted Tory. Those of us not voting for red or blue account for 35% of the electorate and we got 85 seats. The Tories got 36% and were entitled to 307 seats, Labour with 29% are somehow allowed 258.

The current system is a Victorian relic which only works in a two party state, something Britain hasn’t been for thirty years. I believe that the whole of our politics needs to be restructured and that it would be beneficial for those trapped in the charade ‘parties’ of Labour and the Conservatives, which are in reality coalitions of competing ideologies. The lurches from left to right lead to instability, each gleefully tearing up the others legislation as soon as the pendulum swings. Society is more complex than this false system and everyone has the right to have their voice heard in a democracy. The real world is one based on compromise, where people have different opinions and consensuses are built. A system where our politicians seem to behave like children is not in the national interest. It is time for Britain to enter the 21st century.

Here's John Cleese explaining PR from a 1987 Aliance broadcast.


The British establishment should be warned, if it thinks that stealing 35% of the electorate’s representation is permissible and that they will keep getting away with it forever, then they are very much mistaken. We will not go away, we will not give up. We demand a fair voting system. Nick Clegg should also be warned, ‘getting into bed’ with the Tories whilst failing to deliver a fair voting system would not be easily forgiven either.

If you would like a fair voting system please sign the petition here.

A very British revolution?

I’m a member of the Liberal-Democrats, my football team is Newcastle United and I’m a fan of Worcester Warriors in the rugby. I can speak with some authority on false dawns, raised expectations and ultimate disappointments; although on the flip-side it has also taught me to enjoy the good times along the way.

The second leaders’ debate seems to suggest that the increase in the Lib-Dem poll position would appear to have traction, leaving us in second place with Labour just behind and the Tories slightly ahead. But whether that will transfer into votes and how this national trend will play out locally, with all the vagaries of the ‘First Past the Post’ system appears to be quite unfathomable. It has at least been refreshing to see the political map shifted and the conservative press have a collective nervous breakdown.

Labour and the Tories are both clearly surprised and unsettled by the yellow surge, which begs the question why? Was it arrogance, a sense of entitlement or were they just hoping two party politics would always remain, even though we’ve had three party politics for thirty years? The position the old guard find themselves in, is not in itself merely an infatuation with Clegg –a honeymoon which the voters have foolishly foisted upon them caused by the leader’s debates. We may be witnessing something entirely different, a revolution in the grand old traditions of all British revolutions since our bloody civil war – simmering and gradual and bloodless ones being led by improbable characters.

There are many parallels in the 2010 election with the one in 1924 – Britain’s last gentle revolution - Lloyd George had destroyed the Liberal party seeking his own personal power at any cost, there was an amicable toff trying to recast the Tory party from a ‘nasty’ image which was still haunting it and a wily operator casting himself as outsider against ‘the two old parties’ and presenting himself as ‘real’ change. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I’ve spent much of the last decade wondering what the point of Labour is (and to a lesser extent the Conservatives), in the 21st century. The Labour Party was a rational expression of the socialism that the then large and recently emancipated working classes justifiably demanded. They wanted reform more quickly and radically than the Liberals of the middle classes were offering, and by the 1924 general election they overtook the Liberals to become the dominant progressive force in British politics. The Liberal agenda of individual freedom was swallowed by ideas of collectivism, but have we not now come full circle?

Now that old the working class is now largely part of the middle there seems to not be so much desire for socialism anymore - social democracy maybe, but not socialism. This was in my opinion what accounted for the 1983 Alliance splitting the progressive vote causing Labour to have to redefine itself, and if the Falkland’s war hadn’t luckily changed the game for Thatcher, could have ended in a very different result.

The ‘new’ Labour rebrand promised so much, but I think history will remember it harshly for being nothing but a cynical mirage. Blair and Brown built a government which seems to have had only one driving ideological principle – namely to win power and then to cling to it at any cost. They shamelessly bought favour from the right wing press, and whilst promising change to liberal voters, their leadership leapt straight over their heads to the left wing of the Conservative party. They told their core vote to shut up, for they had ended Labour’s time in the wilderness, threw a few bribes to floating voters at elections and failed to deliver much in the way of the progressive policies that the British liberal majority clamours for.

The Conservatives – despite their laughable change rhetoric – are exactly the same old Tories they always have been and always will be. They are there for the wealthy, the traditional, the little Englander, the xenophobic and big business, dreaming dreams of non-existent golden yesteryears; in fact all that has changed is that Labour have become unpopular, so they have assumed that means power is theirs to claim again.

Whether the public really want a Liberal-Democratic government is questionable. What, however is crystal clear, is that over a third of the electorate are indicating that they don’t want either a Conservative or a Labour government. They want the Lib-Dems to be there when the next government are discussing cuts, or taxes, and most importantly on political reform – looking over their shoulders and interjecting on the public’s behalf. The First Past the Post system has been shown to be exactly what those of us outside of the duopoly have said it was for decades. It is undemocratic, unrepresentative, corrupt, and delivers this country five year tyrannies that only a fraction of the electorate have voted for. No British government has actually had a mandate since Atlee in 1945.

There needs to be huge and sweeping changes to our system of government. We need to have a stronger and fully elected second chamber. That there are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords is frankly disgusting. That our constitution is so vague and malleable, combined with a corrupt voting system which means that we live in only a notional democracy is utterly unacceptable. In fact we would not be able to join the EU if applying today, as we would fail its democracy criteria. Hooray I hear the right-wingers shout – but even they would have to admit that this is a sorry state of affairs that cannot continue indefinitely?

I can understand that the Conservatives and Labour (the consequence seemingly has only slowly dawned on Labour this week) want to protect this corrupt system, for strong third parties and proportional voting systems mean an end to them forming elected dictatorships. I passionately believe that a plurality of parties is far more democratic, if over half the electorate vote for a coalition, then it has a real mandate. We could work together, cooperating to get things done and the vested interests would have less influence in our governance. People could go and vote for what they believe in, not for what they dislike least.

A proportional system would ultimately result in a Labour split along the lines of the SDP and old Labour traditionalists. The Conservatives would split along their European divisions and would see the Greens entering parliament. It may well perversely split the Lib-Dems as well. We would see much higher turn out when every vote counts and everyone can potentially make a difference. If nothing else can be learnt from this election, let it be this: when people can see that they have a voice, they become engaged with the political process.

Surely even the most partisan and biased Tory or Labour supporter can see that the time for reform has come? Whether we get that reform this year or not – it will come sooner rather than later – the great British public always get their way in the end.

A week in politics

For a lifelong liberal, of both the small and capital L variety, the last week has been a very surprising one, to say the least. We all had thought that the long anticipated leader’s debate (sorry Scotland – Prime Minister’s Debate) would give us a bit of a bounce in the polls; but a ten point poll bounce, actually being in a poll lead for a while and ‘Cleggmania’ would be an utterly incredulous prediction. Yet here we are.


So it was with that on my mind last night, as I went to the Worcester News election debate. It was as entertaining (well for an anorak like me anyway) as it was un-informing; it essentially boils down to the fact that the three main party candidates are fairly bland and middling politicians.

The incumbent, Mike Foster, in the red corner seemed to be in a surprisingly redolent and conciliatory frame of mind; in answer to a question about what he’d say to enter the Pearly Gates, said that he wanted the people of Worcester to “remember him as putting their interests first” – not the “five more years!” one may have expected given the polls. He put in some fiery defences of New Labour’s policies and eloquently highlighted the inequity of some of the Tory’s proposals; he was certainly the most statesmanlike of those on show and deep down there somewhere, beats the heart of a social democrat.

The main contender, Robin ‘jobs tax’ Walker, fighting in the blue corner, was like the invisible man. He was there allright, his was the only head I could actually see through the crowded room; he just seemed to disappear like the vanishing point on a hazy, long and lonely road. In the opening exchanges we heard last week’s Tory mantra of “jobs’ tax”; I’m sorry – but yawn. Nearly every tax is a tax on jobs, what they really mean is that National Insurance is a tax on businesses, but it is framed in the way it is assumedly because “a-bit-of-a-tax-on-you, but-a-far-larger- tax-on-your-boss” probably didn’t play so well in the focus groups. It’s not a great tax rise, but when viewed against the ‘age of austerity’ the Tories promised us a few months ago, seems unavoidable. He shoe-horned the Tory catch phrase into a few more of his answers before (to my mind, in any case) seemingly disappearing from the debate. He was simply a well groomed and no doubt perfectly capable Tory, who’s keeping his head down, assuming that Labour discontent and apathy will see him and not Mike Foster returned to Westminster.

Jackie Alderson, who was representing the Lib-Dems did okay, but if you are standing for a political party, don’t refer to them as “they” all night long. Surely when you get to the point where you are a candidate, you can use “us” as your choice of pronoun? To be fair, Jackie is contesting a Labour/Tory marginal which she isn’t particularly likely to win, was selected without much time to prepare and she is working on a shoestring budget compared to the other two. She incidentally got the loudest cheer of the night when outlining the proposed abolition of tuition fees over six years – it would seem the policy’s dilution is still preferable when compared to those on offer from the other two parties.

Perhaps more enlightening than last night’s debate was seeing the full force of the Conservative attack press unleashed on Nick Clegg this morning, lined up like tin soldiers patrolling on the petrol station forecourt. If you want to see just how rattled the Conservatives and their establishment are by this election campaign, then today’s headlines are more telling than their words could ever convey. If they had followed one line of attack then it may have popped the bubble that is clearly troubling them. However when viewed next to each other they took on a slightly comical appearance; it was just a little too visceral, as cynical as it was predictable and as crass as it was inevitable. It is the wounded war cry of vested interests. The headlines will no doubt cheer up a few Conservative voters but I suspect they will not have as much effect on those who have flown to Clegg’s banner as these papers may think.

What will happen next in this general election is anyone’s bet. Much will depend on tonight’s TV debate and Clegg’s performance. He has taken advantage once, showing when he is able to talk to the nation without the lens of a partisan press filtering him out, (a former editor of the Sun admitted that it was the paper’s policy to deliberately ignore the Lib-Dems), and without Labour, Tory and SNP MP’s boorishly heckling him in the chamber, that he can connect with the British public. Whatever happens now, at least Cameron will have to earn them, if he still wants those keys to No 10 and that looks far less likely than any point since 2007.

And for the progressives out there; the prospect of a really fair and democratic nation seems at least more plausible than it has done in a very long time indeed.

Leave the Tent and Bunker: bring politics back into the open.

This week has been an interesting one for those of a political bent. It started with an Ipsos MORI poll showing that the Tories' lead has been reduced to 6 points, producing Conservative fear, Labour hope and a combination of both for those of us in the Lib-Dems. In the event of a hung parliament we have a difficult choice; to prop up an unpopular Labour Government, to form a coalition with the Tories who would refuse to offer constitutional reform - a fundamental Lib-Dem condition, or to do neither and allow a minority government. The latter would be my preference, which would mean the Lib-Dems wouldn’t be sullied by Red/Blue policies and leave us as power brokers in parliament; whoever was in government would have to tailor legislation to get liberal support.



We could have moved from Blair’s ‘Big Tent’, via Brown’s ‘Bunker’ into a brief period of compromise and government by consent.


Then we had an unusually exciting Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, with David Cameron attacking Labour over giving public money to an alleged extremist organisation, namely Hizb ut-Tahrir, via a ‘front’ organisation running two schools in the South-East. If true then this is an extraordinary revelation; £113,000 pounds of tax payers money, possibly from the Pathfinder fund set up to combat extremism, being given over to an organisation who are reported to have stated that: “Jews should be killed wherever you find them” and their constitution states of non-Muslims that: “their blood is lawful, as is their property.” The Government have denied that the money came from its Pathfinder scheme; however this misses the point, why an organisation like this is running schools in the first place? Most would accept that any public money handed over to them is outrageous, though until the full details emerge we should perhaps reserve judgement.

After this we had Nick Clegg strike a direct hit on Gordon Brown over the Chilcot Enquiry into the contentious Iraq War. Clegg first asked the PM to confirm the enquiry was to be open and transparent, save on matters of national security. The PM stated: “I have set out a remit and brought it to the House of Commons. Sir John Chilcot has been given the freedom to conduct his inquiry as he wants. He has chosen to invite people to give evidence, and he will choose how to bring his final report to the public. That is a matter for the inquiry.” Clegg responded: “As I think the Prime Minister must know, the matter is not just for the inquiry, because his Government have just issued a protocol - I have it here - to members of the inquiry, governing the publication of material in the final report. If he reads it, he will see that it includes nine separate reasons why information can be suppressed, most of which have nothing to do with national security. Outrageously, it gives Whitehall Departments individual rights of veto over the information in the final report. Why did the Prime Minister not tell us about that before? How on earth will we, and the whole country, hear the full truth of the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is suffocated on day one by his Government’s shameful culture of secrecy?”

Not quite as open as we had been led to believe then – we shouldn’t forget the PM wanted this enquiry to be held behind closed doors, I can only assume because it severely embarrasses many of those still in government, himself included, which exposes how they knowingly and willingly led this country into war on the basis of lies and spin.


For those who want to know the full truth of this sorry episode of British foreign policy, I fear we shall have to wait for the 30 year rule to be implemented.