Archive for May, 2010

Gaza flotilla – IDF – IHH – CIF – Turkey/Israel/International fallout

May 31, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“The terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”
  • Comment at end

    31st May 2010

    UPDATE 3: See the video here for interview with Israeli soldier.

    UPDATE 2: As Netanyahu returns to Israel before seeing Obama, this video is released, filmed from above the ship, the Mavi Marmara.  If this was the first soldier to land on the ship, we can clearly see within the first 20 seconds of filming that he was attacked by the peaceful Gaza boaters, NOT the other way round. (You’ll need to verify that you are not underage to view this at YouTube.)

    UPDATE: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is the Quartet Representative in the Middle East, called for a full investigation of the Israeli raid, and said: “I express deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life. There obviously has to be a full investigation into what has happened. Once again I repeat my view that we need a different and better way of helping the people of Gaza and avoiding the hardship and tragedy that is inherent in the present situation.”

    Demonstrators Use Violence Against Israeli Navy Soldiers Attempting to Board Ship

    It’s clear how this whole episode will be reported in the British press, particularly on the left, and in many parts of the world. Since the anti-Israel Guardian will leap on it as “evidence”, you need to read their accounts before you are ready for the whole truth. Know your enemy. It isn’t always the so-called “peace-makers.”

    Twitter – Harriet Sherwood, Jerusalem correspondent of The Guardian.

    From Open Thread: IDF Attacked by “Peace Activists” Upon Boarding

    While the facts of what actually happened on board the Flotilla are still emerging here’s a Youtube video of the IDF warning the Flotilla:

    IsraelMFA — 30 May 2010 — Transcript:

    Israel Navy: “Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies in accordance with the authorities’ regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports on the vessels on which you have arrived.”

    Response: “Negative, negative.”

    ’19 Killed As Israel Storms Aid Convoy’

    Update 1

    As reports emerge that the “activists” violently resisted the Israeli soldiers precipitating the violence, this background pdf file on IHH, which is among the most prominent organizations behind the Flotilla, is of interest.

    Update 2

    The IDF Spokesperson is reporting that:

    During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.

    Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that it seems as if part of the participants onboard the ships were planning to lynch the forces.

    Read the whole thing here.

    Update 3

    Richard Landes responds to Shmuel Rosner’s comments over at the Jerusalem Post.

    This is the framework in which to understand what’s happening: unscrupulous provocateurs circulate “lethal narratives” like Jenin and the media gobble it up and present it as news. The journalists who jump on these lethal narratives – the Israelis landed firing at us peaceful protesters – should be held accountable for their incompetence when the story comes out. Apparently, even Turkish CNN has admitted the soldiers were swarmed on landing.

    Update 5

    The Guardian has just opened a live thread. And the denunciations of the “Zionists” are coming in thick and thin.

    Here’s a sample comment from the thread:

    \

    Update 6

    This is in from the IDF Spokesman’s office:

    According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was attempting to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. The violent activists took these pistols from IDF forces and apparently opened fire on the soldiers as evident by the empty pistol magazines.

    Update 7

    The predictable antisemitism on the Guardian live thread is flowing:

    Update 8

    Lets not forget what we’re dealing with. What kind of peace activists engage in antisemitic Islamist chants: (Watch here)

    Update 9

    More comments from the Guardian’s live thread.

    Update 10

    Check out this Youtube video. The “peace activists” can be clearly seen attacking the soldiers violently (Watch here)

    RELATED

    IHH – the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund

    From backgrounder on IHH – IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation. Besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and at least in the past, even global jihad elements.

    IDF: Soldiers were met by well-planned lynch, by YAAKOV KATZ The Jerusalem Post 05/31/2010 09:18
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176970

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/31/israel-blames-activists-fatal-ship-raid/

    Clearly these boat people expected confrontation. Why then oh why, did they take children including a baby along for the trip?

    ETCETERA

    Israelis debate how to deal with a nuclear Iran

    http://cifwatch.com/2010/05/31/jerusalem-post-publishes-story-reporting-on-cif-watch-debunking-of-the-mcgreal-revelations/

    http://www.24-7israel.com/2010/05/obama-israel-must-be-disarmed-before-middle-east-peace/


    Report from the IDF Youtube channel as at YouTube video on Violence at Update2, near top page.

    idfnadesk — 31 May 2010 — Early this morning, IDF Naval Forces boarded six ships attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip. This happened after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israeli Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod where they would be able to unload their aid supplies which would then be transferred over land after undergoing security inspections.

    During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.

    As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, as well as live fire.

    According to initial reports, these events resulted in the deaths of nine demonstrators and seven naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and some from various other weapons. Two of the soldiers are moderately wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries. All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners have been evacuated by helicopter to hospitals in Israel.

    Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that it seems as if part of the participants onboard the ships were planning to lynch the forces.

    The interception of the flotilla followed numerous warnings given to the organizers of the flotilla before leaving their ports as well as while sailing towards the Gaza Strip. In these warnings, it was made clear to the organizers that they could dock in the Ashdod sea port and unload the equipment they are carrying in order to deliver it to the Gaza Strip in an orderly manner, following the appropriate security checks. Upon expressing their unwillingness to cooperate and arrive at the port, it was decided to board the ships and lead them to Ashdod.

    IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack and to harm them. The forces operated in adherence with operational commands and took all necessary actions in order to avoid violence, but to no avail.

    Early this morning, IDF Naval Forces boarded six ships attempting to break the maritime closure of the Gaza Strip. This happened after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israeli Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod where they would be able to unload their aid supplies which would then be transferred over land after undergoing security inspections.
    During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.
    As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, as well as live fire.
    According to initial reports, these events resulted in the deaths of nine demonstrators and seven naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and some from various other weapons. Two of the soldiers are moderately wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries. All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners have been evacuated by helicopter to hospitals in Israel.
    Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that it seems as if part of the participants onboard the ships were planning to lynch the forces.

The interception of the flotilla followed numerous warnings given to the organizers of the flotilla before leaving their ports as well as while sailing towards the Gaza Strip. In these warnings, it was made clear to the organizers that they could dock in the Ashdod sea port and unload the equipment they are carrying in order to deliver it to the Gaza Strip in an orderly manner, following the appropriate security checks. Upon expressing their unwillingness to cooperate and arrive at the port, it was decided to board the ships and lead them to Ashdod.

IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack and to harm them. The forces operated in adherence with operational commands and took all necessary actions in order to avoid violence, but to no avail.




    Free Hit Counter


    Brilliant! I.M. on A.C. on C.B., J.P. and the terrible TB/GBs

    May 30, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    30th May 2010

    Excerpt: May 2nd 1997 – ‘Today was all go – excited aides rushing about as we put the finishing touches to the cabinet TB, me and big JP (Jonathan Powell) worked out on election night. Still, no sooner has the front door of Number 10 closed and GB was on the phone. He is concerned that Tony hasn’t indicated yet when he plans to step down.’

  • By Iain Martin at the WSJ

    The former spindoctor to Tony Blair (TB to his friends) is publishing the unexpurgated edition of the diaries which lift the lid on the New Labour project. The Guardian has bought up the extracts and it’s shocking stuff. Apparently, and I know you’re going to find this hard to believe, Gordon Brown (GB) was frequently grumpy and uncooperative. JP (John Prescott) was prone to titanic rages and Peter Mandelson (not PM, only room for one PM who was obviously TB) liked to storm out of meetings (in one case having to return for his jacket). A lot of initials are involved.
    But now I can reveal that Campbell has actually held back some crucial diary entries that were too explosive for publication. I’ve managed to get my hands on a few(*).

    September 29th 1994. Tony Blair’s first party conference has leader has gone well. But not everyone is happy…
    Round to Tony’s on Saturday morning before taking the kids to football. TB is worried and I find him pacing up and down in the kitchen in his stone-washed Levi 501s with matching denim shirt. He’s had GB on the phone and it didn’t go well. GB says that TB didn’t tell him or JP that he was going to scrap Clause 4 in his speech to conference. TB says that’s not true; that he did tell him beforehand but GB wasn’t listening. GB says that’s just typical; that if TB is going to tell him something important he should send Sue a memo indicating that he has something important to say and would like a proper appointment. That, said GB, is how to build real trust between colleagues. I try to calm him down: “Calm down,” I say. “Honestly, what a dreadful bunch of guys, Alastair. What are they going to be like if we win and get into power?”

    February 4th 1996. Labour is miles ahead in the polls. A return to power looks certain. But not everyone is happy…
    A meeting in TB’s Commons office. Peter says he’s had enough. GB is taking out all of his anger over the “betrayal” by TB on him. He’s can’t go on, it’s either GB RIP or Peter will tell TB he’s walking. JP tells him that’s OTT, although I do wonder whether Peter hasn’t got a point. Peter then gets quite upset and says he knows he can be a “silly sausage” but it’s just because he cares so much. Give me strength.

    October 25th 1996. TB is increasingly nervous that GB will never be reconciled to the reality that he is the leader, even if we are in government for ten years. Nonsense, I tell him, nobody could be that bitter and twisted.
    JP comes to see me after speaking to TB. He’s in a foul mood. It’s GB, again. “He’s an obstacle course to penultimate victory.” JP offers to arrange a summit with TB and GB, to “broker the ice” ASAP. I tell him that we’ll have to do it on the QT.

    May 2nd 1997. Labour has won a landslide election victory and Tony Blair walks up Downing Street as the new Prime Minister. But not everyone is happy…
    The pictures look superb on the TV. TB and the kids, and even Cherie. Ahead of it she had been particularly concerned about her hair, which I’m told has always taken a lot of work. Fiona (Millar, my formidable partner) tries to calm her down: “It’s fine, honestly,” Fiona tells Cherie. “We have straighteners. But then you’re going to have to think about growing out your fringe. This is 1997, you’re a modern woman. Nobody has a fringe any more.” This sends Cherie into a tearful rage: “I don’t know about this stuff… about fringes, and straighteners. I’ve been too busy being very successful. It’s ok for you Fiona.” Fiona and I exchange looks. Today was all go – excited aides rushing about as we put the finishing touches to the cabinet TB, me and big JP (Jonathan Powell) worked out on election night. Still, no sooner has the front door of Number 10 closed and GB was on the phone. He is concerned that Tony hasn’t indicated yet when he plans to step down.

    May 30th 1997. The new government is settling in. But not everyone is happy…
    JP shows up in my office. Can he talk to me about GB? Yes, I sigh, but he’s going to have to be PDQ as I have to go talk to TB about the FA, NATO and the BBC.

    June 10th 1997. There is widespread public approval of the government. Opinion polls indicate it is massively popular. But not everyone is happy…
    TB sends me over to the Treasury to talk to Charlie (Whelan) and EB and EM, the two Eds (Balls and Miliband). GB won’t talk to him about the looming budget or, indeed, the economy. Can I go see his SPADs and discover what I can find out? I promise to try. EM listens politely whilst I ask some basic questions, but EB is scribbling a drawing of what looks like a machine gun and whispering to Charlie throughout. I try to engage EB’s attention and encourage him to involve himself properly in the meeting: “You, Balls. You speccy two-faced posh paper scribbler turned pasty-faced policy wonk. Show some respect.” My efforts at diplomacy are in vain. Charlie says I am “bang out of order” and Gordon isn’t very happy with my comments. How do they know he isn’t very happy? Is Gordon next door listening in to this conversation? “Might be.” EM cuts off Charlie and says that what he meant to say was that they “will get back to us in the fullness of time and will share the details of the up-coming budget when it is appropriate to do so.” That means on budget day. By the time I get back to Number 10 GB has been on the phone to TB complaining. Did I really have to be quite so aggressive? I tell TB not to be soft. After a long pause he says, with a note of approval and wonder in his voice: “Did you really call Balls that name?”

    November 23rd 1998. There are whispers that Peter Mandelson is in trouble. Still, not everyone is happy…
    Peter is depressed, I go round to visit him in Notting Hill. GB’s people are really out to get him this time. He thinks they know something about his house and his mortgage. “What’s it all for Alastair? What’s the point? I could be happy without all of this, without all the baubles, the pointless trappings of power. I could be happy with much simpler pleasures, connecting with nature and the land. On a farm, say, just a few hundred acres, a nice little manor house, some good pieces of Georgian furniture, a few half decent paintings and me. Away from all this,” he says gesturing in the direction of his £7,500 custom made leather and steel armchair. I do worry about Peter sometimes.

    November 28th 2000. Feeling quite happy, actually…
    Jack Straw comes to see me. He says it’s a bit delicate but he really needs my help. Can’t promise, but I say I’ll see what I can do. “The thing is Alastair. I’m not known by my initials. It’s always Jack Straw, or Jack. Never JS. You know better anyone that it’s all about initials in New Labour. All the people who are really in the loop, who are really at the very top get called by their initials.” That’s not true, I tell him. Peter is never known as PM. “But you know that’s only because it would lead to confusion with TB, who is also the PM.” What does he want me to do? Could I start dropping in JS into meetings and memos when his name comes up? To try and make it catch on?

    March 10th 2002. By this point in the life of New Labour hardly anyone is happy…
    I find TB in his study listening to a CD by ELO. “How’s it going?” He looks worried; it’s GB. “What’s he done this time?” No, not Gordon explains TB: “It’s GB of the GOP, George Bush. He wants me to go to DC, to talk about WMD. We might need to involve the UN.” This is a big moment I tell him, what can I do to help? That night Fiona and I talk it over. I tell her not to worry. One thing I’ve learnt, amidst dealing with the whinging bunch of relentlessly egotistical shakedown artists clustered near the top of New Labour, is that TB knows what’s he’s doing. It’s all going to be OK.

    (*) These are spoof entries, I think.




    Free Hit Counter


    Nick Cohen, on the Lib Dems: ‘Something Nasty in the Woodshed’

    May 30, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“The terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    30th May 2010

    I have used all of this excellent article by Nick Cohen below. There was little I could leave out and nothing I wished to add, in this post anyway.  His analysis is exactly mine on the present Liberal Democrats.  How they got to this anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian … ANY Palestinian position  … (thus, by default or design) supporting Islamist killers is the essence of a book.  Perhaps Mr Cohen should write it.

    Cohen: “In crucial respects, they [the Lib Dems] are far closer to the caricature of neo-fascist Tories than the Tories are themselves. They will go along with the most bloodstained conspiracy theories and endorse medieval hatreds without a thought for how their actions damage the cause of democratic liberalism.” [...] “In practice, Lib Dem opinion has been seized by a reactionary version of radical chic in which murder is celebrated and racism dignified.”

    “Unfortunately for right-thinking people, Tony Blair was too fond of overthrowing dictators for their taste and the consensus grew that Labour was a party that waged “illegal” wars abroad and destroyed civil liberties at home.”


  • Something Nasty in the Woodshed, by NICK COHEN, June 2010


    Chimera / n ; a mythical beast with two heads: those of a lion and of a goat, and with a serpent’s head upon its tail
    “Right-thinking, left-leaning people always thought that the Conservatives were inherently greedy and cruel. Even if was going too far to say that they were actual Nazis, we agreed that they flirted with racism, xenophobia and hatred of “the Other”. Nick Clegg seemed to speak for the anti-fascist wing of British liberal opinion when he accused David Cameron in the second of the general election leaders’ debates of allying himself in the EU with “a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists [and] homophobes”. Guilt by association was still guilt, he implied. Conservatives did not care enough about fascistic hatred to renounce without equivocation all those who played with murderous ideas.

    In the 1990s, the liberal-Left thought that Labour was the antidote to such right-wing extremism. As far as we were concerned, it was a warm, generous party that believed in community, help for the poor and all other good things. As that unjustly underrated political commentator Bridget Jones noted in her diary in 1997: “It is perfectly obvious that Labour stands for sharing, kindness, gays, single mothers and Nelson Mandela, as opposed to braying bossy men having affairs with everyone, shag shag shag left right and centre and going to the Ritz in Paris then telling all the presenters off on the Today programme.”

    Unfortunately for right-thinking people, Tony Blair was too fond of overthrowing dictators for their taste and the consensus grew that Labour was a party that waged “illegal” wars abroad and destroyed civil liberties at home. If that wasn’t bad enough, it also taxed the upper-middle class. Throughout the last two decades, however, the reputation of the Liberal Democrats for virtue has remained unchallenged. The clichéd picture of the party as a collection of sandal-wearing, latte-slurping, tofu-eating teachers may have been patronising but it was not frightening. Liberals could be woolly-minded on occasion and their ideas might be impractical, but they remained good people. If their schemes for social improvement were doomed to failure, that was because of fallen human nature and the ways of a wicked world, not because liberals themselves were fallen or wicked. On the contrary, the world would be a better place if more people were like them. I suspect that if your son or daughter said they wanted to marry a Lib Dem, you might sigh and think that they could do better but you would not fear that a life of abuse and betrayal lay ahead of them.

    The strange alliance between Lib Dems and Conservatives is therefore causing less consternation on the Left than you might expect. By any rational standard, an election which sees a Tory government replace a Labour government is a straight defeat for the Left. Many leftists cannot see their defeat for what it is, however, and accept the obvious. For them, the presence of the Lib Dems in the new government is as reassuring as the presence of a police officer outside a rowdy pub. They will keep order, the thinking goes, and stop the Tory Right running wild. Many are privately going further and among the intelligentsia an incredible thought is taking hold. “Perhaps,” they are saying, if only to themselves, “a moderate Conservative-led government is what we wanted all along. It could deliver on causes dear to our heart — proportional representation, greenery and civil liberties — and if in time it offers tax cuts for people like us, well, would that be so bad? We’ve had years of a Labour government helping the poor, and what do we see: tattooed chavs and feral children bingeing on beer and burgers at our expense. That’s hardly an advertisement for social democracy.”

    As a correspondent put it to me after I had written a firm but, I like to think, fair critique of the new coalition, “Hang about — this lot have cancelled the third runway, scrapped ID cards and promised to stop incarcerating children at Yarl’s Wood — not a bad start even though it pains me to say so. I, for one, would rather have the Tories tempered by the Lib Dems than the Tories undiluted. Let’s hope it works because we need a different kind of government right now and this is very different.”

    To centrist Conservative intellectuals, the genius behind the coalition lies in its promise that it will soothe the anti-Conservative hatred that has stopped the party winning for almost 20 years. By including the Lib Dems, Cameron has turned the Conservatives from being a right-wing minority party into the dominant partner in a centre-Right majority coalition. The Tory centre hopes that the Liberal presence will allow its ministers to overcome all the old accusations of nastiness. The Tory Right fears that the Conservative centre may be right and that Cameron’s manoeuvre has pushed it to the margins — maybe forever.

    Beyond all the calculations of politicians and their allies lies the yearning for consensus that is buried deep in the national character. Partisans mock the exasperated audience members on Question Time who ask: “Why oh why can’t men and women of goodwill stop their bickering, get round the table and act in the national interest?” To the tribalist, they are idiot sentimentalists who think they can escape from the battle of ideas and clash of interests. Foolish they may be, but their desire for harmony and conciliation should not be underestimated. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the British believe they are a commonsensical people who can always see the advantages of compromise and the avoidance of unnecessary arguments. More voters than the ideologically committed like to imagine would welcome a national government in times of crisis. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is the next best thing.

    And what is giving it its popularity, what is making it seem like an alliance of sensible men and women willing to put aside petty differences, is the presence of the Lib Dems, a party which seemingly embodies moderation, compromise and a loathing of fanaticism.

    But the contented intelligentsia, the happy Tory centrists, worried Thatcherites and all who think we are in a new era of stability and compromise are wrong about the Lib Dems. They are not always moderate. In crucial respects, they are far closer to the caricature of neo-fascist Tories than the Tories are themselves. They will go along with the most bloodstained conspiracy theories and endorse medieval hatreds without a thought for how their actions damage the cause of democratic liberalism. Their prejudices are barely examined, however, in part because a lazy media has refused to cover them and in part because they are not, unfortunately, confined to the party.

    Among the many failures of political journalists in this election — and we got pretty much everything about it wrong right up to the last minute when we were predicting a small Conservative majority — was the failure to understand the Liberal Democrats. Before Nick Clegg stormed the first leaders’ debate, lobby correspondents did not stir themselves to cover the party, even though it won 62 seats and close to six million votes in the 2005 general election. Lib Dems justifiably complained about the narrowness of Westminster journalists’ concerns and their lazy refusal to investigate the opinions of a country that had long ago broken away from two-party politics. But they should have been grateful that reporters have not looked too hard at the Liberals’ dark side. If they had, they would have seen it sinking in a swamp of conspiratorial paranoia. 

    I am not taking an untypical case and exaggerating it for effect. I accept that all political parties have foul people in them, whose presence unscrupulous journalists can exploit to damn the wider organisation. So let me say from the beginning that the presence of Jenny Tonge as a peer on the Lib Dem benches in the Lords is not in itself an indictment of the Liberal politicians now in office. Rather, their willingness to defend her as she recycles some of the foulest racist theories in European history indicts them as shallow, slippery men.

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict explains the shabbiness of Lib Dem thought as it explains so many other shabby arguments circulating in Europe. Its leaders ought to know that the only moral position to take is to support a two-state solution in which a free and democratic Palestine lives alongside Israel with borders that approximate the dividing lines of 1967. In theory, everyone except far-leftists, Islamists and neo-Nazis knows this. In practice, Lib Dem opinion has been seized by a reactionary version of radical chic in which murder is celebrated and racism dignified.

    Let Baroness Tonge stand as an example of a malaise which has gripped hundreds of thousands of people who are playing with ideas previous generations would have described as fascist without hesitation. Instead of supporting the PLO-led Palestinian Authority, which for all its corruption and faults represents the best hope of a liberal democratic Palestine, she supports the clerical fascism of Hamas, and has gone to the Ba’athist tyranny of Syria to describe its leaders as “shrewd, plausible and actually very likeable”.

    I don’t subscribe to “no platform” policies. I believe that the prejudiced must always be confronted. And despite knowing about her support for an organisation whose charter might have been written by Hitler, I gladly accepted an invitation to share a stage with her during a recording of Any Questions for BBC Radio 4. I was struck by the deference with which the apparent liberals in the hall treated her, as much by the coquettishness of her trite interventions on the side of the opponents of liberalism and democracy. At one point, she declared that she backed the Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin, because she “quite fancied” him, and the image of the pair together still has the power to make me sit bolt upright in bed in the middle of the night.

    She admired Putin for the same reason that she applauds Hamas: he was against the West. She did not give a thought about the aspirations of real liberals and democrats in Russia, who want to change their kleptomaniac and oppressive state. All that mattered was that the Russian regime could frustrate Western plans. Do not dismiss her as an eccentric. Hers is a common and highly hypocritical version of Little Englandism found everywhere in modern liberalism. Instead of saying that they want the quiet life and to avoid foreign entanglements, its proponents hide their dislike of the policies of the rulers of their own countries behind a façade of insincere concern for the suffering of others abroad.

    Mutatis mutandis, what applies to Russians applies equally to Palestinians. Tonge and many others do not sincerely wish to end Palestinian suffering. If they did, they would think about what theocratic Islamism would do and is doing to Palestinian women, Christians, gays, socialists and, indeed, Palestinian liberals and democrats, and declare themselves an enemy both of Israeli interference in the West Bank and Hamas’s bid for power. They would overcome the wilful blindness in the West that refuses to see that anti-Semitism is not only about the hatred of Jews. From the czars through to the Nazis and on to today’s Middle Eastern tyrannies, dictators have used the Jewish “threat” to justify their rule and stigmatise their dissenters as Jewish dupes.

    I do not want to push this argument too far because, of course, when all is said and done, anti-Semitism is mainly about hating Jews. And in Tonge’s discourse, tropes of thousands of years of loathing are repeated as if they occurred to her only yesterday. The all-powerful Jewish conspiracy controls everything, of course, even, somewhat implausibly, the Lib Dems. “The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the Western world, its financial grips,” she declared in 2006. “I think they’ve probably got a grip on our party.”

    Once baronesses start talking like this, it is only a matter of time before they embrace the “blood libel”, the most ancient and dangerous racial theory Europe has produced. In Trials of the Diaspora, his scholarly dissection of English anti-Semitism, Anthony Julius explains the various fantasies collected under the heading thus: “They are known as the blood libel partly because they suppose that Jews wish to kill non-Jews (at first Christians, now more usually Muslims), partly because some of them involve the claim that Jews require non-Jewish blood for ritual purposes, and partly because so much Jewish blood has been shed in consequence of them.”

    The blood libel long predates the Jewish conspiracy theory, which only began to circulate after the Jewish emancipation of the Enlightenment. (Before then, even the maddest thinkers in Christendom could not manage to convince themselves that peasants in the shtetl were the secret rulers of the world.) In the first recorded instance that Julius can find, the feudal authorities executed 30 Jews in Blois, France, in 1171 for the ritual murder of a Christian, even though no body was ever discovered and no alleged victim was reported missing. He traces it through to the Nazi period where German propagandists told the occupied French that “the victory of the German armies was necessary in order that small children shall no longer be the victims of the Jews”, through to Syrian television, which annexed the European anti-Semitic tradition and replicated faithfully the medieval version of the blood libel by showing Jews baking bread with gentile blood.

    This year, after Julius published his book, Israel sent aid workers to help the victims of the Haiti earthquake. All over the internet, the word went out that Jewish relief workers were not sincerely helping the needy but harvesting the organs of the gentiles. The Palestinian Telegraph, of which Tonge is a patron, helped to spread the slur. She then intervened and tried to keep the story going by saying the accusations were sufficiently credible to warrant an inquiry.

    Racism is a retarded and repetitious mental deformation. I would be tempted to call it “boring” if its consequences were not so grave. It produces nothing new and nothing interesting, and so it is with some tentativeness that I assert that the story of Israeli doctors stealing the livers, hearts and kidneys of the victims of natural disaster strikes me as a new form of a 2,000-year-old hatred or at least an exceptionally rare version of it. Jews are so depraved, the Haiti story runs, that even their willingness to show their common humanity and help strangers in distress should never be trusted. For Jews are not human: they are bestial creatures who use the cover of altruism to dupe credulous gentiles and hide from them their true intention to murder the people they pretend to be saving.

    Presented with the conspiracy theories of such vileness and with such a pedigree, Clegg proved that he was unfit to be called a liberal or democrat, let alone deputy prime minister of this country. True, he asked Baroness Tonge to stand down as a Lib Dem spokeswoman in the House of Lords but petulantly resisted all demands to expel her from the party. The Centre for Social Cohesion, which monitors white supremacist and radical Islamists, has repeatedly asked him why he did not act. Instead of behaving like a mature politician, Clegg’s temper snapped and he screamed that no one should dare question his honour. “The very suggestion that I might explicitly or tacitly give cover to racism, I find politically abhorrent and personally deeply offensive,” he cried to the Jewish Chronicle, while doing precisely nothing. The Liberal Democrat leader who accused David Cameron of not dealing with supposed anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe could not speak plainly against the tropes of actual anti-Semitism in his own party.

    Lord Wallace, the Lib Dems’ Foreign Affairs spokesman in the Lords, went further and deployed the low tactic of turning accusations of racism back on the accuser. The worst he could say about the baroness was that she was “over-emotional”. His lordship, however, explained: “The reason why we resist expelling her from the party is that we do sadly find the current Likud Party very intolerant of all criticism.”

    His thinking ran thus: racist ideologies are not the products of repellent minds, but merely the result of an excess of emotion. Those who oppose them do not do so honestly because they know what horrors anti-Semitism brings. On the contrary, they rather than the baroness are the truly disreputable people, who are only raising this minor matter because they are the allies of the Likud. The Lib Dems are tolerant. It’s Tonge’s critics, not Tonge herself, who are intolerant and show their prejudice by insisting on standing up to those who say that a Jewish conspiracy pulls all strings and that Jews are murdering gentile children.

    The Liberal Democrats turn the world upside down, make black white and two and two five. In their imagination, it is intolerant to oppose bigotry, small-minded to stand up against fanaticism.

    As it is impossible to write about Jews in the present climate and expect to have a sensible debate, let me replace them with blacks. Suppose a leading Lib Dem peer had said that black people were by their nature mentally inferior to whites. Would you expect liberal society to be satisfied if Clegg did not expel her from the party and screamed and shouted about his honour instead? I suspect most people would demand that he proved he knew the meaning of the word by taking action. Suppose the same Liberal peer were to go on to bring up the most poisonous myth of white supremacy and say that young black men were touring the cities looking for white women to rape. In those circumstances liberal society would consider it outrageous if Lord Wallace were to dismiss complaints by saying, “The reason why we resist expelling her from the party is that we do sadly find the current Zanu-PF party very intolerant of all criticism.”

    That liberal society is not holding the Liberal Democrats to account tells us much about its double standards. Baroness Tonge is an extreme example of a liberalism that has turned sour and duplicitous, but she is not a freak. Like a fairground mirror, she exaggerates real faults in the Lib Dems which will have to be confronted with vigour now that Clegg is in power. Her concealed Little Englandism — the pretence to care for others while all the time avoiding true commitment on principled grounds — was in display everywhere during the second Iraq war. The party opposed it for good reasons, but even the best Liberal Democrats I know could not bring themselves to support those in Iraq who were struggling in the most awful circumstances to create a country worth living in decades of dictatorial rule.

    I cannot envisage such an insular party allying itself with the democratic movement in Iran now. And if Tehran’s push to produce the nuclear bomb results in war, I would expect them to insist on Britain staying out of it. At home, we can study the record and notice that the vast majority of Liberals are simply not involved in the struggles against radical Islam and the BNP. Indeed, the party has historically played on white racism and Islamist religious reaction to undermine Labour in the inner cities.

    Despite all the coos coming from leftish intellectuals and centrist supporters of the Cameron project, Lib Dems are not always as nice or as moderate or as well-meaning as ignorant outsiders imagine. They are often duplicitous, selfish and irresponsible. Some of the nastiest ideas of our time receive a safe home in their party. Some of the most cowardly leaders in British politics allow them to say there.

    To everyone who says that the Lib Dem presence in the coalition protects David Cameron from the Conservative Party’s Right, I would reply: that’s all very well but who is going to protect Cameron from the Liberal Democrat Party’s extreme Right?”


    RELATED

    EARLIER POSTS HERE ON LAWS



    Free Hit Counter


    Video – Gordon Brown’s retirement peerages

    May 30, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments – “the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    30th May 2010

  • Gordon Brown’s peerages to at Dissolution to Paisley, Prescott, Ian Blair, Michael Howard, John Reid, Des Browne, John Hutton, Sue Nye

    At around 4 mins, on Ian Paisley - “one of those seminal moments in Tony Blair’s premiership and indeed in the history of Northern Ireland and the history of the United Kingdom.”

    And don’t let’s ever forget it.

    You may have spotted one or two major omissions.

    Alastair Campbell? His book, it seems, reveals that he refused one

    The other – Tony Blair?

    I understand he did not want a peerage.  He has bigger fish to fry.

    Tony Blair did not hand out any peerages when he left office, influenced no doubt by the earlier public outcry on the cash-/loans-for honours nonsense.  Notable that the more recent scandal on MPs’ expenses hasn’t deterred Brown.

    RELATED




    Free Hit Counter


    David Laws’ downfall is NOT a national tragedy. Seriously. It isn’t.

    May 30, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” andThe best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    30th May 2010

    UPDATE, 1st June: As I suggested below the other day, David Laws is to advise his successor, Danny Alexander, in the Big Cuts job. Hardly needs an Oxbridge double first to work out that eventuality.

    A PERSONAL SETBACK, PERHAPS EVEN TRAGIC IN CERTAIN TERMS. THAT’S ALL.

  • Lest we humble voters join the ConDems and half of the press in a state of communal sobbing over David Laws’ speedy demise, let me splash a little cold water on perturbed faces.

    • It ISN’T a national tragedy that he has done the inevitable.
    • No-one is indispensable.
    • The economic recovery does NOT depend on David Laws being at The Treasury. If it does, the ConDems need to call an election.
    • His advice can still be sought by his successor Danny Alexander and the ConDem leadership.  He hasn’t been struck mute.
    • The man will not be required to wear sackcloth and ashes for his “sins”, unlike A N Other, a man whose success is proven and historical even in his own lifetime.
    • Until the fall of Laws, and still today in other arenas outwith ConDemmery and their following press, anyone who had made a million in the City before he was 30 would have been looked on suspiciously as a capitalist money-grubbing banker, and instantly dismissed as untrustworthy and PERSONALLY REPONSIBLE for our current state of economic affairs.
    • Disappearing off the political scene before one has had a chance to mess things up is a better legacy, it would seem, than actually doing anything.
    • This situation, notwithstanding its personal pain, says something about Mr Laws’ judgement.
    • For five years Mr Laws did what was clearly against the rules, regardless if the rules are a touch unfair.
    • He may or may not be an “honourable man” in most ways that the word means anything, but his judgement has been brought into focus.
    • We are entitled to try to recall if Mandelson or even Blair or Brown were descibed as “honourable” by so many when they left office.
    • We are entitled to wonder if personal empathy for Mr Laws is replacing common sense.
    • Mr Laws will be back.  Perhaps sooner than he deserves to be.

    I suppose it won’t be long before some are calling for the economic equivalent of a Nobel Prize for Mr Laws. After all, he promised so much.  And we all know that promise is more reliable if harder to quantify than the enactment of politics in the raw.  Until it isn’t.  Then we call them corrupt, lying b******s.  Even the best of them. Those who’ve actually done something.

    Clearly it is better to “die” and disappoint than to live and really disappoint.

    Harry’s Place -

    The BBC is reporting that David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury after admitting he claimed £40,000 of expenses to pay rent to his partner. That was fast, I really did not see him going. I thought he would ride it out.

    He quite deserved to go. He is a millionaire banker who had no need to be claiming public money to pay his partner’s mortgage.

    Laws said: “I do not see how I can carry out my crucial work on the Budget and spending review while I have to deal with the private and public implications of recent revelations.

    “I can’t escape the conclusion that what I did was somehow wrong.”

    It wasn’t “somehow” Mr Laws simply wrong period. The cookie jar it seems is too tempting no matter how much money you have already made in a successful City career.

    It is probably worth reminding people what Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said in the first TV election debate: “There are still people who haven’t taken full responsibility for some of the biggest abuses of the system.” He wasn’t making that up.

    And Alastair Campbell has this – (my red highlights, where I thought exactly the same as Campbell. Oh the irony, Mr Nicely, Nicely Nick of Liberal Democracy.)

    Cameron/Clegg will be regretting their expenses sanctimoniousness

    2010-05-30 10:38:16

    “Am about to leave for the Beeb to do my first broadcast interview on Prelude to Power, with Jon Sopel on The Politics Show.

    So just a quick word or two on the David Laws fallout. As I tweeted last night, I feel some personal sympathy for Laws, (which didn’t go down well with my followers) but none for David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who both milked the expenses scandal for all it was worth, Cameron getting four stars for sanctimoniousness, Clegg the full five. If there is one good thing to come out of this, it might make them feel less prone to mount a high horse whenever a bandwagon is passing.

    [...]

    Cameron had found the man he felt had what it took to take the axe to public services, whilst sharing the political pain between two parties, and will be hoping the inquiry clears him and perhaps he can have him back at a later date. Clegg just wanted to prevent any lasting contamination of the Lib Dem brand.

    But as I read Cameron’s letter, and watched Clegg’s Soviet-style doorstep to a single, seemingly unmanned camera, I couldn’t help thinking of their previous contributions on expenses.

    So as they now try to turn this from a story of expenses to a story of a human tragedy – which it is – do not forget it is also a story about leadership. If Laws, in Cameron and Clegg’s eyes, did nothing wrong – and their statements would suggest that is their basic take - and if he is so brilliant, then they might have put up more of a fight to keep him.

    But where it is really a story of leadership is in what the whole expenses issue says about Cameron and the Tories. Both he and George Osborne had their issues with expenses, but had the media so far up their backsides most people have forgotten what they were.

    We then saw how eagerly and how easily he was prepared to see some of his colleagues thrown to the wolves. They will be clocking the difference in his tone about them, and his tone about Laws.

    But also just think back a few weeks to the day when it emerged Labour MPs charged over their expenses were seeking legal aid. Cameron, ever the opportunist, tore up his plans for the day, got a little event organised, and piled into the issue (carefully overlooking any ‘innocent till proven guilty’ type problems), saying Labour were a disgrace, and this kind of corruption and legal nonsense would never happen under him.

    Their past sanctimoniousness explains why the Cameron Clegg statements sounded so hollow last night.

    Clegg should use this to take stock. He came third in the election. He did not do as well as he or anyone else expected him to. Yet he is now deputy PM. That is beginning to rankle with a few people, and requires him to strike a slightly different tone.

    So calm down a bit, Nick. Underclaim and over deliver. When you go around saying a ragbag of constitutional proposals – which in scale come nowhere near a Scottish Parliament, Welsh and NI Assemblies, elected mayors, FoI, Human Rights Act - represents the biggest change since the Great Reform Act (women’s votes came after that by the way) people start to wonder whether you are not inhaling your own propaganda too much.

    *** Amazon link to Prelude to Power below. Hope it works. Yell if not

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Diaries-One-Prelude-1994-1997-Campbell/dp/0091797268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275208265&sr=8-1


    RELATED

    1. Green Book: Read relevant sections as to why Laws had to go

    2. I don’t normally rate the Telegraph’s Gerald Warner. Unless I am mistaken he doesn’t rate Tony Blair. And for anyone that dumb I have a knee-jerk reaction – it jerks to about crotch level.  But this time Mr Warner deserves a mention. This is engaging writing:

    “Meanwhile, the inconsolable mourners will continue to bewail the loss of the People’s Treasury Chief Secretary. And, incidentally, why is the flag on the Palace still at full mast?”




    Free Hit Counter


    Questions over ‘Question Time’, Alastair Campbell and David Laws

    May 30, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    30th May 2010

    I wonder what else he, Campbell, may have sensed? The focus after Question Time was on Downing Street’s attempt to get Campbell off QT. Was our eye on the wrong ball? Their main effort may well have been to keep Laws off. Remember, the Tories now have on board the LDs, the experts in obfuscation and distraction.

    In the previous post, shortly before David Laws resigned after only 18 days as a minister, I asked this:

    QUESTION TIME – WILL THE TRUTH OVER CAMPBELL NOW “OUT”?

    So will we now see how principled the two heads at the top of government REALLY are? Will Cameron go heavy on Laws, or be persuaded by his political partner to hold his fire?  If their behaviour the other night over Alastair Campbell’s Question Time appearance is anything to go by, he should be gone by tomorrow. Or rather shouldn’t, since principles fly out of the window when political considerations and expediency raise their ugly heads.

    Am I the only one to wonder if on Thursday night the CamClegg leadership knew all about Laws’ outing and expenses?

    Their withdrawal of David Laws may not after all have been to do with his being put up against Alastair Campbell, more a fear that he might be “outed” live on TV by Labour’s former “hatchet man”, if they thought he had been speaking to Lord Mandelson, the suspected knower of all secrets.

    Call me suspicious if you like, but I still wonder who exactly knew what about whom on Thursday night.

    BBC video clip of Question Time.  David Dimbleby explains Downing Street’s demands regarding vetoing Campbell, refused by the BBC, and Campbell asides with “I didn’t know they liked me that much.” Another clip shows Campbell holding up a picture of the missing ConDem minister David Laws.

    “It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience”
    Gavin Allen, Executive editor, Question Time

    As far as I know Campbell himself hasn’t raised the missing Laws’ impending unfortunate position as an issue with any bearing on his appearance/non-appearance on Question Time.  At his blog Campbell says -

    “I sensed something was going on through the week, because whenever I tried to ascertain from the programme makers who else was on they were a bit vague. I knew that Piers Morgan was on, but that was it.

    Then came word that they were hopeful of getting chief secretary David Laws. Good choice I thought, in the week of the cuts announcement and the centrality of the Treasury to the Queen’s Speech. But they weren’t sure about a Tory, and they thought they might get a Green but really it was not straightforward.

    Two days later came word  that no, it seemed Laws couldn’t do it after all. So who? They weren’t sure.”

    I wonder what else he, Campbell, may have sensed? The focus after Question Time was on Downing Street’s attempt to get Campbell off QT. Was our eye on the wrong ball? Their main effort may well have been to keep Laws off. Remember, the Tories now have on board the LDs, the experts in obfuscation and distraction.

    The Telegraph hasn’t said how they got the Laws story, and no-one seems to have even asked who broke the story or why.

    Before Laws’ unfortunate position broke and he then resigned I was about to write  in straight-forward terms about the unbelievable action of the ConDem government in telling The Question Time producers at the BBC that David Laws would not appear without an equivalent (opposition) number. In other words I presumed they wanted him to face such as Liam Byrne, the former (Labour) Chief Secretary to the Treasury and now shadow.

    Not that that would have been easy-peasy stuff for Mr Laws. Having publicised the little note left to him, privately, and I cannot recall that this is normal procedure, (do we know what Mr Brown left in his note to Mr Cameron?) Mr Laws might have had the shine taken off his halo as Mr Byrne said something to the effect “this was hardly news to anyone, David. It was meant to bring a smile to your lips, not be sent to the Daily Maul.

    File photo dated 25/05/10 of Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws as he arrives in Downing Street in London. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Friday May 28, 2010. Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws was facing a storm over his expenses tonight after it emerged that he had channelled more than £40,000 of taxpayers' money to his long-term partner.The Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister - who this week promised public spending curbs which would send 'shockwaves' through Whitehall - claimed up to £950 a month for five years to rent a room in two properties owned by his partner, according to the Daily Telegraph. Photo credit: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire

    But I suggest that this new and open government is a lot less than the sum of its parts.

    It has been said, though I cannot confirm this, that this is the first time EVER that Downing Street has tried to influence the Question Time programme regarding  another panel member. However, you may recall that in October last year Peter Hain tried to prevent the appearance on the programme of Nick Griffin, BNP leader. The BBC then also insisted that only they decided who should comprise their panel list. Hain’s argument then was against a politically racist party. Mr Hain would still have been unhappy whichever BNP member had been asked to appear.

    However, as for the argument regarding equivalent ministers, this does not stand up to scrutiny. Regularly there appear on Question Time many panelists who are not in the political frontline on the programme.  In recent years it has been replete with actors, writers, single issue campaigners and civil and human righters galore.  Frequently there is only one politician.

    So, what really happened?

    • Did the ConDem government try to play fast and loose with Question Time regarding Mr Laws because they didn’t want him to appear, because they knew that the expenses/personal situation was about to explode?
    • Did they worry that Campbell might already have the news on his expenses and relationship?

    Or

    • Did they fear Campbell’s ability to let the public see chasms within the ConDem parties over policies?
    • Did they want to concentrate their attack on the Labour leadership and knew that Campbell would not be the one to tackle successfully on this, but thought that Miliband, Balls, Harman or Byrne would be far easier meat?

    Whichever it was, and it might have been a selection of the above or for several other reasons, I for one think we should remember this episode of Question Time.

    It was the day that the new, ‘freedom-loving’ government tried to ban free speech and free decision-making by the publicly paid-for broadcaster. That tactic wouldn’t be out-of-place in Russia, Iran or China.

    Welcome to the new politics.

    WRITING FOR THE DAILY ‘MAUL’

    This from Suzanne Moore at The Daily Mail is priceless. The Iraq reference here is nonsensical and if continued at the Daily Maul and other right-wing rags that supported the Iraq invasion, it will be the undoing of Cameron’s party. Ms Moore needs to remind herself how many Tories voted for the success that was the Iraq war. The Lib Dems voted for the “disaster” that they reckon it was.

    On Campbell Ms Moore says –

    “The new pick’n’mix Gov­ernment is too petrified to take him on. David Laws won’t go on Question Time because Andy Coulson told him that Campbell has lasers that come out of his eyes. Or something like that.

    The BBC refused to drop Campbell as a guest at the behest of No  10. It rightly asserted its editorial independence. So Campbell was there, but no Government Minister was.

    The BBC were right not to kowtow to the Government, but to see them perpetually kowtowing to the man who tried to destroy them rather sticks in my gullet.”

    So there we have it. Campbell was proved right over Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly, Blair was right over Iraq, the Conservatives were right to support Blair over Iraq and Ms Moore thinks she speaks for such as Gilligan and the Conservative party.

    Just how wrong do journalists have to be to be considered suitable to write for the Daily Maul?

    RELATED

    Later updates on David Laws & Lib Dems




    Free Hit Counter


  • (David) Laws unto himself on expenses?

    May 29, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. Recent comments“the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?” and “The best there’s been since I grew up and I’m nearly 70 now. ‘Tis a pity that some have just never grown up at all.”

    Comment at end

    29th May 2010

    UPDATE, 8:00pm: David Laws resigns (Laws’ letter to Cameron). Video of Clegg’s response to this resignation. Did he jump before he was pushed? Very likely, imho, or he would have resigned this morning while telling us that he was referring himself to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. However, his determination to stay was probably less than was CamClegg’s desire to retain him.  Matthew D’Ancona says that “Andy Coulson, the PM’s communications chief, warned him of the gathering media storm and the likely scale of the onslaught on Mr Laws. The Chief Secretary and Mr Cameron spoke on the phone at around 3pm, by which time it was becoming increasingly clear that Mr Laws was going to have to go.”  Mr Laws has done the right thing. I give it a matter of months before he is back, especially if the Parliamentary Standards Committee finds in his favour. See “A weaker coalition”.

    £40,000 CLAIMED (now repaid) BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO TREASURY. DAVID LAWS SAYS HE WAS MOTIVATED “NOT TO MAXIMISE PROFIT” BUT TO KEEP HIS GAY RELATIONSHIP SECRET

    David Laws and "partner" James Lundie (Getty/Julian Simmonds)

  • IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS WHO YOU SHARE PILLOW-TALK WITH, MR LAWS

    First of all, sadly, and I DO regret this fact, I do not think we need to know about political individuals’ private lives or even sexual proclivities (excepting anything whatsoever to do with under-age tendencies, which we DO need to know) notwithstanding politicians’ fears that “proclivity” is how they feel others will see them.  In Blair’s Britain, as Matthew Parris once put it so eloquently in an article now unfindable on the net, we are way past that kind of judgemental nonsense.

    However, it is a fact that one cannot be in the British public eye and remain “private”.  It’s just the way it is with the blood-scenting media breathing down every political neck.

    BUT IT IS OUR BUSINESS IF YOU CLAIM EXPENSES MISLEADINGLY

    So that “privacy” argument from Mr Laws is a non-argument. And what’s more I believe it cannot hold, even if genuinely felt.

    He can argue and does that even his closest family – no-one in other words – knew anything about his sexual preferences and arrangements and that that was how he wanted things to remain.  But NONE of that, understandable as it may be, explains why he did not in his high-minded Lib Dem way include financial arrangements for accommodation as also subject to confidentiality arrangements.

    • In other words, this reputed millionaire should have ensured anything which linked expenses payments to his personal relationship should not have been put on public (expenses) record or allowed into the public domain.
    • In other words he should never have charged us for the fact that he and his suggested semantically confusing “partner” lived together.
    • In other words, the man who went into investment banking, becoming a Vice President at JP Morgan from 1987 to 1992 and then Managing Director, being the Head of US Dollar and Sterling Treasuries at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, could have afforded “privacy” and could have afforded to make NO CLAIM on rental payments far more than can most of us, or even most MPs could have done.

    EXPENSES SCANDAL – NOT THAT AGAIN!

    Before I say more on David Laws’ predicament and that of his party and the present ConDem government, I would like to reiterate that I am not and never was in agreement with The Telegraph on its “expenses scandal”. I always saw it as a bullet in that paper’s armament to further weaken and eventually dislodge the Labour government.  Others in our press climbed on the supercilious bandwagon, and in the end it is generally agreed that the Conservatives, who the Torygraph always have and always will presumably support, also suffered by their revelations. Thus the Tories failed to win the election with an overall  majority. The Liberal Democrats were less harmed by the expenses issue, probably due to their MPs numbers being in the tens and not the hundreds, so there were fewer of them to be caught out “sinning”.

    Of course the Lib Dems had another widely accepted bullet, or rather cuddly, harmless cotton-wool ball, in their armoury. They were, to coin a phrase “purer than pure”, and thus integrity, honesty and goodness personified.

    That widespread view was never the reality, and still isn’t. More on that in a later post.

    BLACK ‘ N ‘ WHITE, WRONG EXPENSES CLAIMS

    This is not to say that there are some MPs whose expenses claims seem very questionable, in my humble opinion, for instance -

    1. The Labour MPwho claimed interests payments on a mortgage he was no longer paying. Seems black and white. Seems WRONG.

    2. The Nationalist MPs who tried to bring down the British government, by bringing down Tony Blair on an “illegal war” charges, paying for legal advice with their publicly funded “office expenses”. Seems black and white. Seems wrong.

    Naturally the latter was hardly referred to by our feral beasts. Yes, it is instructive that this intended coup against the British state was never questioned by the press, though it was by me here and here and here and here.

    Many will understand that Laws’ position seems not to fall into the categories of outright lying or of intended treason by misuse of public funds, as I do see the above two, in order given. Rather as deceit by omission. Perhaps he feared omitting to claim, thinking that NOT submitting a claim for expenses would draw more fire from the bloodhound press, than submitting a claim.

    But as for Laws’ insistence that these expenses claims were to do with his concern over not wishing to disclose even to his nearest and dearest, his homosexuality – come ON, now.

    The first way to have done that would be NOT to link IN ANY WAY his accommodation payments to his expenses. As a reputed millionaire he surely didn’t need to claim for this money, if  as a ‘private person’, he did not wish to associate his name and that of his ‘partner’ on the record.

    Apart from the monthly claims of up to £950 per month there is also the fact that Mr Laws remortgaged his Yeovil property in order to help Mr Lundie get on the housing market.

    Telegraph:

    “The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.

    In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.”

    It stinks, Mr Laws. It stinks of  hypocrisy.  Crying “privacy” won’t wash.

    LAWS’ LAW: JAMES LUNDIE WAS NOT MY “PARTNER”

    Despite the relationship between Mr Laws and Mr Lundie starting nine years ago, millionaire Mr Laws insists that it all depends on the meaning of “partner” (not in the business partner sense.)

    The Times:

    ‘David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, last night apologised for claiming more than £40,000 in parliamentary expenses renting rooms in properties owned by his partner.

    A spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said: “The Prime Minister has been made aware of this situation and agrees with David Laws’ decision to self-refer to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.”

    Liberal Democrat sources last night admitted that Mr Laws faced serious questions over the affair.’

    So, I wonder how hot are the phone lines between Mr Cameron & Mr Clegg today? And I wonder how long before they do the right thing? If there was a way back for Peter Mandelson (also homosexual, if it matters) no doubt Mr Laws too can return to office at some later date. Providing there is still an “office” to return to, of course.

    I will be watching developments with interest, as will the press and the country. Since we were told by the press that the whole country was up in arms over expenses, if Laws is still a minister on Tuesday morning, the ConDem government is condemned to be short-lived, imho. We hardly need to await an inquiry, as Mr Ashdown suggests, playing for time.

    It is all out in the open now, by dint of Laws’ open confession, personally painful as it may have been.

    OTHER REPORTS ON THIS

    1. Times, Graham casts doubt on the high-mindedness of the Lib Dems, too. Excerpt:

    Sir Alistair, who chaired the Committee on Standards in Public Life from 2003 until 2007, said he thought Mr Laws’s position was “very difficult”.

    “I think that the real problem is the lack of judgment shown in resolving this issue about his expenses when, prior to the general election, expenses were the front page issue.

    “It seems incredible that he didn’t sort out what we suspect, that he was particularly vulnerable because he had been claiming since the rules had changed, which said that you shouldn’t claim money to go to what was described as a partner.

    “We have to remember that the Liberal Democrats took the moral high ground on the expenses issue while it was taking place… and that Nick Clegg was on top of the issue from the word go,” he said.

    2. Telegraph: David Laws apology statement in full

    3. When even such as Julian Glover at the recently converted Lib Dem Guardian are saying that, “This is a scandal – if it is a scandal – caused by one man’s inability to face up to his sexuality, not a desire to fiddle expenses. Whether he is now a credible face of public spending cuts is for the media, his party, and the prime minister to decide. I desperately hope he survives. I fear he won’t”, Mr Laws’s present career may be short-lived. After all, after the Lib Dems the Guardian too is Sanctimony Personified.

    4. Politics Home mentions that Sir Alistair Graham also criticised the Liberal Democrats, for having given the impression Nick Clegg “was on top of the issue right from the word go – when he had a senior member of his team who probably wasn’t considering his own position”.

    5. Mr Integrity? Former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown describes this as a “personal tragedy” (listen here) if it so suits him to try to uphold the Con/Lib government he tried so hard to stop a few weeks ago by ringing his former Lib/Lab  coalition co-planner Tony Blair in the middle of the night. (Reported by Will Heaven – Did Tony Blair personally torpedo a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition?”)

    6. Today’s Guardian reminds us of what Mr Ashdown once thought of Mr Laws:

    “Although his perspective is more centrist than rightwing, when he first stood as a Lib Dem, the Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown thought he was a Tory mole. After quitting a career in the City that made him a millionaire, Laws took over Ashdown’s Yeovil seat in 2001. He has since rejected overtures from the Tories to defect.”

    Calls to leave it to the Parliamentary Commission will not wash, Paddy. Mr Cameron was quick in earlier difficult days (before he became PM, of course) to dismiss those who upset the apple-cart.  If he doesn’t do so again today and smartish, before the Sunday papers get a hold of things, there will be fun in the papers as we have never seen before.

    7. Wall Street Journal – damaging, as Laws is No 2 in Treasury.

    8. Will Heaven, Telegraph:

    ‘Toby Young’s gossip from the Newsnight green room is worth flagging up again. He reports the following bombshell:

    …on the evening of Monday, May 10, after the first talks had taken place between Labour and the Lib Dems, Paddy Ashdown frantically tried to get in touch with Tony Blair in the hope of persuading him to broker a deal. He eventually reached him by telephone at 3am on Tuesday morning only to be told that he thought it wasn’t in Labour’s interest to remain in office. “We need to go into Opposition,” Blair told the former Lib Dem leader.

    Music to Gordon Brown’s ears, I’m sure. But at least Paddy Ashdown can now answer that age-old political question, “Who do you want to answer the 3am phone call?” Not, it seems, that former PM.’

    9. An updated Wikipedia entry names his partner David Lundie, and says:

    On 28 May 2010, the Daily Telegraph newspaper claimed that Laws had claimed over £40,000 on his expenses in the form of second home costs, from 2004 to late 2009.[10] In actual fact, he had been renting a room at a property owned by what the paper claimed to be his “secret lover” and “long-term partner”, James Lundie. The Daily Telegraph also made clear that it had not intended to reveal his sexuality, but that Laws had himself done so, in a public statement shortly before the newspaper’s publication of the story.[11] Lundie is a former Liberal Democrat Press officer and now works for the Political Affairs team of public relations and lobbying firm, Edelman.[12]

    According to the Telegraph, Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month between 2004 and 2007 to sub-let a room in a flat owned and lived in by his partner in Kennington, South London.[10] After the flat was sold for a profit of £193,000 in 2007, Laws’s partner bought a nearby house for £510,000. Laws then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property, at a cost of £920 a month, until September 2009. Laws, whose main home is in his Yeovil constituency, then began renting another flat. This flat was not owned by his partner, who remained at the Kennington house. Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from…a partner.”[11]

    A spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said: “The prime minister has been made aware of this situation and he agrees with David Laws’s decision to refer himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.”[10]

    ON THE OTHER HAND – THERE ARE SOME WHO SEE THE DARK HAND OF ‘DIRTY TRICKS’ AT PLAY -

    The inference here, and let’s not shy away from spitting it out, is that Peter Mandelson is behind this “outing”. Arguing the whys and wherefores of the law as developed under Labour is a little weak.  It’s the law, regardless.  The same laws that some people throw at Blair for “lying to parliament” or “illegal invasions”. Only in the latter cases the accusations are wrong.

    Listen to BBC Radio 4 Today audio report on this. The controversy surrounding the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws, is a “massive distraction, motivated possibly by politics, to try to tear David down”. So says Mr Laws’ parliamentary colleague, the Liberal Democrat MP for Taunton Deane, Jeremy Browne.

    Since Mr Laws’ task is to reduce the deficit and encourage public sector workers to reduce their pay and perks, Mr Laws’ position is likely to be untenable. His defenders claim that his  ‘partner’ was NOT a spouse he was living with and paying for accommodation. I doubt if the public will see this as the case. The central point, his defenders say is maintaining a private life. Sorry, that is NOT the main concern. A red herring, as John Humphrys says. I do have to laugh about the “we are in a state of collective self-harm if we are in the business of pulling down people on personal matters.” by Jermey Browne. Isn’t that what “we” did with Tony Blair “the poodle”, “liar”, “warmonger”, “moneygrubber” and Gordon Brown the “indecisive”, “dysfunctional” “bully”?

    At this Evening Standard article on the day Tony Blair appeared at The Iraq Inquiry amidst some of them arguing about whether they’ll feel better “when” (not ‘if’) Blair is “burnt at the stake” a commenter says:

    “This whole episode is just a waste of taxpayers money,nothing will come of it,it is like the expenses of MPs,even when told to give the money back like Lib Dem Jeremy Browne,they just appeal it and get away with it.Hopefully,come election,we the British public with get rid of the whole lot of rubbish that we entrusted to run our country,but the people are to weak to do what needs to be done,and the politicians know it.”

    It seems Mr Browne is a dab hand at proving his innocence on expenses misdoings: “An MP who was ordered to repay £18,000 by the official auditor of Commons expenses has successfully appealed against the demand.”

    Perhaps he can turn his dab hand to helping out Mr Laws. But first of all, Mr Laws will have to explain how his double first at Oxford didn’t alert him to sorting out his own financial and personal situation in a way which would have put him above reproach. Perhaps he never expected to be in government.

    And, no, Iain Dale, we can’t just say as you just did on BBC News channel that it would have cost us more if he’d bought a place years ago and just moved in with his partner. That is another red herring and alters nothing. Odd, btw, how Iain Dale’s earlier (April) stance against a coalition seems to have altered. Isn’t it just?

    QUESTION TIME – WILL THE TRUTH OVER CAMPBELL NOW “OUT”?

    So will we now see how principled the two heads at the top of government REALLY are? Will Cameron go heavy on Laws, or be persuaded by his political partner to hold his fire?  If their behaviour the other night over Alastair Campbell’s Question Time appearance is anything to go by, he should be gone by tomorrow. Or rather shouldn’t, since principles fly out of the window when political considerations and expediency raise their ugly heads.

    Am I the only one to wonder if on Thursday night the CamClegg leadership knew all about Laws’ outing and expenses?

    Their withdrawal of David Laws may not after all have been to do with his being put up against Alastair Campbell, more a fear that he might be “outed” live on TV by Labour’s former “hatchet man”, if they thought he had been speaking to Lord Mandelson, the suspected knower of all secrets.

    Jeremy Brown and Nick Clegg video (November 2009)

    RELATED

    Follow-up posts on Laws

    ETCETERA




    Free Hit Counter


    Tony Blair to advise Venture Capitalists Khosla, Silicon Valley

    May 26, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here. A recent comment“the terrorist lackeys must be really crazy to suggest that politicians like Blair are guilty of any offence. Why don’t they go for the real terrorists and murderers who are trying to infiltrate and change the enlightened western world as we know it?”
  • Comment at end

    26th May 2010

    Vinod Khosla and Tony Blair on Greentech Media TV(1).mp4

    kanellosgtm — 24 May 2010 — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Vinod Khosla discuss technical and policy challenges to climate change.

    New Labour dies Blairless, even Brownless, and they all race back to the future. Or so it seems, since Ed The Miliband has more supportive nominations than the bookies favourite, big brother David.

    SAUSALITO, CA - MAY 24: Khosla Ventures founder Vinod Khosla (L) and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (R) arrive at the Khosla Ventures Cleantech Discussion May 24, 2010 in Sausalito, California. Khosla Ventures founder Vinod Khosla announced today that Tony Blair Associates will serve as special advisors to Khosla Ventures to advocate for environmental issues and use their global relationships to assist Khosla's broad portfolio of clean technology companies maximize their effectiveness in achieving their environmental goals. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

    THE WINNER TAKES IT ALL

    So, as the ConDem coalition ousts his old colleagues after the “hung parliament” election, is Tony Blair crying into his glass of 1992 Screaming Eagle? Hardly. As their three times election winner departed for other challenges he told the old gang that they were “the future now”.  They’re making “the most of it”.

    Cheers, guys and gals.

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gestures while questioning entrepreneurs during an announcement with Khosla Ventures in Sausalito, Calif., Monday, May 24, 2010. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

    Tony Blair, centre, sits with a group of entrepreneurs and leads a discussion. At far right is Vinod Khosla, founder of Khosla Ventures. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

    Tony Blair gestures after being introduced by Vinod Khosla, left. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

    Soraa co-founder Steve DenBaars (2L), Calera CEO Brent Constantz (2R), and EcoMotors CEO Don Runkle (R) look on as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (C) speaks during the Khosla Ventures Cleantech Discussion May 24, 2010 in Sausalito, California.

    Khosla Ventures and Tony Blair. ( Photo by Jakub Mosur)

    Mr Blair, the Man for all Reasons, has just been enlisted as an adviser into the venture capitalist world of Khosla Ventures in Silicon Valley. That’ll rile the bruvvers back home no end.

    Luvly, jubbly.

    Tony Blair’s Next Act

    Michael V. Copeland, Senior Writer, CNN, TechFortune

    A silent cement factory on the Northern California coast is not where you would expect to find a former British Prime Minister on a Sunday afternoon. But there was no mistaking a blue-blazered Tony Blair hopping down from a black SUV as it rolled to a stop in a cloud of dust in front of a series of construction trailers. The reason for Blair’s visit to this windy stretch of the Pacific just north of Monterey was also immediately recognizable in the next person to be disgorged from the vehicle: Vinod Khosla, arguably venture capital’s leading green technology investor.

    Blair, the consummate politician, has joined Khosla, the relentless technologist, at his eponymous venture capital firm as a senior advisor. Like Al Gore before him with VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Blair will be a rainmaker for Khosla Ventures, making introductions and helping match technologies with geo-politics and policy to fight climate change. Britain’s roving diplomat will be compensated, but that is not the main driver, both men are quick to say. So it’s not fair to label Blair a venture capitalist – yet.

    “Let me be absolutely clear,” Blair, says flashing his megawatt smile,  “I am not a financial expert or a technology expert. There are two things I can help with: Understanding what the trends are in government policy and regulations. And there is a global set of connections that I may be able to help him make.”

    The cement factory that Blair toured is operated by Calera, a startup in which Khosla has invested, whose idea is to take carbon dioxide gas from any source – in this particular case of from a neighboring power plant – and with the addition of sea water and some fancy processes turn it into aggregate for cement or cement itself.  The process is a high-tech (and high-volume) version of what happens when so-called “hard” water forms those white calcium deposits in your shower head. In the bathroom, it’s called a nuisance. At the industrial scale Calera is testing, it’s called carbon sequestration.

    Khosla, who is never shy about stating the correctness of his opinion, is clear about why he needs Blair’s help to bring technologies like Calera’s to the world. “Energy and climate change involves more complexity, more nuances, more politics, and more policy influences than Silicon Valley has ever been involved with via say a website, a semiconductor company or a search engine,” Khosla says. “There is a lot I don’t know as a technologist, and frankly I worry a lot about what I don’t know. That is where Tony can help.”

    Blair and Khosla are of the same mind that tackling climate change is perhaps the most important problem facing the globe. “If the science is correct, we will end up facing an uncertain future, not just in environmental terms but in economic terms,” Blair says. “It’s one of those things that illustrates most critically the clash between short-term political interests and  the long-term interests of the public.”

    Both men also agree that any solutions must be rooted in business. Markets must drive the adoption of technologies, and profit must be a possibility if real change is to occur, Blair says. “My view of climate change is very simple. We are going to have to come up with solutions to tackle climate change that allows our economies to grow. From a practical point of view we have to make a low-carbon future business-friendly. “

    That friendliness must extend to the developing economies of the world if any efforts are to stand a chance of success. “China, India and other parts of the developing world are not going to sacrifice everything because we tell them they must,” Blair says. “We need solutions for the developing world, and for the rest of the planet that change the way we consume and the way we grow. What government can do is create a framework of incentives that business and industry can go out and develop the technologies to take advantage of.”

    What Blair won’t be doing is hammering out term sheets with prospective startups. “I don’t expect him to get deals done,” Khosla says. “But I would I ask him his advice on a technology before entering Europe with it. I want his opinions on which geographies are best suited to what technologies, and what we should do first in the U.S., in Europe and in China, Africa and the rest of the world.”

    Still, watching Blair plunge his hands into a drum filled with the gooey cement-like product of the Calera factory, it’s clear he will get his hands dirty both literally and figuratively. Though he has plenty on his plate, including negotiations in the Middle East, Blair seems genuinely excited about the chance to bring new technologies to bear in the fight against climate change. He says he and his team will jump in on individual companies if they can offer some help. And should everyone involved do well financially, by doing good for the environment, so much the better.

    “This next phase of action over environment will be taken only if it is seen as part of an enlightened self-interest,” Blair says. “That is how we can make efforts toward combating climate change effective, and that is what this partnership is really all about.”

    In case you wondered, this is not a new interest of Mr Blair’s. Long before most leading politicians he was interested in how technology can best serve climate change needs, as evidenced here and with his association with the Climate Group, as here in June 2007 the day before he left Downing Street.

    More reports on his new Khosla position here:




    Free Hit Counter



    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 1,234 other followers