The Last Toryboy

2004-03-17T01:23:00.000Z

Alright, the last post was harsh. I'm a little calmer now.

The problem here is about methods, I maintain. Most European governments take an essentially defensive view to dealing with terror. Cops, bureaucrats, dare I say it, the European Arrest Warrant. (The EU likes to concentrate on domestic law enforcement, it lets em accrete power with a "good" reason).

The EU's desire to extend its tentacles naturally biases it towards such methods, and European experience with terrorism suggests that it's even the way to go. The IRA and ETA and all the other groups, after all, have been dealt with more or less successfully, on the whole, in this way.

After a while domestic terror groups can be worn down. People get sick of being searched all the time by police, they get sick of their fellow countrymen planting bombs. They want a quiet life. Eventually they start to lose their support, their politics get tarnished - in short, the movement begins to falter. This has happened to the IRA pretty much, its even happened to ETA I believe. European experience suggests this works, Europeans think these methods, concentrated on domestic intervention via police and new laws and such, is the way to go. European experience of using the military has been generally bad. Internment in Northern Ireland and other "hard" approaches didnt work, for example.

What this ignores however is that AQ is not a domestic terror group. It's not the Arabs who are providing tacit or actual support for AQ who are getting worn down by strip searches, bombs, collateral damage, and the intrusiveness of a strong domestic anti terror stance. The 95% of Middle Eastern Arabs who are not nutcases are in the Middle East. They are out of the loop. You can bet that if it was -them- getting stripsearched for their own protection because some of their fellow countrymen just will not give up, that after 20 years, they'd start to get jaded and wonder what the hell its all for, and is it worth it.

But they don't even notice. Its the Europeans getting the police state, the Arabs don't care. This is why we have to go in there and sort them out. Domestic terror can be dealt with by purely domestic solutions, but when the terrorists are coming from Somewhere Else you have to take the fight to them. Assuming you want the problem to end, of course.

Europeans don't get this. Theres a paradigm shift involved here, from domestic terror to an altogether new breed, personified by al-Qaeda. In some ways domestic terror was international, in that the IRA went and trained the FARC and ETA, but thats not quite the same. Their powerbase is still at home, within reach of the laws of the victim country. AQ however, is not.

Again, its not actual cowardice or appeasement, its more like... an incorrect policy. Partly its driven by the fact that most European countries aren't actually capable of acting in force in other countries after idiotically slashing their defence budgets. (What happened to the Bundeswehr is terrible, given that in the 1980s they were probably the best army in the world, man for man). Partly its because of their inability to come to grips with what it is they are facing. Its not the same old IRA here. This is new, and requires new solutions.

As for why Europe can't seem to grasp the thorns, there are probably two major factors here at work. The first is the Europress, which is rabidly anti-American on the whole. Anything the US does is bad. The US should defer to European experience at terrorism. Etc. etc. The message is made all the more powerful by the fact that, on the face of it, the Europeans -do- have more experience dealing with terrorism, though not of the nihilistic AQ variety. The second is the EU itself, which is pushing various political agendas - transnationalism, accretion of power currently held by national parliaments to the supranational EU institutions. Its in the interests of the ruling class to pursue these policies, whether or not they actually work or not.

2004-03-16T17:55:00.000Z

It's been a long time since I last posted. Still too busy to post really, but theres a phenomenon going around the internet right now which compels me to respond.

Unless you've been living on Mars the last week, you'll know that a series of al-Qaeda bombs killed 200 and injured over a thousand more in Madrid, that the Socialists won the Spanish election, and that the Socialists have vowed that they will pull out of Iraq.

That, however, is merely the backdrop for the phenomenon that compels me to respond. That phenomenon, ladies and gentlemen, is this :-

The people of Spain marched in the streets on Friday. Then they crawled on their knees into their voting booths on Sunday. (denbeste.nu)

Or this...

Sir, I humbly submit to you, that it is bad form for a nation to advertise its complete pussification. (coldfury.com)

Or, perhaps, this...

We have seen the spectacle of nine million Spaniards, demonstrating their grief in the streets, their hands raised and painted white in a poignant gesture of mass surrender. (davidwarrenonline.com

Cowards, huh? Let me give you some views from the peanut gallery, as I sit here, in an engineering company's office somewhere in Cambridgeshire. Now, I, as those who've read this blog before and/or know me will know, have long supported the Iraq war, and was optimistic long before the troops even went in. But as you are doubtless aware the British electorate is pretty much on a knife edge on tihs subject. Some agree, some disagree, probably most lie somewhere between the two extremes. Now, lets have a look at the various bodies of opinion which hold sway here.

Tony Blair looks like he's been caught telling porkies to the British electorate over weapons of mass destruction. Did Iraq have them, or not? I personally think they are irrelevant pretty much, but when the Prime Minister goes to war, and the casus belli turns out to be at best an exagerration, at worst a deliberate fabrication, that looks pretty bad for the Just War brigade.

The other group of people don't really think that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism at all. Maybe it was about oil, but I think most just think it was a mistake (ie, the Americans are wrong in thinking that invading Iraq will make the West more secure). These people are basically isolationist. Good examples can be found over at Airstrip One.

Some people just don't like anything the US does, and will oppose it on principle. They are on the Left, the USA is on the Right, and never the twain shall meet. I think these people are just being dogmatic. I so hate closed minds.

More people think the whole idea of a "war on terrorism" is hogwash. Terrorism, to these people, is not something you can "war" on. Its not really backed by countries, its more an ideology. I think this attitude is prevalent thanks to the IRA, where such an analysis is pretty much accurate I would say. These people think that the way to solve this is not via soldiers, but police. International terrorism is a different beast I would say, you can't send a few coppers into Syria to serve notices on Khalid the Bomber after all unless the Syrian government lets you, and the Syrian (or Afghan, or Iraqi) governments aren't (or weren't in the case of the Iraqi's) about to do that. But thats an opinion, I suppose, albeit a wrong one in my view.

I leave the best till last - there is of course the pro-war camp. Which is itself split, as some pro-war people just love the UN for mystifying reasons, but anyway, there it is.

Now, I think that the above camps (along with the pro-war camp) are pretty much replicated, more or less and with some themes peculiar to each nation, all throughout Europe - and indeed, all throughout America. There are differences, of course, in the number of people in different countries who support each position, but they are, essentially, the positions people take. They are, in short, political opinions that people hold.

Now. Take a closer look... you will find something to disagree with in that spectrum unless your a political weathervane. What is missing in those options?

Simply, whats missing is cowardice. You may disagree with whats going on but that's not indicative of a yellow belly, necessarily - it could be simply because someone disagrees. I know a significant number of people who fit into the "You can't fight terrorism as if it was a war" category, and most of these people are "We should arrest all the IRA and through them in the jailcell, while deporting every Muslim in the country" category. These people patently are not different from the pro-war people because they are cowardly and the hawks are brave, but because of political difference.

I dare say there are a few cowards, but I've not met anybody who is so scared of being blown up on the Tube tomorrow that it will influence their vote. People here are pretty fatalistic about terrorism. Al-Qaeda, IRA, *shrug*, same bombs, new names. The apolitical don't really care about the stripe of the bomber.

And thats the rub, ladies and gentlemen. Cowardice? I'm not an expert on Spain, but lets see if they are a people likely to be fatalistic, or cowardly, about terrorism.

In Spain, every MP not belonging to the political wing of ETA must have a permanent escort lest they be attacked by ETA. Every non-Basque Nationalist Basque city councillor, and even some of the nationalist ones, also have similar escort. ETA managed to shoot the prime minister of Spain in 1973, they tried and failed to kill the Spanish king, they had a go at Aznar and failed, they've been trying to kill Spanish politicians and agents of the Spanish state - judges, policemen, soldiers - for the best part of 20 years.

The Basque Country, you may notice, despite this 20 year long terror campaign, is still a part of Spain.

And you people have the gall to accuse them of cowardice, simply because they disagree with you? If the USA wants other countries electorates to back them up, really back them up, you guys need to do some convincing. It's not that people are cowards. Its that people disagree with you. You've got a tough job, mind. The Europress isn't exactly favourable to the US. But cowardice? These bloggers are not convincing anybody. If the people who make these opinions actually want allies, I suggest they either say some more positive things, educate themselves about how the Spanish have been staunch against terror since before the average US citizen even knew what terror was, or if they can't manage that, bite their damn lip and shut up. Because I have read some crap in my lifetime, but the above posts? Reek of arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, and probably a dozen other negative words I can't be bothered to think up right now.

I will repeat - Someone who does not agree with you about how to deal with terrorism is not necessarily a coward. When that someone has been enduring a terror campaign which is probably beyond American comprehension, to be blunt - I'm not talking about the US army who do have counterterror experience, I'm talking about US society which, pre 9/11, was blissfully and happily ignorant about what real terror is while Spanish officials were getting car bombed - having a few armchair warriors on the internet fulminating like this because another country has the temerity to disagree with you, well, to be honest it makes me sick.

Also, your not going to win buddies with that attitude. Steven Den Beste for example (Who likes to say the French - the guys who butchered Algerians by the thousand, blew up a Greenpeace ship that got in their way, and pressgang nutcases from all over the world into the Foreign Legion - are effeminate, mainly because of their political views - and God knows, I'm no Francophile) makes it very plain that really, he doesn't want European help, and he's proud of that fact. Given that attitude - what do you expect? Instant agreement with every American policy, just because? Scorn in, backup out?

It doesn't work like that guys. I'm sorry.

If any Americans read this, I'm real curious what you think, am I way off base here? Email me, I'm curious.

2004-01-05T05:55:00.000Z

Well, I'm back from a Christmas of debauchery and drink (not a traditional Christmas at all, I'm afraid), and back reading the news once more.

Soon as I turned to NRO I promptly found something that caused one of my brows to arch in this VDH piece.

Most of it, as per usual, I agree with, so I'm only nitpicking again.

Instead, the elite Westerner talks about “occupied lands” from which Israel has been attacked four times in the last 60 years — in a manner that Germans do not talk about an occupied West they coughed up to France or an occupied East annexed by Poland. Russia lectures about Jenin, but rarely its grab of Japanese islands. Turkey is worried about the West Bank, but not its swallowing much of Cyprus. China weighs in about Palestinian sovereignty but not the entire culture of Tibet; some British aristocrats bemoan Sharon’s supposed land grab, but not Gibraltar.

Eh? Gibraltar? VDH should write about things he knows about, clearly. Him citing Gibraltar as a land grab is a bit ironic really. First, a bit of history. Gibraltar was ceded to the United Kingdom by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which means it's been British for longer than there has even been such a thing as the United States of America. Admittedly it was spoils of war, but every modern nation state in the Americas came originally from spoils of war as well if Gibraltar is said to have done - 300 years down the road I don't think such an allegation is really valid.

Now, that little historical footnote wouldn't really stir me to rebut VDH, but what does is the sheer irony of modern Gibraltarian politics when set against that comment. It so happens that the UK government has been trying to get rid of Gibraltar and give it back to Spain, for reasons of being communautaire in the EU - and besides, Spain has long wanted it back. The Gibraltarians were not even going to be consulted, as being a mere crown dependency they don't get a constitutional say in what happens to them.

However, the Gibraltarians ran their own referendum in dismay to make their views known, and 99% of them wanted to stay as a British dependency. This hasn't stopped our most honourable Tony Blair from doing his level best to get rid of the Rock in return for political kudos from Europe, mind.

In short, bad example, Victor, really bad example. That would cause any supporter of Gibraltar to fulminate.

As an aside, his charge of dislike of Israel being rooted in anti-Semitism rings a bit hollow too. "British aristocrats", eh? Well, I would presume such people would be Tories, and their being anti-Semitic seems a little odd given that the current Tory leader, who has been met with rapture from MPs and rank-and-file alike, is a Jew. Charges of anti-Semitism are, I think as far as British aristocrats are concerned, more than a little trite and actually damage his argument greatly. I figure the "British aristocrat" is probably a mythical figure that carries some resonance in revolutionary America, but here I think myth and reality are somewhat divorced...

Any dislike of Israel on the part of a British Tory is probably not so much due to anti-Semitism but due to things like the Irgun, not base anti-Semitism.

2003-12-19T13:07:00.000Z

Quite a good article from Steven here, where he fulminates against the tranzi agenda.

I think I'm even more worried about the tranzi agenda than he is, myself, given that while the USA is in no danger of being gobbled up by anybody, the UK is right now teetering on the edge of the tranzi/EU abyss.

What can I say. Read the whole thing. All of his political points, and his analysis of the politics attached to the War on Terror, I agree with.

One point of contention, nothing to do with his analysis of current events - it's not exactly true that the British got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan, though I know it's currently fashionable to say so. Indeed, I was arguing, before Afghanistan started, that history already taught us how to deal with Afghanistan, just as much as it taught us how not to.

There were three Anglo-Afghan wars, the first around 1840, the second around 1880, and the third around 1920. The third Anglo-Afghan war, nothing more than a few skirmishes, is not considered in the following rant. Some background to explain the reasons why the wars occurred is also necessary, so you can properly understand the British war aims.

The reasons behind the Anglo-Afghan wars was the British desire to form a buffer state to protect British India against the ever-expanding Russian Empire. Afghanistan, and especially the Khyber and Michni passes into India, were deemed to be of strategic importantance in protecting India.

The first Anglo-Afghan war was a straightforward attempt to annex Afghanistan, and it was an unmitigated disaster. The Afghan leader, Dost Mohammed, was easily deposed (his son, also called Dost Mohammed, took over at the end of the war), but the British expeditionary force was forced to retreat in the face of Afghan resistance, and while retreating they were massacred on the way back to India. The expeditionary force consisted of about 4500 soldiers, and another 8000 or so camp followers. Following this loss, the British made a punitive strike against Kabul, with a force entering the city and burning it, before cutting their losses and pulling back to India. The Russians, meanwhile, continued their expansion southwards towards India, and by 1850 the Russians were beginning to encroach on Afghanistan itself. The British war aims had evidently not been realised.

The Second Anglo-Afghan War was still more political, and was a much larger and more serious affair than the first. The British had reopened diplomatic relations with Afghanistan in the intervening years, and had also concluded a treaty with the Russians, agreeing that Afghanistan was to be considered outside Russian or British influence. Thus, during the time between the Afghan wars, the British were satisfied that India was secure from Russian expansion.

In 1878 the Russians sent a diplomatic mission to Afghanistan. The British, feeling threatened, also wished to send a mission, but the Afghan leader, Sher Ali, refused it and threatened that any diplomats would be stopped upon entering the country.

The viceroy of India at the time called Sher Ali's bluff, and a British diplomatic mission was dispatched - the Afghans duly turned it back, thus sparking the second Anglo-Afghan war.

40,000 British troops were sent into Afghanistan in a three pronged attack. Sher Ali attempted to appeal to the Russian tsar for assistance, but was unable to do so given the difficulties of travel in 19th century Central Asia, and the British soon occupied most of the country, with Sher Ali dying in 1879.

Sher Ali's son signed the Treaty of Gandarmak with the British, which relinquished Afghan foreign policy to the British in exchange for no further British encroachment on Afghan lands. An Afghan uprising late in 1979 was put down, but Ali's son then abdicated, probably fearing assassination.

Things then went sour, with the British garrison at Kabul being massacred, and in a replay of the first Afghan war a British retaliatory punitive expedition (the Battle of Maiwand) was a victorious slaughter for the British. After this, the British began to pull out in order. However, before pulling out, the British installed Abdur Rahman Khan as amir of Afghanistan, a master stroke - Rahman being acceptable to the Afghan people, but also to the British.

In the years after the Second Afghan War, it became clear that this time around, the British war aims of creating a buffer state had been successful. During Rahman's reign, the northern border of Afghanistan with Russia was demarcated during the Pandjeh Crisis of 1885, which stopped further Russian advancement towards India. On the southern border with India, the Durand Line was established (not entirely with Rahmans support), with the British claiming a number of militarily significant areas as the buffers they wanted (the Wakhan Corridor) and also deliberately slicing hostile Pashtun tribal lands in two. Thus, the Second Anglo Afghan War was really a tactical loss (a costly military stalemate), but a strategic victory for the British - the Durand Line still marks the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan today, and Afghanistan's foreign policy from that point on was broadly in line with British interests until full independence in the Third Anglo-Afghan war in 1920, by which point the Great Game had begun to move away from Afghan lands.

History tells us that it's quite easy to bring about "regime change" in Afghanistan - in the First and Second Anglo-Afghan wars the amir was killed and a new one put in place. If that's all the war aim is, it's one relatively easily accomplished. That was the war aim of the United States recent intervention in Afghanistan, and it was accomplished, fairly easily. Creating a lasting stability broadly favourable to a foreign power in the area is much harder. I think this was accomplished by the British in the Second Anglo-Afghan War. Annexing the area, history teaches us, is an extremely perilous course of action. The Soviets and the British the first time around both tried this, and failed.

The United States learned about the importance of having realisable war aims from Vietnam. It was a lesson hard learned, and also well learned. The US success in Afghanistan is largely a part of "not biting off more than you can chew". But just as the US can rightly claim victory in Afghanistan, even though the nation has not been annexed and is largely lawless because their war aim was topping the Taliban, not taking the place over - the British can claim victory in the latter half of the 19th century, for realising their war aims of setting up a buffer state against Russian advancement, and in delineating the northern borders of British India to British advantage. Annexing Afghanistan was not a war aim for the 19th century British, either.

2003-12-16T21:14:00.000Z

I found a classic article in the Guardian today. It amazes me that Moonbat Monbiot can write this stuff with, one presumes, a straight face. The Guardian is well known as a creator of utter tosh, but this is high grade, refined tosh as it's best.

One wonders if Monbiot has ever flown in a plane before? And one wonders if he has since seen the error of his ways and sticks to using the bus in future? Hypocrisy aside, theres just so much wrong with this that the mind boggles.

All throughout you get the undercurrent of anti-Americanism, a hatred of all things across the sea for it's own sake. Why else is there this snide bullsh*t about the Wright Brothers being frauds?

And as for the evils of the aeroplane, I think soldiers today should thank God for the inventions of those two pieces of military hardware, the aeroplane and the tank. After all, without those, we'd still be using chemical weapons and human wave attacks, probably the most horrible tactics in the history of human warfare, responsible for many an abbatoir in WW1. Ultimately the aeroplane and smart weapons have cut the human costs of warfare, even human costs to an enemy, to an incredible low. In fact, if anything negative can be said about these weapons it's that they are too humane, making war an easy option. "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." as General Lee once said. In fact it seems to be an accepted strategy of the modern kleptocrat to use his own people as political weapons to appeal to Western sensibilities, as we've got used to relatively bloodless wars.

And finally, my pet peeve is brought out - an assertion by Moonbat that global warming kills 150,000 people a year, and that aeroplanes represents a large chunk of that cost. Lies, damned lies and statistics as Disraeli said (I'm full of quotes today), and statistics from dubious, contested science is even worse than the sort of guff that Eurostat puts out. The thing that irks the most is the way he brings up this figure, as if it is an absolute, undisputed fact, which is anything but the truth. In any case, if global warming is going to kill us all, I think we should pack Monbiot off to Mars, where all the hot air he produces could do some good.

Anyway, read the article, have a laugh. It amused me, anyway.

2003-12-15T12:48:00.000Z

Blogging will still be pretty much in hiatus, but I have to make a small post to cover two things...

Firstly, of course, the capture of Saddam. Wonderful news. Perhaps more important to the US than the UK however. In fact, if anything it might make Blair's life even more miserable than it already is. It seems to me that Saddam's capture means the pressure will be on even more than before about the WMD issue. Blair doesn't have any more excuses anymore, they've bagged the Top Man, so where is the nerve gas? If, even after having Saddam interrogated, they come up with nothing, it'll be bad for Blair. Better that Saddam was never found, thus leaving some ambiguity over the WMD question.

And the other comment is - there is a new blog about, specialising in a subject dear to me own heart. EURSOC is an anti-EU blog which looks very interesting. One for the blogroll, definitely.

2003-12-11T19:48:00.000Z

While reading my friend Porphyrogenitus' blog, I found this gem from him.

Update: One other thing. One of the reasons I didn't know about this was the fact that I never heard the ~~BBC~~ EUBC report it on their World Service radio news hour.

Of course, the BBC practically is the EUBC these days. But on reflection, I thought that maybe thats not such a bad thing. I have a suggestion.

We allow the BBC to continue being the "EUBC", but in exchange, the BBC doesn't charge me their onerous license fee. After all, I hate their propaganda, and seeing my hard earned cash going on such things turns my stomach. However, presumably the various Eurocrats love it, so I think -they- should pay for it.

I'm sure d'Estaing would appreciate that, an opportunity to make a selfless donation to the Voice of the People.

They can pay for their propaganda out of their own pocket, not mine.

2003-12-10T22:28:00.000Z

If it's possible, I'm even more busy than I was in October. A shame, as I would like to blog more (specially as the work I am doing, assisting in a small way with the BTC oil pipeline which will run from Baku in Azerbaijan to Ceyhan in Turkey via Georgia has been in the news of late, with instability in Azerbaijan and Georgia). However, I have a spare moment, and so would like to link to this article written by Steven Den Beste.

I'm a European but I am stunned by the gaulle displayed by the likes of the French here. Remember that the cash on offer here originates mostly with the United States itself, who the likes of France have been moaning about for literally years. And now they are complaining that the USA has frozen them out of the potentially profitable Iraqi reconstruction.

I always knew the French had gaulle but this really astounds with it's sheer brazenness. And now the Frogs are complaining to the WTO about how the USA isn't allowed to spend it's money this way, while pulling the EU's puppet strings for a bit of extra clout.

Unbelievable. Hanging is too good for Chirac et al. If these egomaniacal continentals keep it up we'll be in a state of nuclear stalemate with the USA in a decade.

2003-10-30T13:02:00.000Z

I am too busy to blog these days, sadly. Working (indirectly) for Big Oil as a wage slave isn't all internet and laziness after all. However, given the events in the Tory Party going on right now, I must comment.

IDS is no more! Excellent. And better, the Tories are beginning to finally show some vague sense of self preservation. Not only has IDS been dispatched finally, but it looks like Michael Howhard - er, Howard - is going to become the new leader without even a political contest.

The reason why Tory leadership battles are long and ugly is because of the grassroots vote. The parliamentary party selects the candidates, then the grassroots confirm their position - but balloting the 200,000 odd members of the Tory party takes a long time, under the spotlight of a hostile BBC and all the while leaderless and impotent in the Commons. However, it looks like the parliamentary party will select a shortlist of candidates with just one name on it - Michael Howard. Thus avoiding the long campaign for the adulation of the grassroots.

It's not democratic, but it does show a degree of statesmanship and desire for power among top Tories. David Davis, my personal favourite for leader, has decided not to run against Howard but instead to back him, as have many other potential challengers. This is excellent, the party are finally taking heed of IDS' old unite or die plea (just not under IDS).

And Britain could do far worse than have Howard as Prime Minister.

As an aside it is interesting to see the Left, paragons of colour blindness, suddenly start coming up with the racist epithets regards Howard. Calling him Dracula for example because his ancestry has Romanian links. There have even been some borderline anti-Semitic comments from Jeremy Paxman, apparently. I wonder what would happen if a black politician was nicknamed "Wog" or something distasteful of that ilk? They would be (rightfully) crucified by Left and Right.

But Eastern European/vaguely Jewish descent is fair game.

As an aside I found this post by someone going by the name of Critical Mass on the Guardian readers pages (always a source of amusement) which gives 40 reasons why we should all think Howard is the Devil incarnate.

I am amused (the Guardian never fails) because most of these heresies (to leftist eyes) I actually think are excellent reasons to vote for him. A few choice examples from the list follow...

Howard attacked Labour for defending the rights of trade unionists at GCHQ (in 1979 and 1981)

Trotskyite leaning unionists lobbying from within the intelligence services? No thanks.

Howard was the Minister who brought in Clause 28 of the Local Government Act banning the "promotion" of homosexuality (March 1988)

Excellent, more please, Michael...

As Employment Secretary, Howard tried to stop attempts at EU level to introduce a 48 hour working week and to give working women statutory maternity rights (June 1991)

And again, thank you for sticking up for what I agree with, Mr Howard...

Howard dumped Sir Stephen Tumin as Chief Inspector of Prisons because he thought he was too liberal (April 1996)

Good.

...and so on. It really is a pretty good list, and very revealing of the lefty mindset.

Oh my god! He's ignoring the precious EU!!!

2003-09-15T12:16:00.000Z

NEJ!

So, Sweden has voted no for the euro, despite the tragic death of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh - and despite a campaign which apparently outspent Dubya's presidential election. (When the EU wants, the EU throws money until it gets).

The vote wasn't as wide as I would have liked it, at 56% no to 42% yes, but then I'm wary of the next vote a few years down the line. 56% saying no? That's not crushing enough to rule out repeat performances. If it was 70% No thats pretty damning, as it is I guess there will be another attempt in 5-8 years.

My cynicism aside, this bodes well for the Eurosceptic cause here in the UK. The UK is even more firmly eurosceptic than Sweden is, and I imagine Tony Blair paid close attention to what happened in Sweden. He would really be running uphill if he called a referendum here - which is, of course, why he doesn't want a referendum on the European constitution, and why he's hemming and hawing over the promised referendum on the euro. Because he knows damn well he'd lose both. All those in the US who think Blair is a great humanitarian, think that over a bit - such is the respect that this man shows for the Will of the People with regards to seeking public consent for the first written constitution this country has ever had.

Fortunately, as I predicted long ago, the pressure being put upon Blair by a well organised, highly motivated pro-referendum campaign is having the desired effect. I said it before, and I'll say it again, by hook or by crook, we'll have our referendum on the European constitution.

Best of all, I am inclined to think that any referendum intended to seal a pro-EU agenda will inevitably go the eurosceptic way in this country. The Times notes the vast resources commanded by the pro-euro lobby in Sweden to no avail, to little effect, and in the UK we actually have an Opposition who oppose (on this issue at least) so it'll be a far rockier ride for Our Tone on the referendum trail.

All EU, All Day!

2003-09-11T12:36:00.000Z

A trade union is, apparently, a

"commercial entity consisted of employees or workers having a common interest, such as all the assembly workers for one employer, or all the trades workers in a particular industry. The union is formed for the purpose of collectively negotiating with an employer (or employers) over wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. "

A laudable enough aim. However, that doesnt' appear to be what British trade unions talk about. British unions are just a front for communists, Trots and extremists, they (well, some of them) don't really give a damn about bettering the lot of their members. Have a look at this for example. I think they defy the encyclopedia's definition of what a union is...

2003-09-10T14:46:00.000Z

I don't always agree with what the War Nerd writes, but he's put up a good post here. The man has a point.

The occupation of Iraq is, in truth, going swimmingly well by any standard. Compared to any other military occupation in human history, this Iraq thing is going great. The tempo of conflict seems to be at about the same rate as Ulster at the height of the Troubles - well, given Northern Ireland is much smaller than Iraq, and not every Irish household had an RPG-7 and an AK under the bed, that tells me that, comparatively speaking, the situation in Iraq is relatively good.

I have been long sceptical about the Iraqis suddenly becoming peaceful democrats literally the next day after Saddam is ousted. That was never, ever going to happen. Americans who I accuse of naivete counter by saying they are just being optimistic - perhaps. However, these same optimists cannot be fair weather optimists - there is a distressing tendency from some optimists to mutate into pessimists at the very first hurdle.

Realism must be the order of the day. The Iraqi policy is worthy of our support. It will only fail if we, the voters, let it. Progress, very good progress, is being made every day. If the occupation takes less than a year, and it may just do that, it will be a stunning, brilliant success. It is far more likely to take several years - we must all be prepared for that. I have a pessimistic streak, and I expected at least a year of painful occupation - at the very least - and still supported it.

You must go into war with both eyes open, and when you hear terrible news, as you will for war is a terrible business, you must remember the circumstances which caused the war. If you had both eyes open you made the decision that it was worth it, and you must have the strength of will to persevere until the bitter end. Once you have started, you cannot easily stop without doing far more damage. If we pulled out of Iraq right now, the damage - political, economic, and to our own security - would be incalculable.

2003-09-10T11:39:00.000Z

In other musings on libertarianism in general, I came across a thought I found vaguely amusing. Victorian England had extremely low taxation (I hear it was around 1 percent of GDP before World War 1 permanently wrecked this country), laws which would be considered liberal compared to today (carrying a firearm was considered normal - for all except the police, surprisingly, apparently they on occasion borrowed firearms from passers by!), and a very laissez faire sort of government - I have heard that the Irish potato famine was exacerbated by the Peelite view of goverment being strictly hands off, the government was so small that it simply could not have tackled the problem effectively with that 1 percent of GDP if it tried. Also apparently, in defiance of nationalist Irish myth, they did try, but thats by the by. The government of the 19th century seemed more concerned with eradicating slavery and policing the Empire than anything else.

So... it sounds like a libertarian paradise, no?

I found this thought amusing, because I think (thought?) Victorian England is about as far from being libertarian as you could get. It was not a period of time known for live and let live after all, with strict Victorian social values. A very strange dichotomy, it seems to my modern eyes.

2003-09-10T11:33:00.000Z

Now, I know I am a right winger, but having read this I think maybe my soul is dead or something. I considered myself to be a Tory on the libertarian, as opposed to authoritarian, wing of the Right, but having read this, maybe I was wrong.

My first reaction to this article is not shock at our rights being eroded by dubious anti-terror legislation being used to stifle legitimate protest. It is more annoyance at a handful of peaceniks holding up several busy Tube stations and making other peoples lives miserable, and pleasure at the thought of cops moving these troublemakers along.

I am forced to do a little self analysis here. I am all in favour of the right to protest, but surely the right to protest does not include impeding other people from going about their daily business? If I was on the Docklands Tube when these jokers were pulling their stunt, I would be livid with anger. I am sure the chief exec of Vickers, or Fabrique Nationale, or whatever other companies were held up by their antics, were also livid.

Is this an authoritarian or libertarian right wing, viewpoint, that is the question... Or is it neither?

2003-09-09T22:30:00.000Z

It is with some pride that I point out that the Spectator had a very similar article for last weeks leader as my last blog entry. I only just got a chance to read the Speccy today, so I was a bit surprised, and happy to see that others of higher public stature than my humble self are on the same wavelength as me.

The Spectator's latest issue was actually very good in my opinion, better than the norm I would say. Dark predictions are made about the falling worth of Tony Blair - I can't say I'm totally convinced that Blair's situation is as gloomy as the Spectator paints though. This is perhaps Blair's Westland Affair, but that happened in 1985 and Maggie soldiered on for another half decade even with that hole below the waterline. The lack of a credible Opposition is part of the problem - I'm sorry, and I think IDS is a man of unusual (for a politician) integrity, but he is ill cut out to be an effective politician. Sad to say, but Iain will have to go before the Tories can be elected - he just doesnt have the required charisma.

There is also an argument about Israel, its not a new one, but the Speccy puts the case in a particularly clear and compelling way, I think.

2003-09-05T22:58:00.000Z

Which brings me to point #2. Doctor David Kelly is the second point. With the BBC aiming to blow a hole in the government's case for an Iraq war, the BBC span their own story out a little to sensationalise it, making out, by implication, that the Government acted in defiance of the advice from it's own intelligence staff, of which Dr Kelly was a member.

However, it turns out that Dr Kelly himself was absolutely convinced that war was necessary. He was not some peacenik Guardianista, like was made out at the beginning of this tragic affair. Dr Kelly may have thrown a cat into the pigeons by saying that the Government intelligence dossier was tripe, but when Lord Hutton digs away to find the truth we eventually find that Kelly himself was in fact pro-war, which is not the impression the BBC ever gave, in it's quest to find anti-war propaganda.

This is something we have to remember. We've cut out the middlemen, Campbell and Company, and we have, as a side effect of the Hutton inquiry, come across the honest opinion of the one of the weapons inspectors themselves, before it's been screened and sexed up by a media management team. If it were not for the unfortunate train of events which eventually led to this inquiry, we would never know Dr Kelly's honest opinion. It turns out his opinion was pro-war. We must not let the irrational peace-at-all-costs people hijack the inquiry to "prove" an anti-war case. Thats giving in to the likes of Andrew Gilligan, who seems to have behaved at least as despicably as the somewhat callous Government in order to find his anti-war story. The inquiry seems to have proven that the current Government is addicted to lies and spin, but to be honest, we of open eyes knew that already. Just remember that the man who committed suicide which all this is about was himself pro-war. Don't let the BBC obscure that fact. Kelly disagreed with the lies the Government felt the need to utter, but he would have agreed wholeheartedly with what actually happened in Iraq.

Now, we just have to tough it out until the job is done. The coalition forces hold all the cards. We will only lose if we blink and give up due to our own, mostly utterly unfounded, doubts.

2003-09-05T22:46:00.000Z

A couple of things to say today.

Firstly, the lack of blog activity on this site. It's been caused by work, yet again. Regarding work this week, there is a sorry tale to be told.

It has been revealed to me that I must be, in a vague sense at least, an "engineer". My official job title, as it happens, is that of a "software configuration technician" which roughly translates to lowly Visual Basic slinging minion. What I do is juggle databases and allocate I/O signals for a rather large LAN-in-development, which when it's done will control an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Sangachal in Turkey via remote.

Normally what I do is pretty abstract. However, what I do is eventually built according to specifications which are in part made up by my good self, though I am sufficiently remote from the actual hardware for this fact to slip past me every so often. Anyway, to explain this sorry tale, you must first understand that every wire in this LAN is given it's own address so you can find it - makes sense, no? The address consists of the facility code (pumping station 1 for example), followed by the station (which cabinet the wire goes to), the module (which I/O module within the station it goes to) and the channel (which socket on said I/O module). So a wire might have an address of PSG1-2-101-3. Which would be Pumping Station Georgia 1, Station 2, Position 101, Channel 3.

Easy enough thus far. However, it turns out that, while in the middle of designing a chunk of IO, it was revealed that Station 1 is reserved in the software, and we have to start with station 2, somewhat counterintuitively. So we had to increment the numbers of all the stations in this pumping station - originally there were stations 1 to 14, now there are 2 to 15.

Easy enough. Until... a few weeks later, on Monday this very week, when we looked in a cabinet to check that what was built matched what we needed. Everything looked right, and we were feeling proud of ourselves, when we noticed the ferrels - the little pieces of plastic stuck on each wire with a label in it showing the wire address.

The labels had not been incremented. And thus were wrong. And there were... rather a lot. Which now have to be unpicked and relabelled, at great expense...

Bugger.

This is why I know I am at least in part an engineer. I design something on a computer, and eventually it becomes a real object, sitting in a workshop, a tangible thing. And if I make a mistake, it's built incorrectly, and unlike a purely software based system, hardware cannot be changed so easily... Engineers (even such lowly ones as myself) have responsibility for a lot of money.

So given this bungle which was due in large part to my own mishap, I have been chastened enough to not be in the mood for blogging this week. Even Alastair Campbells resignation (Yay!) which would normally be cause for celebration and rowdiness was unable to stir me from my bungle inspired penance.

Hopefully from now on this blog will slowly return to something like it's original productivity.

2003-08-29T15:14:00.000Z

Not much blogging today, not because of lack of time, but because I am absorbed reading archives from Dilacerator. While perusing this fine commentary, I came across this entry made so long ago that by blogosphere reckoning is pretty much prehistoric, but it still struck a chord in me.

The chord is this - a favourite blog topic, especially when talking about EUrope, is to talk about the European demographic time bomb. What irks me is that the United Kingdom is all to easily lumped into this European basket of basket cases. As the figures suggest, that is not true (it's also something well known in political circles here - one aspect of Euroscepticism is keeping the UK as far from Euroland as possible, as Euroland has ravenous, desperate eyes upon fat UK pension provisions, and wants some pillage). While musing on that, my brain clicked another notch - just about everything said about Euroland does not apply to the UK. Our army is not a joke. Our navy is not a joke. We do not make a habit of puckering up to dictators. While civil liberties are under threat of erosion here, the "free country" thing is very much in the public consciousness - as an example, I personally have no passport, no driving license, no form of official identification at all other than a birth certificate (which is a pretty basic slip of paper). The government wants ID cards, a thing which most other Euroland nations consider a simple fact of life, and the British electorate and indeed many politicians are generally highly sceptical of the entire concept. Oh, and to poke the eye of the intrusive census bureaucrat, apparently the UK has more practicing Jedi than Jews.

So, today I'm rowing the boat of the sceptred isle away from the mainland, permanently. The UK is not EUrope, and is fundamentally eurosceptic. We are grudging members of the EU not because we want to, but because we have been conned and tricked into our current position. And there are a growing number of us who want shot of the EU in it's entirety, let alone mere euroscepticism. (The EU has some good aspects. The single market is a potential good aspect. The good is however far, far outweighed by the bad).

So - enough of lumping the UK in with EUrope, k? It is a geographical accident, nothing more. Fine when talking about geography, not fine when talking about politics. I know some people, Porphy, sometimes Steven do say such things as "Europe with the exception of Britain" already, lets see some more of that from the blogosphere rather than painting my country and I with the blue and stars of the Euroflag. I notice the man behind Dilacerator himself did not at least lump us in with EUrope in that post on demographics...

Out, now, I say.

I will endeavour next week to think of something intellectual to compose, rather than resorting to my more usual invective. :)

2003-08-28T20:18:00.000Z

Yeah, I can imagine the rush to register a .eu domain. I have zero interest in such a thing, none whatsoever. I dont actually have a domain name, but if I did want to register one, it would either be a US one and not have an international code, or it would be a .uk, without even the slightest doubt.

I am amused to see the website predicting the biggest rush of registrations since the .com era. Lets wait for that bit of ego to be punctured like all the other pronouncements from the Most Holy EUrocrats, eh?

"Covering 15 Member States (and soon to be enlarged), the .eu domain is more akin to generic TLDs (like .com and .net) than normal country codes (like .uk)."

Oh no! My .uk domain is going to be small and weak! It will be pointless to have a .uk address in the face of this behemoth, obviously.

(They chose to make .uk the unfashionable old model, eh? Not .de? Or .fr? The European Union have a propaganda problem that needs some targeted brainwashing to fix? Aw.)

As no doubt anybody who reads this will know by now, British patriotism is certainly alive and well in this corner of the Web, at least.

2003-08-28T19:46:00.000Z

Look what a friend of mine sent to me.

Heh.

2003-08-28T11:44:00.000Z

This blog is great, the best blog I've seen for a long time. The incisiveness and sharp mind of Steven Den Beste but written by a European and so with a European slant. And his analyses of the EU I couldn't agree with more.

One for the blogroll. C'est magnifique!

2003-08-27T10:56:00.000Z

What with bank holidays and work, blogging has been light again recently, unfortunately.

Today I plan on responding to this guest blog over at Porphyrogenitus' site. I think, broadly speaking, Nelson Ascher's analysis is in the right direction, but I have a "few" rebuttals and counterarguments to make, nevertheless.

Firstly, about European nations carving up markets by selling goods to tinpot dictators - this argument alone doesn't really wash, because everybody is at it. The USA was edgy about the UK going to war against Argentina precisely because the USA was busy kissing up to General Galtieri. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, and as additional rich irony, the bombs the Argentines used against the Royal Navy to great effect were actually sold to them by - us. Oops!
You cannot simply ignore an economy because you dont like the man in charge. Even under sanctions, trade typically still goes on, albeit in a limited manner. Mad Bob Mugabe is not a popular man on the world stage, I'm sure the UK still trades with Zimbabwe though. We may not be selling him guns anymore, but you can bet UK business wouldn't turn down Zimbabwe custom unless forced.

In defence of the UK and USA when measured against the antics of La France, I will say that when the chips are down the USA and UK both remember who their real friends are. Reagan made clear who's side he was on when he had to choose between Galtieri and Thatcher. The French did the same when they had to choose between Bush and Saddam. The French made the wrong choice, however.

Anyway, I'm not sure the whole neo-imperialism argument washes. There wasnt much European imperialism going on during the Cold War, and when it did happen, even when it was arguably in the US interest, it wasn't allowed to happen (Suez, anyone?). Speaking of the Suez Crisis, if your looking for a root cause of anti-Americanism in the UK, you couldn't do much better than Suez being that cause, at least among those old enough to remember it, those influenced by those old people, and, perhaps, the Armed Forces. Not exactly like the Europeans had a free ride in the Cold War.

In fact, with Suez in mind, I suggest a counterargument - during the Cold War Europe understood the need to be in tight with the USA because the Soviet Union was the overriding threat. When the USA made it clear that they wanted the UK and France out of Suez, neither European nation had much choice in the matter - it was too much of an own goal with the Russians on the scene. Now the Cold War is over, the Russians don't scare Europe anymore, so Europe doesn't really feel they need the US anymore, and are more willing to bitch and whine about getting their way, as well as flex what muscles they have, to the annoyance of Uncle Sam.

I don't think Europe incited Arab extremism. I don't think Europe could incite it even if they wanted to. I don't think Arabs really give a shit about Europe, to be honest. I think European concessions made to Arab extremism may make it seem that way, however. Said concessions also mean that Europe in places is almost as much a safe haven for Arab extremists as Saudi Arabia is - I don't think this is the intent of the various European governments, I just think its the end result of various spineless policies which have been in vogue in Europe for at least a decade. As an example, have a look at Abu Hamza. The UK wanted him out for years, but no dice. (They still havn't managed to find a way to arrest him, despite his treasonous sedition. In the end they got him on a technicality through the Charity Commission to at least kick him out of his mosque. A hard case to solve, given the right to free speech and given you cant have MI5 stake out mosques without annoying "the Islamic Community".).

This doesn't mean the UK government is culpable in promoting Arabic extremism - it just means that Eurolaws like the Human Rights Act have a down side, such as letting nutters like this preach. The UK wasnt thinking of Arab extremism when signing up to the Euro Declaration of Human Rights, it was thinking of happy blissful "civilised" EUtopia. Abu Hamza is merely an unforeseen side effect. I am sure there are many more Abu Hamza-like stories throughout Euroland.

Regarding NGOs and such... there is most assuredly a general anti-American sentiment on the EU continent. (No, really? :) This isn't a Left Wing Conspiracy, though. It's more... culture clash, if anything. Steven Den Beste wrote at length about American "soft power", of which this is an example article - anti-Americanism, in all its various forms, is effectively a EU equivalent. It's not directed by politicians (though politicians, like Herr Schroder, take advantage of it for political ends). It's just a general Continental consensus, just like the American consensus that France isn't a nice place to on holiday right now. I'll say this again, as I think it's important - it is not (necessarily) the "elites" causing this. The elites take advantage of it. Tony Blair actually bucked the trend and went against this undercurrent, and it almost cost him, may still almost cost him, his job. The European Left is well motivated and adept at exerting pressure when they want to. In Cambridge, where I live, the whole city came to a halt during one protest during Gulf War 2, but they didnt represent a majority or even a plurality of the local population. Unfortunately, I don't see many (any?) Right wing groups out to counter these people. I didnt see any Pro War Marchers after all. Thats not to say that Europeans are not pro war, according to polls a majority here were pro war, though you'd never guess it be watching the BBC. The likes of the BBC is really the reason why there is such rampant anti Americanism. Whenever you see the phrase "European Elite" regarding anti-Americanism, swap that phrase for "European mainstream journalist" and you've squared the circle. The only real political figure who seems to be anti American for the sake of it is Chirac. German leaders are anti American for domestic reasons, not as a matter of principle.

I think it speaks wonders of the United Kingdom that most are not virulently anti American here, and that the majority of the population has an Atlanticist, not European, view. Given the fact that this is still true despite the best efforts of the Beeb and the Guardian, it says much about English loyalty.

You may think that given this screed I disagree utterly with what Nelson Ascher has written. Not really. While the above is quite lengthy it's really picking at the details not the fact, and not the predicted future. Continental Western Europe is not a US ally. I disagree with Ascher about the precise reasons and history why, but the bottom line is the same truth. It makes geopolitical sense, given this truth, for the EU to poke the American eye whenever possible, and will happen more and more as time goes on. There is, however, light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't think the EU, in anything like its present form anyway, will last more than two decades from this day. Therefore, the EU is a short term threat at best to the US. And furthermore, I think only a fairly smallish core of nations are vehemently anti-American, centred around France. EU enlargement will dilute this core, possibly to the point of irrelevance.

2003-08-22T11:50:00.000Z

My tax money is being spent on pro-EU propaganda, this time by the Foreign Office themselves. The usual Eurorubbish can be found here, ranging from the egomaniacal to the trivial - "we are in the EU because it is the largest market in the world", "50 percent of our trade is with the EU" (Well what do you expect after 30 years of tariff barriers with the rest of the world?), "the price of air travel to the EU has halved" and on and on and on...

Tucked away in the morass I found this.

Have you ever wondered what the European Parliament does? Or how EU legislation is created? Or maybe you want to find out who your MEP is?

You want to find out who you voted for? Sheez. That highlights the fundamental disconnect between electorate and EUrocrats right there.

Oh, and another gem, I think maybe this is just poor website layout or something, but I also found this...

Below are links to real examples of how our EU membership has benefited this country - how it has benefited business, consumers, the regions, students and school children, improved the quality of our lives as citizens and employees, and benefited our international interests.

Beneath this paragraph are - zero links :).

There is apparently a forum available on the site too. Links via Airstrip One.

2003-08-22T11:01:00.000Z

I was idly surfing the intranet here during a dull moment, and came across a Financial Times article which was about ABB, which I read with interest.

To summarise, ABB (a Swedish-Swiss engineering company employing 150,000 people) was on the ropes in 2002, and very nearly went bankrupt for a number of reasons. As the article says,

Many investors almost gave up hope as the combination of asbestos, corporate governance scandals, declining orders and mounting debt savaged the company's share price and credit rating.

However, things have turned around for ABB and the future looks much brighter for the company than before. The article talks about future US orders in the wake of the blackout there - ABB is a major supplier of transmission equipment (60 percent of the high voltage equipment market share) in the US, and so is in a strong position to profit now the US government is eager to revamp the aging and inadequate US power grid.

And then, in the midst of this article, I find this very amusing comment from Jurgen Dormann, the CEO of ABB :-

Many investors almost gave up hope as the combination of asbestos, corporate governance scandals, declining orders and mounting debt savaged the company's share price and credit rating.

Paradoxically, the scale of the problems provided the only hope of saving the group, allowing Mr Dormann to force through the radical surgery which had been so difficult to impose before.

"[Our] people were just not aware," said Mr Dormann. "You [the Financial Times] had the impression it was close to bankruptcy, but the people on the [factory] floor - even in the middle management - felt this would probably never happen. But we are not in France, so it was really an issue.

"Under such circumstances, one can act very quickly and decisively."

Not France, indeed. Dormann strikes me as a CEO very much focused upon getting results, he sold off 7 of ABB's 9 divisions to get the company profitable, cutting about 50,000 jobs in the process - major restructuring, indeed. But his efforts appear to have worked, and ABB's share price has been steadily recovering ever since Dormann moved in. So it looks like the short term pain helped in the long term.

This is the discipline of the market in action. If ABB had gone bankrupt, it might have been the end of ABB, but it wouldn't have been the end of the world - other, more competitive and efficient companies would have gobbled up ABB's market share. The jobs would have moved, the money would have moved, but the economy overall would be leaner and more efficient. As it happens ABB had the guts to do what needed to be done, so it wasn't quite that tale of woe, but still, this is a good example of how the discipline offered by the market keeps companies healthy and profitable.

I wonder what discipline there is in France making companies profitable?

Incidentally Porphy wrote a piece about the relative economic health of the Eurozone/US/UK with lots of links to mainstream media sources on the subject, which make dark mutterings of the lack of flexibility in the EU labour market.

2003-08-21T09:22:00.000Z

Apparently ABB is getting wormed again, by a slightly different W32.Blaster-like worm, so net access is being cut once more fairly soon for an unknown length of time.

So I'll be disappearing in a puff of logic, probably until tomorrow.

2003-08-21T08:38:00.000Z

Blogging has been non existent this week, due to factors beyond my control. My employer ABB got hit hard by the W32.Welchia worm, and the network here has been in various states of illness since Monday. The Welchia worm was actually intended to counter the W32.Blaster worm which was aimed at Microsoft last week, but it scans for new machines to infect via ICMP pings, and there was so much ICMP traffic it clogged up the networks here.

Internet access was the last thing to be restored, which they only managed to do this morning, which meant I couldn't get to Blogger.

Fortunately the internal LAN here didn't go down (though it did slow to a crawl), or that would have cost ABB a lot of money.

2003-08-15T10:40:00.000Z

I found this site which provides a status report on the sector of Iraq under British governance, for those suspicious of any evidence of progress.

Also, on the ARRSE website I found this thread which has some accounts on whats going on out there from the men in the field. Incidentally if you don't know what the TA is (its mentioned quite a bit in that thread) - Territorial Army (I guess they are a bit like the US National Guard).

2003-08-14T15:02:00.000Z

I noted my lukewarmness to Israel earlier today, and Dr Eamon Kelly responded with this link, which provides some facts about how Yasser does his best to make Israel out as the bad guys in Western eyes.

Not had much chance to check it out yet (work just struck again). But I will do.

Update OK, I've had a few minutes to peruse that site, and I've already found this laughable gem, from a pro-PLO scholar.

It is true that Hajj Amin allied himself with Hitler to get rid of the Jews. His desire to rid Palestine (and even the world) of Jewish influence was arguably genocidal, but he certainly was no “fascist.”

Deleting an entire race from the tapestry of human history is only "arguably" genocide it seems. And who cares if it is eh? He was no fascist after all, so everythings peachy.

Wow. "Scholars" of philosophy (the love of wisdom) put forward tripe like that?

2003-08-14T11:58:00.000Z

The Hutton inquiry into the suicide of Dr Kelly rumbles on. Like a huge boulder tipped off a mountainside, it's picking up speed as it heads downhill, leaving a trail of devastation, and while we can guess where it'll end up we can't foretell it's precise path until it's too late.

I've been tracking the boulder with half an eye over the last few days. It is now accepted, with material evidence, that Dr Kelly lied before the Parliamentary committee one week before his death. It is also accepted that the Government were desperately looking to spin the infamous dodgy dossier their way, and furthermore, that the BBC were responsible for some spinning of their own when it came to reporting Dr Kelly's statements.

So basically all three participants in this appear to have been lying. (Welcome to politics). The Government could end up in the soup over this, but really they seem to be guilty of spin not of overt poker faced lies. They brought some questionable intelligence to the fore, but they did not make it up. It's not exactly brilliant conduct, but then it's not something which the Blair Government hasn't done innumerable times before.

Dr Kelly also lied. A poker faced lie, in fact. However, the pressure he was under at the time was intolerable. A civil servant, he must know that you do not talk unofficially to the press, which he did. Thats practically a betrayal of the institutions to which he devoted his life. When word got out he would receive no sympathy or support from his colleagues, or his superiors - indeed, his superiors doubtless would have been actively gunning for him. His pension would have been at risk. His entire lifes work was in danger of being tarnished irrevocably. In any case, Dr Kelly, at the eye of the storm, seemed to act from good conscience originally - he had information he felt the nation needed to know - and came under attack from every angle. A few cracks in his integrity the week before he slit his wrists seems entirely forgivable given this sorry background.

The BBC also did some sexing up of their own journalism. Now this far more damning. The other liars are the Government - we know they lie already (hardly a forgiving statement, but I want Bliar out anyway, I know he lies, one more lie is not news anymore) - and a doctor under strain so great he took his own life. The BBC however has a duty towards clear, unbiased, objective reporting. It is in their charter, it is why we pay them an iniquitous license fee, so their journalism is unmarred by the lens of corporate interests. If they are incapable of providing such an unmarred story, then why do they exist??? That is the whole point, the sole point in fact, of the entire BBC news reporting apparatus' existence. They have failed. Again. They whipped up a legitimate story to such an extent that the source of the story a) was made Public Enemy Number 1 by the government, b) didn't even recognize that he was the sole source. The BBC has a lens alright - in the Telegraph's story their own employees are edging away from Auntie.

As an aside, I am puzzled by those who laugh at the Telegraph for supporting the war and now getting schizophrenic because the reasons provided by the Government are unravelling. Should the Torygraph kick Blair a bit over this, given that they would in theory like the Dodgy Dossier to be correct? Well... yes, they should. Blair may have needed evidence of WMDs to temporarily convert the timorous CND supporters on his back benches to the cause of war against Saddam. He never needed any such smoke and mirrors from me, or the Telegraph for that matter. He should have staked out his political ground on the firmer foundation of Saddam's appalling humanitarian record, or even realpolitick (not much chance of realpolitick in this day and age but anyway), not attempted to spin up tales up WMDs. WMDs are a part of Saddams evil, but they are not the whole part, neither are they the sole reason why the war against Iraq was a Good Thing. The Telegraph is on firmer ground than Blair, so kick away.

2003-08-13T09:28:00.000Z

I responded to this post over at Conservative Commentary the other day (read the comments section and you'll see). Peter Cuthbertson raises the question of why so many British conservatives are at best luke warm towards Israel, when American conservatives are very much pro-Israeli.

I felt the need to respond there as I am just such a luke-warm-to-Israel Tory, so in a sense he's talking about people just like me.

I consider myself to be a somewhat pragmatic Conservative. I support Tory policies simply because they work and make sense. I have a great deal of respect for Thatcher (I consider myself a Thatcherite) but not really from an ideological base (free markets are inherently a Good Thing, to think otherwise is heresy), but simply because I think it works, it delivers results (free markets are sensible, and they work). Similarly with other Thatcherite policies, like a hard line on the Soviet Union.

So when it comes to Israel I don't have any dogma telling me that Zionism is inherently a Good Thing, like Americans seem to. I would need persuasion. Now, I am luke warm because Palestine under the likes of Arafat is clearly going to be/is a failed state. In fact, Israel is only successful state in the entire Middle East. This is the source of my lukewarm support. On the other hand, it's difficult for me to give unconditional moral support to a nation which, to be blunt, seem quite capable of acting like Nazis when they think it's in their interest. Expanding settlements and displacing of Palestinian natives? Sounds like Israel needs some lebensraum to me.

Testing my support to the utmost is the utterly specious arguments justifying this. "The Jews were there 2400 years ago". I hope that I don't need to puncture that risible argument in full. Suffice to say the Arabs have been in the majority there for at least 1000 unbroken years, including 400 years in the Ottoman Empire, which is an unbroken line of ethnicity that stretches back in time more than many other nations of the world. I think thats the moral case Zionism gone right there. So why is ethnic cleansing in Israel good, where in Serbia it is bad?

If Israelis and Palestinians were, in other regards, equivalent, then clearly it is the Israelis who are lacking a moral argument and deserve everything they get. However, nothing is ever that easy. The Palestinians are murderous savages led my thugocrats like Yasser Arafat, and there is no moral equivalency whatsoever with the Israelis. They have been acidically anti-Semitic for centuries. Also, the Israelis have their backs to the wall. They can give no ground, because they have no ground to give. I sympathise for them. These exceptional circumstances do much to justify their behaviour, but it does not, it cannot, complete exonerate them of the quite shocking misdeeds they get up to on occasion. Whatever is going on in Ulster pales to nothingness compared to what is going on in Israel.

Without the guiding light of a dogmatic approach, I cannot give unconditional support to the Israelis, I will remain luke warm. Incidentally, when I see dogmatic pro-Israelis taking the stance that Israel is good simply Because it is So, few things put me off Israel more.

2003-08-13T08:58:00.000Z

Sheesh. A writer into Clueless demonstrates a marvellous ability to typecast.

Europeans seem utterly incapable of understanding that something with profoundly powerful political effects can just be unintended side effects of a well functioning market economy. They remain firmly convinced that such effects must be intentionally directed by America's ruling elite as part of that elite's lust for power and world domination. They believe that only a central authority could make those things happen, when of course the exact opposite is true - that only because there is no central authority they happen with such vigor and apparent cohesion. Europeans seem certain that if they could just control Bush and the imagined central authority of soft power, the problems would significantly attenuated, as Joffe implies in his article.

In the words of Edward Longshanks, "Do they..?"

There is some serious typecasting going on on Steven's website these days, and it aint good. I hate to blast someone who I like so much yet again in a comparatively short space of time, but puh-leeze. I thought the Yanks were the ones less inclined to type cast then the Europeans. Such is the stereotype. You guys don't even have social class in the same way we do (or maybe you do, but such is the stereotype as viewed from Englands shores). I don't know of any English who think that American culture is intentionally directed by a ruling elite (unless Hollywood directors count as part of a ruling elite). I know a few who think U-571 was a crass movie which denigrated the efforts of the Brits who actually did do something like that (the movie is fictional, but was based on something the Royal Navy did in WW2), but they don't blame Bush or Congress for it, thats just nonsensical.

I know a few more who think Mel Gibson should be shot for the mutiliation of history represented by the Patriot or Braveheart, but they don't blame Bush either. (For the curious, I thought Braveheart was so good I watched it 5 nights in a row at the cinema. I was a student at the time too so it cost a few bob. It was, however, a travesty of history, but then Longshanks isn't around to sue for libel anymore so I guess it doesn't matter all that much. And it was entertaining.)

Just in case people think the English are a special case, my beloved is a Slovak, and aside from a weakness for Jerry Springer and Oprah there isn't much American culture washing off her. If anything she's into German culture.

I'm beginning to get the impression some Americans have a very skewed view of the world, and are just as prone to typecasting as any Euro.

2003-08-11T08:57:00.000Z

I had a rude surprise when opening my post on Saturday morning. I have had correspondence from the TV Licensing people inflicted upon me. The BBC want me to pony up.

It's not really a surprise admittedly, I've merely been keeping my head low and hoping I slip the dragnet. I do own a television, but merely because the previous occupant of my rented flat did, I almost never actually watch it, so I was hoping the BBC detector vans would pass without the red lights flashing and the alarm bells blaring. (For those who do not know, I kid you not, the BBC roams the country with detector vans to detect television sets to make sure everybody is paying up).

They aren't very happy with me, anyway. The letter they sent is all red in colour, and reminds me of a Final Demand from the electricity company when your a bit tardy with the payment.

Our records show that despite our previous correspondence, there is still no TV License for this address. If you are using TV equipment to receive or record television programme services without a license, you are running the risk of prosecution and a fine of up to £1000. Failure to purchase a license in the next few days will result in us taking further action. Your address is now on our priority list and an Enforcement Officer is planning to visit you shortly.

If you do not watch a V, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused. Please write to us at the above address, stating that you do not use a TV, and we will contact you shortly.

Enforcement officer, eh? I always thought the UK didn't have a Mafia. I thought wrong.

From the text of this letter I am struck by the fact that they clearly don't know if I have a TV or not. They just slapped me with the red letter, and noted that I must prove to their satisfaction my TV owning status. Guilty, unless proven innocent. Not surprising really, their Enforcement Officers actually have no legal right to enter my home, if one of them knocks on my door and I tell them to get lost, there isn't a whole lot they can do about it in the short term, so I guess it's easier for them to threaten people with court as a matter of course and ask people to prove that they don't have a TV set.

£116 pounds a year, a TV license costs. Which pays for the radio (never listen to it), the BBC website (never visit it), BBC News (biased, but its good for a laugh), BBC programming (all rubbish, except for Spooks which I actually like. So thats 1 hour of Beeb Heaven a week for me), the World Service (propaganda for the world, but not for me), and probably a whole lot of other stuff I'm not even aware of, let alone use. Incidentally the last episode of Spooks is on tonight, so after today, I won't avail myself of a single BBC service from here on.

I'm going to pay it, of course. Through gritted teeth. Getting rid of my TV would be even more hassle than paying the damn license. (It's a big TV, and I don't have a car. Or know anybody with a car who would help me get it to the dump).

But any political party who gets rid of this iniquitous poll tax for a service I don't even use gets my vote.

2003-08-07T11:59:00.000Z

Oh, this is great.

"Time after time hoteliers and restaurateurs would tell me that the people they wanted to serve most were not the Germans, Italians or French, but the English, or maybe Swiss. And there's the clue. Hear the word "Swiss" and you begin to divine the reason for their recent conversion to our cause.

Because for the first time in 60 years we - together with the Swiss, of course - are the most affluent people in Europe. The rest of Europe is skint. The good people of Austria, Germany, Italy and France are welcoming us out of that very special love which is engendered by comparatively greater wealth.

The reason for our comparative affluence being, of course, the euro."

And thats in the Guardian, too. Via Conservative Commentary, again.

(BTW, sad to say I'm once again very busy at work, which means blogging time and email time is very much down. Sorry for those I have not replied to, and for the generally poor quality of this blog in recent days, hopefully I'll get more time in the coming weeks)

2003-08-06T09:05:00.000Z

A good while ago, Samizdata (sorry, its not a direct link) noted the risks inherent in holding a referendum on EU membership, ie, if it goes the wrong way, we're doomed, and it stands a good chance of going the wrong way because it'll be rigged.

Peter Cuthbertson over at Conservative Commentary comments on the latest bit of rigging which has been unearthed, namely, the right of Europhilic Germans and French who live in the UK (but are not UK citizens) being allowed to vote on whether we should abolish Sterling or not.

It's notable that some people raised the issue of disenfrachisement - why should we disenfranchise Germans or French people here, when we are allowed to vote in Italian elections if a British citizen happens to live in Italy. Leaving aside the nature of this referendum, imagine what it would be like when we're all citizens of the European State of England, stuck in a highly centralised bureaucracy (federal is a lie, the EU is no more federal than the current United Kingdom government is - we will have the Mother of All Commissions instead of a Parliament). We aren't ever going to get our way, ever. Do the Brits want the euro? No. Well, too bad, 75% of Europe does. What about the CAP? No, we don't want to subsidise the French any more than we have to. Unfortunately everybody from France on south do, so we're outvoted again. What about fishing? Well, we'd like our fish to be ours alone, but I imagine any European nation with a coastline would be eager to get stuck in. North Sea oil? I'm sure that the Commission will exert its "competence" on that, while muttering about strategic reserves and national security. What about using our military to advance our national interests overseas, Falklands War 2 perhaps. I don't think the continental Eurocrats will approve. Etc. etc, ad infinitum.

We are different. Our values are different, our laws are fundamentally different, our interests are different, our economies, our way of life, our culture, our historical outlook, our language... the only reason the UK is in the EU is a sorry accident of geography. And thats all. We are different, but we are in the minority in the continent of Europe. If we sign up to the EU, well...

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

In actual fact, a federal system would be preferable to the current EU constitution. (My verdict would still be No, but it would be an improvement). The EU constitution is only federal in the sense that it throws various sops to national governments, but it's clear that the Commission and minions will be able to step in just about anywhere, anytime, should they so choose, and national governments have almost nil say in the matter. Thats not federal, that is unitary. We have local councils in the UK, but the councils have no real power, ergo, the UK has a unitary form of government.

2003-08-05T08:41:00.000Z

I am somewhat disappointed with Steven Den Beste, for the first time ever. It's almost like a betrayal by an old friend, a slight marring of an otherwise perfect painting, a Porsche with a scratch on the door, an opinion piece in the Telegraph expounding on the wonders of Marxism.

In this post he pretty much admits what he wrote is, to use a Brit vernacular, a load of bollocks. I expect antics like this from Her Majesty's Government, but not from Steven.

I don't actually care about Harley (never owned a bike, never will) but disingenuous spin-doctored lies, on any subject, aren't going to win him much respect. Mind you, to his credit, at least he admitted it, I would have just taken what he said as an honest opinion if he hadn't.

Yes, yes, it's an opinion page, as is the one to which I am writing right now, so it will be facts with a slant, as the facts I present here are. Steven, in fairness, might not have known the finer points of how wonderful H-D are, which means it was done out of ignorance rather than vindictiveness. But I've not yet (consciously anyway) knowingly perpetrated such a half-truth here. (I might have done it out of ignorance, but I try not to). That then moves things from reasonable opinion to propaganda. Yes, yes, it is his reputation to tarnish, how very free thinking. So much for Jacksonian honour, eh?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just a 19th century relic.

It's my site and I can write what I want on it, including taking a cheap shot at Europe every once in a while. I'm sorry you don't like that, but I have no intention of restraining myself just because you think I should.

Whaaah! My site! If I want to spread lies on it, too bad!

2003-08-01T11:59:00.000Z

The Spectator has a, in my view at least, great article discussing union militancy in the ex-national industries, like British Airways.

It is a will the unions are increasingly prepared to exercise. Now they believe that the Prime Minister is up against the ropes, demands from trade unions are becoming more brazen by the day. The TUC wants three more bank holidays. Unison demands a new NHS pay system — in spite of the fact that much of the extra billions pumped into the NHS by Gordon Brown has already been consumed in pay rises. Kevin Curran, the new leader of the GMB, is demanding a return of the closed shop — something which makes even Polly Toynbee quiver, she having been nearly expelled from the NUJ in the 1980s.

The closed shop? Wow. A Labour government may manage to turn the clock back in industrial relations 25 years, an impressive feat. Of course, it isn't really Our Tone's fault in this case. Have a look at this.

Tony Woodley, the new head of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, intends to make sure that Tony Blair suffers. His plan is to call a meeting of top union guns and instigate a new form of entryism that will select left-wing, union-friendly parliamentary candidates. After this, he will concentrate on ousting Blair from the union.

Union leaders have, for the last couple of years, slowly migrated towards the far Left. In my view this is a backlash from Blair's generally rather centrist (ie, socialist, but not loony Trot) policies. As time has gone on his party and The Workers (by which I do not necessarily mean the actual workers, more the workers representatives, union kingpins like Comrade Bob Crow) have become disgruntled, and as their party in Parliament continually fail to live up to their Marxist principles, they themselves are becoming more radical in an attempt to further the Lefty agenda.

Worryingly, the unions have the power to really make their voices heard. They are the main source of Labour Party funding, and whoever pays the piper chooses the tune. Blair has done his utmost to reduce the influence the unions have in public at least, as unions generally got a bad rep after the socialist disaster of the 70s, and the miners strikes of the 80s. The unions meanwhile also realised that to get their fellow Reds in power, they had to keep quiet. But Labour have been in power for a long time now, and the unions are getting itchy feet, they want that Utopia now. If they get their way, some really damaging policies could be unleashed upon the nation, like the aforementioned closed shop, which really is a huge leap towards near-communist working practices.

Of course, I doubt the likes of Comrade Crow appeal much beyond the core Labour support base, and he probably puts off the floating voters in just the same way some extremely stereotypical Tory like Nicholas Soames does, so union militancy almost certainly brings the Year of the Tory closer. But I fear the extremist socialism of the far left union kingpins could do great damage at an especially delicate time before the public get wise and erase them once again from the political landscape.

2003-08-01T11:03:00.000Z

Some reassuring noises are being made about evidence of a WMD programme being unearthed in Iraq.

I am still puzzled by the belief that Iraq possessed neither WMDs or the ability to produce them. They had already used nerve gas on the Kurds, so unless Saddam voluntarily threw all his nerve gas away (I think not), or the UN inspectors rooted it out and destroyed it (no), or it got bombed in Gulf War 1 (nerve gas escaping a refinery would have hit the news, it didn't) the possession is beyond doubt.

On the other hand, the WMD argument is a bit facetious. Nuclear weapons take quite some building - or to be more accurate, enriched uranium takes quite some refining - but chemical and biological weapons are comparatively simple devices to make. In addition, it doesn't take very long to make them, meaning that actually finding nerve gas shells ready to fire is unlikely if the nation making them is trying to keep it quiet - the chemicals can be mixed and the shells prepared in a matter of days if the weapons programme and chemical precursors are ready.

I would be surprised if such a smoking gun is found, but I have more confidence that various production facilities will be unearthed, even though Saddam in the final days no doubt did his best to destroy them.

2003-07-30T12:54:00.000Z

All blogged out today, total brainlock. Not sure why, lots in the news, not much work to do so time enough... Blank mind.

Hopefully tomorrow my brain will be functioning again.

2003-07-29T10:49:00.000Z

Well, they finally went and did it - Our Leader has been accused of crimes against humanity by a gang of Greek lawyers over Iraq.

I'm not aware of any breaches of the Geneva conventions in Iraq by any troops, though resources are being stretched to the limit. Our own troops are in the process of getting sunstroke so no doubt any Iraqi PoWs that are still being held won't be in Ritzesque conditions either, when our own men and women are suffering. Incidentally, the Geneva Conventions are rather sturdy documents, rooted in reality, and firmly laced with caveats which actually, in my mind, make it quite hard for them to be used by Leftists with a political axe to grind. Given the purpose of the documents and the almost unattainable goal they attempt to deliver (war without cruelty, in short), I found them surprisingly pragmatic. For example, article 28 of the Fourth Convention,

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.", which means Saddam's human shield tactics carry no weight as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned. Provided there was sufficient military reason to do so, we could in theory drop a nuke on a city and all would be acceptable under the rules of war. Here is another example of a caveated obligation, article 16,

"As far as military considerations allow, each Party to the conflict shall facilitate the steps taken to search for the killed and wounded, to assist the shipwrecked and other persons exposed to grave danger, and to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment." which really absolves the coalition forces of any legal blame for the damage done by looting, at least as far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned. It's not like we want to put Iraq down the toilet, its in the West's naked self interest to see the place become prosperous and successful as soon as possible. We might not be able to cover every eventuality however, and the laws of war recognise that.

Incidentally, Saddam's tactics in both Gulf Wars broke several articles of the Geneva Conventions, but I didn't notice the Greeks getting steamed over that.

And in any case, the Greeks should take take the beam out of their own eye before they point out any motes in ours.

The ICC could possibly be a Good Thing, but its inevitable that it's just going to turn into a rather laughable political platform. The Greek case is utterly risible, and I seriously doubt they themselves expect Blair to be thrown in prison for it, but they have already made their political point, which no doubt the CND activists of the Labour Party will love and appreciate.

2003-07-28T11:24:00.000Z

The Telegraph has another dig at the EU constitution. This time they take a different tack than normal though, the usual Eurosceptic riposte is about how the constitution as posed reduces national governments to rump status, but this opinion piece is more focused on the structure of the constitution itself, and what a constitution is for.

A constitution is about legality and political authority. It is not about the particular policies which a government, once it was legally elected, might or might not wish to pursue. This constitution, on the other hand, is stuffed full of policy statements.

This has been noticed before within the blogosphere (read some of Porphyrogenitus' EU scribings), but it's nice to see it brought up again in a mainstream newspaper. The Telegraph doesn't mention the policy statement I most detest in the EU, the commitment to a "social market economy", which brings me visions of the Gulag and shortages of razorblades. And whats this right to strike doing embedded in a constitutional document?

The final two paragraphs are as great as ever. Read them!

2003-07-25T11:31:00.000Z

The Spectator is defending Andrew Gilligan, and in general it looks like opinion in the chattering classes is swinging inexorably against the Government, and in favour of the BBC, as the David Kelly affair pans out.

It's a fairly easy argument to take. Alastair Campbell is universally regarded as scum (and on evidence available I would suggest he really is scum), so he's a suitable whipping boy for just about any story you think of.

But Kelly apparently never even realised he was the sole source of the story. It is alleged that, during his interrogation in front of the parliamentary committee, he could not believe he was the sole source, as what he said had been so "interpreted" that he couldn't believe it came from him. The Government, sensing an open goal, moved in to try and expose the BBC's source as a little overrated, and to be frank, Kelly was precisely that. He was not a top level intelligence source, like the BBC alleged, thats for certain.

It seems that things got out of hand though. The BBC were not backing down, so the Government wolves went to work, exposing Kelly and challenging the false assertions the BBC had made.

Kelly was stuck in the middle, and doubtless under a great deal of pressure. Alastair Campbell is a nasty bit of work, make no mistake. But lets not let the BBC off the hook here, the BBC "sexed up" their source and practically dared the Government to expose him. The BBC was in the wrong over Kelly's status, and the government was in the right. The government's tactics used to deal with the situation might have been abrasive, but it was the BBC who set Kelly up as a target, and when the pressure was on, hung Dr Kelly out to dry...

2003-07-25T10:51:00.000Z

More idle musings from the workplace.

There is a guy who works here, who is a naturalised American. He's British born, but he's lived in the States for 20 years. While talking about him with a colleague (who is as Red as they come), my colleague comments, "Why did he move back?"

Given I've had quite a few chats with him about politics, this puzzled me. Why would he want to come back to the UK? it's a tacit admission that the socialised UK, with its vaunted NHS and BBC and all the rest, does not offer as high a standard of living as the US does. And yet, this guy has been arguing about the virtues of all these socialist dinosaurs with me for the last three months.

The problem, as I see it, is that this guy does not see the link here, the link being socialism, in the long run = bad, private ownership a small state in the long run = good. What gets me annoyed more is that this guy, who loves the NHS, would no doubt emigrate to the US (which has no NHS) if he had a chance, thus leaving me, the patriot who stays behind on the sinking ship, to deal with the legacy of socialism people like him leave behind.

There is no looking at the US and doing a bit of analysis into the reasons why the US is successful. I must say, its something of a revelation to me, the impression that the UK's socialists would all love to emigrate to the US, while at the same time they are cheerleading the NHS, sympathising with union militancy, and claiming that the BBC is great.

If only the US example was looked at as something to learn from, rather than something to envy without understanding. If everybody who envied understood, we wouldn't have a Labour Party.

2003-07-23T11:22:00.000Z

It looks like the Government is choosing to back down a little against the BBC in the whole Kelly affair. A sacrificial lamb has been offered up, namely the Minister of Defence, Geoff Hoon.

Look like there are some damaging leaks about his conduct which implies he is most definitely being set up as the fall guy on this one. I'm glad I'm not a Minister, it must be terrible to have your boss after you.

I am not impressed though, it looks like the BBC is being let off the hook. Not surprising really given their monopoly over broadcast news, I was watching the BBC news last night - not a mention of any possible BBC guilt over Kelly.

The Telegraph is not letting the BBC off so lightly, however, wheeling out one of their big guns, Janet Daley, to deliver a particularly good opinion piece.

"Richard Sambrook, the head of BBC news and current affairs, has said that the corporation believes that it "accurately interpreted and reported" Dr Kelly's remarks. Interpreted? If it was straightforwardly reporting what Dr Kelly said, where did the "interpretation" come in? Does the use of that word not imply that Andrew Gilligan took liberties with his material? To what end? To reinforce the BBC's (and particularly the Today programme's) own political message that the Iraq war was unjustified?"

Go get 'em, Janet.

2003-07-22T15:08:00.000Z

Government spending up by 10 percent this year!

*grabs table to steady myself*

If that figure is accurate it beggars belief. I can't say it's doing me any good (admittedly, my use of public services is almost nil) but... wow. 10 percent. Thats an incredible amount of money to sink in debt.

My heart sinks. Even if the Quiet Man wins the next election, with debts like that we'll all be as poor as church mice paying the debt off anyway. And then the Quiet Man will be hated, and Labour will get in again, and the good of the lean years will be undone.

2003-07-22T11:43:00.000Z

The wheels are still turning and the machinations keep on unfolding in the Dr Kelly story. The law lord, Lord Hutton, is asserting his independence to the chagrin of Anthony Lynton Blair. Or is it chagrin? While Blair talks about cooperating fully, he pulls up a bit short.

"He rejected calls to extend the inquiry to look at the wider argument of whether the Government exaggerated the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons.

In other words, Lord Hutton will have full cooperation from Blair at examining the narrow reason why Dr Kelly committed suicide. And here, Blair truly has nothing to hide or fear. After all, it was not the Government who interrogated him (it was a Parliamentary select committee). It was not the Government who made Dr Kelly go to the BBC with his story. It was not the Government who was responsible for the way the BBC handled the situation (ie, let Dr Kelly swing in the wind).

The Government attempted to identify the source of the leak. Once they had a guess, they asked the BBC to confirm - when the BBC denied, the Government hauled Kelly in front of the independent parliamentary committee. And, within the narrow remit Blair seems planning on giving Lord Hutton, thats about it.

If the inquiry only goes this far, Blair is about as in the clear as he possibly could be. The deeper issues are further back in time, issues like whether Alastair Campbell really wilfully manipulated MI6 evidence or not. I don't think Lord Hutton will be seeking answers to questions like that. The Telegraph is a bit more hopeful of pinning something on the Government, but I'm not really seeing it myself. At worst, Alastair Campbell might be sacrificed on the altar, but his days have been numbered for months, in my view, so no great loss to Tone.

Never understimate Teflon Blair. He's PM for a reason, after all. I don't think he'll be unseated by a scandal, like this one. He's not going to resign during a storm. However, this whole Dr Kelly affair is just another reason for his restless ex-CND powerbase on the green benches, where all Blair's power is drawn from, to dump him.

The House of Blair is a brilliant construction, able to deflect even the strongest of political gales with little damage. The greater weakness lies in the foundations, which only allowed the house to be built in the first place with great unease.

2003-07-21T21:28:00.000Z

Seems a number of other bloggers think the name of this blog and my good self (The Last, the Alone, etc) is slightly objectionable, or at least a bit odd. So I guess it's only fair I share the inspiration...

It comes from my first job - as I mentioned elsewhere, I was a humble data analyst working for the Audit Commission, meaning I was myself a public sector bureaucrat. Being politically minded (you dont say) there was quite a few debates around the water cooler, especially given the work we were doing - auditing the NHS and local government. Also, I was heavily outnumbered there - in fact, I was the only Tory in the entire institution, as far as I could gather... I was quite infamous for it. Infamous enough that, when I stopped working for Her Majesty and bid the Commission a fond farewell, as leaving presents I was gifted with copies of the Communist Manifesto and Tony Benn's diaries, to educate the poor benighted me... Something I'm rather proud of, needless to say. :)

I can definitely say that everybody working at the Audit Commission circa 2-5 years ago were among the best people I've ever met however, regardless of their political affiliations. Happy times, indeed.

Anyway, my status as the lone bearer of the Conservative blue torch in such a red sea was the inspiration behind the name of this blog. While I was there I was almost beginning to think it was just me putting the X for the blue rinses (!).

2003-07-21T13:43:00.000Z

Maybe there is something of further interest with the Baghdadi poll commissioned by the Spectator after all. I found this article in NRO by the man behind the Edge of Englands Sword - he considers the poll results to be critical???

Yet despite these deep concerns, only a minority oppose the American and British invasion, and as few as one in eight want the invaders to leave the country straight away. They want the occupying troops to restore normality and then hand the country back to the Iraqis. In effect, the people of Baghdad are telling the Americans, "You say you came to make our lives better. You need to prove you can — and fast."

Thats not exactly critical in my book. Seems more pro-US, on balance. "Despite our reservations, we like you, unless I have to live in this filthy cholera infested hole any longer than six months, in which case I'll be peeved". What do you expect? "O Great Satan, who has bombed all our power stations and left us without lights, we love you?" Come on. It seems to me that the poll results are what I, and doubtless others, would expect, given the situation, and that the message presented is broadly positive.

So the Iraqi's think its about oil, or Israel. Not surprising, I imagine half of Britain, and three quarters of New York, think it was about oil too. Incidentally, I'm not sure Iain is reading the same poll results I am, because it doesn't say 70% think it was about Israel at all.

Iain first rubbishes the polls methodology, which the pollsters themselves owned up to. Better than putting your head in the sand like an ostrich though, no? Thats the sort of thing socialists do, because they truly don't even have a crumb of comfort when it comes to measuring their policy against benefit, and there are crumbs aplenty in that poll, enough to make at least three quarters of a loaf. Anyway, and then Iain has the audacity to slate the many existing analyses before summing up with this rather laughable one of his own,

So, if we are to believe the survey at all, we can say that it shows a Baghdad that is either in dire need of infrastructure improvements to shore up faith in the liberating powers, or a Baghdad where there is a substantial claque of Baathist sympathizers who resent their loss of privilege and are liable to exaggerate their woes to western journalists and pollsters.

So, the 75 percent of respondents who said they felt less safe are a "Baathist claque"? Better wheel out the nukes then, because if 75% of Iraq is a Baathist claque thats too many for even Stalin to round up. And I guess the 80% who complain about power cuts are in the pay of Iranian subversives, because The Lights are On, Citizen?

Come on, be real. You honestly thought the Iraqi's were going to fall over themselves with gratitude? If so, thats extremely naive. Whether they do or not, I still maintain that in the long term, Iraq will be better off, and the Iraqis are hoping that too. But yes, there is some unrest and dissent, thats only natural when you don't have running water. To not admit that is to be doing that ostrich thing.

The Spectator's editor, Boris Johnson MP, claimed that the polling company had a "fundamental responsibility" in carrying out the poll. It is possible that the way it is being interpreted is fundamentally irresponsible.

I think BoJo is right there (he's been arguing for war for a long time, too, though he is a bit of a Tory wet). As for the irresponsibility, yeah, once again, I couldn't put it any better myself, Iain. A shame, given I normally agree with what he says, but then, I guess I'm not as red blooded as the typical NRO reader, even though I'm on NRO's side of the fence 90% of the time.

2003-07-21T12:33:00.000Z

The Times comments in suitably mocking tones about the release of Tony Martin, he who must be locked up to prevent injury to the nations ~~scum~~ burglars, when they come to try and rob him.

The coverage of this case must surely be a contributor to the ever climbing crime rate in this country, when the judiciary make it clear that to defend oneself against a criminal will end you up in the nick, while the criminal will get to sue you for causing him stress.

That sounds like a joke. Sadly, it's not.

2003-07-21T11:15:00.000Z

The tragic death of Dr David Kelly just makes Blair's life even more miserable. Blair's sole consolation is that Parliament is enjoying the summer recess, so he can at least keep his political head down.

But really, I'm beginning to almost feel sorry for Our Tone. For the first few years of his premiership, nothing could go wrong - his Long Honeymoon with the electorate. Then, the sparkle began to fade - and for the last few years, starting around September 11, rumbles of disquiet began in earnest. And right now, it look like God Himself just can't help digging at Blair whenever the opportunity arises.

I think the government can't really be blamed. Dr Kelly was questioned by a select committee, an allegedly independent body of MPs. OK, they have a government slant, but they are not The Government - that would be the Labourite ministers. Besides, I did watch a few clips from the debate, and it didn't seem all that bad to me. Searching, aggessive questions, yes, but what do you expect a parliamentary committee to do?

On the other hand, the BBC's antics make me sick. Firstly they were muttering about Kelly not being their news source. Now the man is dead, the BBC are saying he was, and using the poor doctors demise as political ammunition to lay down a withering barrage while Auntie retreats in good order from the fray. The BBC could have admitted he was the source before he got dragged before Parliament and given the third degree. But the BBC was insistent it was not him. Now they've changed their tune, which in my cynical mind could be even more suspicious. Who's arse were they covering by their silence, his, or theirs? Admission would reveal that their source was not an authoritative intelligence source as they touted, but a biowarfare expert? Maybe he truly is not the source, but the BBC governors know an opportunity when they see it? I sincerely hope that is not the case, but my inner conspiracy theorist is being insistent this morning.

Lord Hutton is chairing the mandatory inquiry, which will no doubt produce an enormous tome which nobody will read, months after Dr David Kelly has, sadly, been all but forgotten by the fickle public. I do think, however, it's just one more nail in the coffin of Blair's Labour - and, we can only hope, one in the coffin of the BBC as well.

2003-07-21T11:03:00.000Z

There is a lot of stuff in the Spectator this week about the Baghdadi opinion poll they conducted which I blogged about on the 17th June. Not much new analysis unfortunately, so I found that somewhat dull.

This article on "corporate manslaughter" is much more interesting. The article highlights a number of legal points which I find highly disturbing. In particular,

The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Southall case also confirmed that, as it stands, the law rules out any prosecution based on ‘agglomeration’: lumping together a series of failings by junior managers and then identifying a particular named senior executive as responsible for them all.

I think thats a good thing myself. However, as the article explains, good odds suggest that Labour will change the law in such a way that this may possibly be allowed some time in the future.

I can think of few things which would scare a chief exec more, than a law like this, which means yet another reason for businesses to avoid Blair's Britain. Also, and perhaps even worse, in my mind it seems that the connection to the crime is pretty tenous. Take the Hatfield train crash. Just how much power would a Railtrack chief executive have over the events that caused that crash? Can he really be said to be "guilty" of causing the crash and thus be charged with manslaughter? Railtrack was a pretty top heavy, inefficient organisation, I recall reading that there were apparently seven layers of management between the executives and the peons working the signals. Given that gulf of separation, can an executive be truly guilty of corporate killing, can he be held to be as guilty as if he pulled the metaphorical trigger himself? Perhaps there may be some cases (off the top of my head, an exec working in a pharmaceuticals company who knowingly pushed the sale of a drug with known potential dangers) but surely in these cases the existing laws suffice. In the example of Railtrack, I can't see any chief exec being guilty of anything more than being a poor leader, but thats a far cry from being guilty of manslaughter. They are simply too far removed.

The motives for such a change in the law are entirely party political, as the Spectator rightly points out - the old union dinosaurs throwing around their weight again. And the consequences of such a law would be disastrous too, utterly quashing decision making and intelligent risk assessment beneath the jackboot of Absolute Safety.

2003-07-18T09:05:00.000Z

The Torygraph comments about the various socialists on Blair's back, as I did below. NRO also comments on this from the other side of the Atlantic, with some doom 'n gloom forecasts about the "enigmatic" Gordon Brown, who is likely to be PM when Blair gets the poison pill. And even better, it looks like Iain Murray agrees with me too...

"A good job from Our Tone. If he was like this at home rather than a hyper-spinning control freak, he wouldn't be in the trouble he's in now.

Well, actually, he'd be in the Conservative Party."

Couldn't put it better myself.

2003-07-18T08:21:00.000Z

Todays blog must, of course, mention the Prime Minister's speech to Congress, where Blair shows off his Gladstonian credentials.

The speech is a pretty rousing bit of oratory. Reading the text doesn't do it justice, you really have to have seen it on the TV to get the full effect. Sad to say, I don't think Iain "The Quiet Man" Duncan-Smith could perform at one tenth of the ability of Blair in such a situation. (I'm one of those Tories who still wants IDS out, myself). And I am torn, for while I want to see the Blair Government come apart at the seams, I would feel bad if the Iraq war proved to the be the reason why.

In a way, it is a shame that Blair is a Labourite. Reading that speech, do you think there is any common ground between Blair and the Fabians, Blair and Wrong Again Benn, Blair and Polly Toynbee? (or Karl Marx for that matter?) Clearly not.

The man is in the wrong party. What good he could possibly do is diluted by all the Reds on his benches. The foundation hospitals Bill for example, its actually a good Bill in principle and something the Tories could well do themselves, but after Gordon Brown got his mitts on it and watered it down to nothing, its not much more than a waste of Parliamentary time. The hunting Bill, in my view, is more a bone Tone threw to his backbenchers to gnaw on to keep them off his back than serious Blairite policy. If there was still a Liberal Party in the United Kingdom (the Liberal's red headed stepchild (ho ho ho), the Lib-Dems, do not count) he would probably be a Whig rather than a socialist.

Reading the bit of Blair's speech where he talks about EUrope though, I see that what he says and what reality is begins to diverge. If what the man said about EUrope was true, his Europhilia could perhaps be forgiven. But, remember that Blair was a staunch Europhile long before the eastern European countries arrived on the EUropean political scene. And I am sceptical as to what EUrope can do against the Franco-German-Benelux Alliance. If he thinks Poland is going to tip the scales in favour of the free market and an "alliance of nations", Blair is, in my view, sorely mistaken. Just talk to a continental European. A superstate is precisely what most of them want. Britain is the odd one out. I'll grant that Poland is possibly an odd one out too, but we "alliance of sovereign nations" people are in the minority in this continent, make no mistake. When push comes to shove, you will notice "right wingers" like the Italians and the Spanish climb on to the superstate ship. (Such is the political cost of speaking against, even IDS was unable to be too damning in his Eurospeech in Prague the other week, so you expect Aznar to be? No.)

If only he did not have such a lust for Europe (you do not need to sacrifice sovereignty to show off multilateral credentials) or "modernisation" (I bet Blair thinks he's like Gladstone, reforming a system in urgent need of reform. But the system patently is not, we do not have vetoes in the Lords to worry about now, for example, and nothing sticks in my craw more than his constant "modernisation"), and if only he was on the blue benches rather than the red, he could perhaps be redeemed. It is unfortunate that he is not.

Even Tories are thankful for the small mercy that it is at least Blair, and not Brown, who is running the country. That is, I suppose, an oblique compliment for Our Leader, who, when the chips were down in Iraq, did the right thing, in the teeth of all opposition, when his own political support is built upon a gang of ex-CND members and unilateral disarmament activists, who are even now attempting to plant the poisoned dagger between his shoulderblades.

One sentence in Blair's speech really did strike a chord in me.

As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible; but in fact it is transient. The question is what do you leave behind?

Thats really it, isn't it. The British Empire is no more, but I have no doubt that the world is better place thanks to it. Britain is respected across the world, even in those places where we were a former imperial power. While no nation is perfect and mistakes were made, black southern Africans still give the likes of Cecil Rhodes respect today, which no Spanish conquistador could expect from an Inca, should they still exist. I firmly believe history will judge the worlds American hour at least as kindly, and if so - there can be no better endorsement than that.

2003-07-17T11:12:00.000Z

The US economy is crawling out of it's hole (I only recently found out from various sources, some anecdotal, about just how much in the doldrums the US economy has been of late) finally it seems.

Meanwhile, the UK bounces uneasily along and is so politically whipped it won't even attempt to remove the concrete boots with the snazzy EU markings on them. The standard response will come from the politicos of course - ostrich-like denial.

2003-07-17T10:23:00.000Z

What do you think is more shameful, gentle reader? The unelected (boo, hiss) peers of the House of Lords rejecting for a second time Tony Blair's justice Bill which curbs the right of trial by jury, or the illiberal Tony and his minion, Big Blunkett, for even suggesting such a thing in the first place?

I'm with the noble Lords on this one. Curbing, even slightly, the right of trial by jury is just the thin end of the wedge, and there are important judicial and constitutional reasons for the right of trial by jury. Besides, I am suspicious of the motivations - the motivation could be simply as base as the Eurocratisation of our criminal justice system. We have nothing to learn from the Continent on matters of justice and democracy.

2003-07-17T09:09:00.000Z

Well, finally we have an opinion poll from Iraq itself, where we can actually get an idea of what Baghdadi's themselves think, as opposed to what the lefty press thinks.

And... it is very encouraging, no? Most Iraqis are indifferent to the occupying forces, of those who care, those who like us outnumber those who dislike us 3 to 2. Three times as many Iraqi's would prefer to live under infidel America than Saddam, despite all the propagandising from the likes of al-Jazeera, and the long history of Middle Eastern official hatred towards the West.

Best of all I think is that a plurality of Baghdadi's want to see a Western style democracy in Iraq when the dust has settled, and that support for another dictator, be he Saddam, mullah, or A.N. Other, is pretty much nonexistent.

Only around 1 in 9 want the coalition forces out right now, so that puts paid to all the accusations of tyranny being bandies around by the left wing press, there is a clear body of opinion that wants us to stay for about a year.

The poll does paint a dark picture of what its actually like in Iraq right now, though, with basic services in a poor state and security clearly being a major issue still. These issues are not going to go away over night though, and it looks like the Iraqis are in possession of more common sense than the Guardian and realise that. Overall, it looks like they are on balance happy that we came, on balance happy to give us a year before benefit of the doubt begins to wear thin, and a plurality would like to see a Western style democracy at the end of this difficult road.

Sounds to me like Bush has been thoroughly vindicated.

Speaking of the lefty press, have a look at this. That report so clearly had to be written by a lefty biting his lip. And of course, the poll is tucked away in the small print beneath a far more sensationalist story here where the Guardian dredges up that old left wing hate object, the spooks and drags the CIA through the mud. Which is a bit amusing, as that yellowcake story got built up by no less a man than Tony Lynton Blair via his associate Alistair Campbell, and the British press are traducing him for it right now.

In this country we have no need for "shadowy organisations of evil" to "mislead the government", here we just have Alistair Campbell (or Tony Blair) just bending the truth (lying is such a strong word) to Parliament with every breath they can muster.

2003-07-17T08:43:00.000Z

The perfidious French (l'Europe, c'est moi!) display more cohones than the Brits do when it comes to Europe, again.

On the subject of tax harmonisation,

Frits Bolkestein, the EU's Dutch tax commissioner, admitted that the tax on children's clothing could rise to 17.5 per cent - the British rate of VAT - but that the move was necessary to end what he said was unfair economic distortion.

Unfair economic distortion. As their countries are high tax, bad for business economies, and as our low(er) tax economy is evidently undermining the poor little souls, clearly we must become a high tax economy as well, to negate any "unfair" advantage.

Perhaps they should cut their own tax, rather than tell us what to do, eh? This reminds me of Lenin, saying communism would only work if the entire world was communist. Indeed, then the whole world will be "fairly" uncompetitive.

But following intense lobbying by Jacques Chirac, the French president, for a special exemption on restaurant bills, the Commission proposes to cut VAT rates for French diners from the present 19.6 per cent to as low as 5.5 per cent.

Also, the Dutch will retain a zero rate for their cut-flower industry and the Italian media empire of Silvio Berlusconi will be spared VAT on broadcasting.

Lets put notions of "fairness" to one side. This is about Country A trying to screw over Country B, and using the EU as the weapon to do it. Very communautaire. This is, of course, natural, it's just realpolitick, nations maximising their gains, and I expect it to happen. This just shows why the EU, a false unity, is doomed to failure. It's analagous to the UN, the UN was never about World Brotherhood, it was about nations screwing over other nations by using the UN as a weapon. Yes, the use of the past tense is deliberate.

"John Healey, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: "This is a ridiculous proposal from the Commission. There is no way we will put VAT on children's clothes. This was a manifesto commitment. If it needs a veto then so be it. End of story." "

Yup, ridiculous is definitely a suitable word to describe the £68 billion per year boondoggle which is the European Commission. And finally...

One official described the horse-trading behind the scenes as shameful. "Isn't it interesting that a Dutch commissioner, a French director-general, and the Italian presidency all got what they wanted?"The EU said restaurant VAT did not distort the single market in the same way as tradeable goods such as clothes, which cross borders on a major scale.

Huh? Screw the single market, if all it is is an excuse to screw us.

Out, now.

All EU, All Day!

2003-07-16T12:58:00.000Z

The Fabian Society, a Lefty thinktank which is home to the likes of "Wrong Again" Benn (the man who, when he had his one and only shot in Government, made it his almost exclusive business to attempt to remove the Queens head from stamps - clearly Parliamentary time well spent), has produced a particularly idiotarian piece of work which even the Times gets stuck in to.

I find this paragraph from the Times particularly amusing...

It is odd, perhaps, that the Fabians decided to tackle this subject at all. Hegel once said that an organisation which concerns itself unduly with procedures has lost faith in its ultimate aims. If one joins a cricket club, one does not expect to spend one’s time discussing the club’s constitution. In the days when Fabian socialism was the wave of the future, the Fabians concerned themselves less with changing the constitution than with changing society. Perhaps indeed, the report tells us more about socialism, that prime ideological casualty of the 20th century, than it does about the monarchy.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only thing broken about the monarchy (the monarchy costs every Brit 20p a year, which is practically nothing, especially when compared to white elephants like the European Commission), as far as a republican is concerned, is that it exists at all. I have a dim view of republican logic and priorities (Benn is "Wrong Again" for a reason), and that argument is not enough to convince either me or just about anybody else in this country to fire the Queen.

Looks like the Fabians now realise this, and thus are attempting to dress up their republican agenda in that wonderfully Blairite canard, "modernisation".

These people are petty philosophical losers, on the wrong side of history and common sense (ie, they are socialists). They are reduced to nihilistic striking out at the symbols of this nation as a substitute for actually attempting to better the lot of the Worker they are supposed to be helping out. The reasons for such a focus is because, well... socialism just doesn't work. Never has, never will. If the Fabians did what they were supposed to do, and spend their days making up Five Year Plans, the electorate would just laugh them out of the door. Which they did to Michael Foot, that honest Fabian, in 1983.

And so, bitter because socialism has been found wrong time and time again, bitter because any suggestion of far-Left politics of their brand brings back collective race memories of the Winter of Discontent, when the electorate finally ditched blatant socialism... they are reduced to petty republicanism to satisfy their loathing of their own Western country's ideals.

Their arguments just don't wash. The argument goes that as the Queen is politicised in that she has a few residual powers, the royal prerogative, her powers should be stripped and passed to someone "more democratic". The Fabians suggest the Speaker of the House. But... the Speaker fulfills a far more important political function than the Queen in keeping the House to order. The Speaker is supposed to be the very paragon of neutrality. What the Fabians are suggesting will politicise the Speakers position. Presumably it means the Speaker will be the one who ultimately decides if, say, the country goes to war or not. His position will become a party political prize, which would be an unmitigated disaster if so. The Times article mentions Sweden, which did this very thing, and it's proven simply not to work. The Fabians have not done their research, they are just resorting to petty ideology, "just because".

Incidentally, I should stop slating poor Anthony Benn. He's the man probably most responsible of all for 20 years of Tory rule, so I guess I should thank him.

2003-07-16T10:03:00.000Z

I have always been of the opinion that the NHS could only be reformed if the ghost of Nye Bevan which haunts this country is dispelled from the national consciousness, and people cotton on to the fact that there are alternative ways to run a health service.

Janet Daley tells us that public opinion is moving much faster than I thought on the subject. Five years ago it was said that the NHS offered relatively poor service due to lack of funding (and its true - the NHS actually had half the money per head that Medicare enjoys in the US, and was not merely a safety net service, it is the service) and so the service had an excuse. Tony Blair, in raising the NHS budget massively with little improvement in performance, has now proven this myth to be a falsehood.

It seems the public have cottoned on, and, in acknowledging that the NHS needs more than simply extra funds, are open to a radical change in funding structure.

2003-07-16T09:46:00.000Z

The Torygraph is continuing with the anti-BBC stuff.

With the BBC being attacked from Right and Left now, it's days, without at least a radical shakeup if not outright abolition, must surely be numbered. There is a great sea change of opinion in the chattering classes, at least. The less politically minded still adore the BBC it seems (from the usual pub conversations anyway), but eventually I am sure that the disquiet will spread even to those who don't watch the BBC news and listen to the storms of indignation which seem to inevitably follow every main event the BBC covers.

Incidentally, I mentioned before several times about how criticising the Beeb was once considered on a par with heresy. Look like the BBC itself still considers any accusations to be akin to heresy, from their positions looking down on us from the ivory tower.

2003-07-16T08:43:00.000Z

Hirsh Sandesara gives this dubious Times article a far more thorough fisking than the paragraph I devoted to it on July 8th here.

Another good blog in the blogosphere!

2003-07-15T15:50:00.000Z

Yet more Euroland news, this story is getting a little old but I missed it on Sunday.

Why on earth is the UK hellbent on entwining itself further in the profligate, corrupt European Union? It boggles my mind. If the EU was accountable, like the Eurocrats bleat, things like this wouldn't be in the newspapers constantly.

Incidentally - a 62 billion pound budget! Lets give that number the respect it deserves, "billion" is so easily lost in the minds eye.

£62,000,000,000

Thats a lot of zeroes to be controlled by such incompetents. Thats 15 Nimitz carriers, to take the figures from below. Apparently 5% is lost in fraud, every year, and the Commission seems to offer me, the voter, no discernable benefit to me or this country in which I live whatsoever.

Abolish the Commission and give the UK a couple of Nimitz's for money saved?

Again, sign me up.

2003-07-15T15:41:00.000Z

I'm a bit slow from the whistle blowing on this one, but the Sunday Times last Sunday ran yet another opinion column on the topic of EU corruption. Turns out another of Neil Kinnocks antifraud auditors has quit, demoralised by the sheer intractability and magnitude of the task these poor accountants have to try and sort out.

It boggles the mind that the United Kingdom, with a civil service about as reasonably efficient as one could hope for given the poor performance of public bodies in that regard, should be wanting to get more deeply entwined in what can only be described as a profligate, unaccountable mess.

EUrocrats may bleat about transparency and democracy but when push comes to shove, it's clear that the EUrocrats would rather be sunning themselves in some offshore tax haven sitting on a dubiously obtained pile of loot than sorting out the EU's problems. If the EU was accountable, how come we keep seeing stories like this?

2003-07-15T10:30:00.000Z

In other Euroland news, the pain in the arse facts of life of MoD bidding wars goes on. In the interests of being communautaire, the Government is making a right pigs ear of the acquisition of the Royal Navy's two new carriers.

The original cost for the pair was 2.8 billion pounds, that look set to go up. To put things into context, an American Nimitz carrier (twice as a big, four times as scary if your in the unfortunate position of fighting one) costs about 4 billion dollars which is... not an incomparable sum.

Rather than waste time getting every Euroland company we can a slice of the pie in the interests of artificially stoking up the UK's trade figures with Europe and bragging about how communautaire we are, we could have done worse than just buy a US design for the carrier and go with that. It has the advantage that the costs are less likely to sting us (there are twelve Nimitz's already, the Americans know how to build these things), and the ships are tried and tested and actually work. Plus a Royal Navy ship would have a spiffier name than a US one, giving the RN vessel a clear advantage for style :) (Sorry Americans, but a name like "HMS Glorious" is far more stirring than a "USS Carl Vinson", no? Imagine an HMS Tony Benn *shudder* I'd pity any sailors on a ship named after "Wrong Again" Benn).

I think returning the defence budget to 4% of GDP, Cold War levels (currently it sits at 2.5% and falling) would easily let us commission two carriers comparable to the Nimitz, and then god help the Argentinians, or anybody else, who thinks the Royal Navy is a pushover. And the cost? A few less Welfaristas, and a pruning of the Guardian jobs section.

Sign me up.

2003-07-15T10:12:00.000Z

I find it amazing how the House of Lords have consistently been the defenders of our rights, standing fast against the illiberal tide of legislation emanating from the current Government, and in particular, Big Blunkett.

This undemocratic body (shock, horror, undemocratic, must be Evil) time and time again seems to know exactly at which point the Lords need to pat the Commons on the shoulder and say, in an upper class voice of course, "I say old bean, perhaps you should, ah, reconsider? Think it over a bit more, theres a good chap, looks like a bit of a shoddy Bill you got there. " while attracting a bit of the media spotlight to illuminate the problem for the public.

Thank God for them. I think Joe Public is proud of having the right to a trial before ones peers, it's one of these things that makes England a free country, and if the Lords didnt make it news, the Commons would have made it law by now.

Being a paranoid Eurosceptic, I needless to say have a niggling suspicion that this is another initiative aimed at making us more "in line" with our loving brothers on the continent, for whom details like a fair trial are but an inconvenience for the enlightened State getting what it wants.

Incidentally, speaking of the euro, it looks like it's all falling apart.

Mon Dieu! It's serious, now it's us and not the Germans being destroyed by the euro! Time for a whiff of diplomatic grapeshot!

(Not big news really. The French ignore details like the stability and growth pact. Promises and treaty obligations are for others to adhere to, not them. Out, now, I say.)

All EU, All Day!

2003-07-15T09:24:00.000Z

I've been musing on Scotland of late, partly due to an email I received on the topic of the West Lothian Question which I blogged about last week. Here is an interesting chunk of it...

"In corresponding with some spineless civil serpent in the DPM's office, I'm told that giving England it's own Parliament would "result in the Union could become broken".

This is a big reason of why Her Majesty's Opposition are not shouting from the rafters for reform. "Breaking the Union" borders on heresy in old, port drinking Tory circles. I'm sad to say any reform is going to be tentative, given the current set of MPs we have. That said, I think if Blair's majority after the next election is trimmed to, say, 30 MPs, it could well be that he is dependent on the Scottish MPs to form a government. Which will really push the issue, any red blooded Opposition should be going for the kill in such a situation. Tony Blair's latest sop to the Celts, on the grounds of making sure the Reds of Scotland continue to prop up the socialist utopia at Westminster, surely is not going to help. The English electorate are generally not political addicts like me, but eventually they will notice this affront to English fair play, and force some Westminster hands.

To finish off with the "kick em out" sentiments I'm expressing of late, here's a few truths about that incarnation of Satan introduced to the world thanks to Braveheart as the cruel pagan, Edward Longshanks (aka Edward I, 1272-1307).

Edward was a medieval monarch, and so when you look at his actions you have to bear in mind that he is not a creature of the modern world. He went a long way to modernise the feudal system of government which was so prevalent in Europe at the time. Feudalism is basically a contract between a lord and his serfs - while the serfs are expected to work for the lord, the lord is also supposed to protect his serfs and rule over them fairly and impartially, be a good judge, and so on. The obligations of the lord in feudalism quite often went by the wayside, but Edward I considered protecting his subjects via fair laws to be paramount - a comparatively modern and humane ideal. Edward was also the pioneer of the English focus group, he believed that a king should rule with the consent and advice of the governed, which by the standards of the day was downright radical.

He modernised the governmental bureaucracy of the day, creating the Exchequer, Chancery, Household and Council, of which the distant descendent of the Exchequer is still around and active. Again unusually for a medieval absolute monarch, the Exchequer operated with the Kings authority but independently of his personal rule, an arrangement which is the distant forbear of our current constitutional monarchy arrangements. He even set up the Kings Bench, a group of judges to preside in cases of law where the King had a vested interest. A man who, at the very least, attempted to inject a measure of impartiality and fair play into the governance of his lands.

As just about the entire world now knows, his foreign policy was aggressive. Wales was subjugated almost in it's entirety, and administered by appointed justices. Longshanks' firstborn son, Edward II, was in fact the first English Prince of Wales, a tradition which continues to this day.

Of course, his Scottish policy attracts the most attention. His claim to the Scottish throne was actually by treaty - after the old Scottish king died, Longshanks arranged a marriage between Margaret, heir to the Scottish throne, and his son, Edward II. Margaret died on route to England however, leaving the succession in dispute. Given this background, and the common Norman roots shared between the English and Scottish aristocracy, he then mediated in the selection of a new Scottish vassal king. This went off without a hitch, but the Scottish took a dim view of Edwards demands for military service, which provoked William Wallace to start a rebellion in 1297. What would be called guerilla warfare then wracked Scotland, with Wallace being captured and executed in 1304 (incidentally Edward outlived him by three years), and Robert the Bruce continuing the uprising until Bannockburn in 1306. The campaign was conducted ruthlessly and with great savagery over almost a decade, which is responsible for the reputation Edward "enjoys" today.

A side effect of the Scottish strife was that Edward had to raise taxes, and in doing so, given his views on ruling with the advice of his subjects, consulted Parliament, which at the time was a very young body, having been established only in 1260. This early Parliament reaffirmed Magna Carta, and with Edward's agreement, concluded that no tax should be levied without consent of the realm as a whole, as represented by Parliament. (Before the Scottish Wars of Independence, Parliament had granted Edward a levy of one twentieth of the kingdoms wealth to prosecute a Crusade to the holy lands).

Sir Richard Baker, author of A Chronicle of the Kings of England, declared that Longshanks had in him two wisdoms, rarely found in any single, and almost never found together in one man - "an ability of judgement in himself, and a readiness to hear the judgement of others. He was not easily provoked into passion, but once in passion, not easily appeased, as was seen by his dealing with the Scots; towards whom he showed at first patience, and at last severity. If he be censured for his many taxations, he may be justified by his well bestowing them; for never prince laid out his money to more honour of himself, or good of his kingdom."

He probably was one of the most successful medieval monarchs of England, in any case, and many of the remnants of his governmental reforms have survived through the ages even to today.

Of course, "history is written by men who hanged heroes", or more accurately, written by Mel Gibson.

2003-07-11T11:55:00.000Z

I was only just ranting about the corrupt Commission the other day, so it's timely to hear more stories of the European Onion's perfidy.

This time it's Eurostat on the take. And they've been on the take for years. Nine, to be precise. It took the fraud police that long to get off their butts to do something.

Looks like Neil is asleep at the wheel. Or probably, more likely, swamped by overwork and under pressure from all sides.

2003-07-10T10:06:00.000Z

BoJo fires another broadside in the Torygraph. This time, the target of his ire is twofold. Firstly, the proposed ban on hunting, and secondly, what is known in British circles as the West Lothian Question.

The issue of banning hunting never really resonated with me. There is nothing to debate about, as BoJo so succintly describes. It's not a Bill concerned with animal rights, whatever they may be, or some tosh about environmentalism, or caring government, or any of that. This is about class war. Its about all these near-communists on the Labour backbenches putting a thumb in the eye of the redcoated toff. It's about Tony Blair giving the class warrior wolves a trussed up Tory to tear to pieces in a frenzy of rage and revenge.

Really, when the motivation is something like that, there isnt much to talk about other than highlight that fallacies, which is why hunting is low on my blogging priorities. Even lower than answering questionnaires is. My views have just been elucidated, and I think a bit of newspaper research will reveal them to be accurate enough, if somewhat bluntly presented.

The West Lothian Question is a bit more pertinent. A few Scottish factoids...

Scotland has 8.6% of the population of the UK, but 10.8% of the MPs

Scottish MPs, as they sit in Parliament, may vote on purely English matters, like hunting. Meanwhile, English MPs may not vote on matters in Scotland which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This is the West Lothian question, in a nutshell.

Brown is unashamedly Scottish. Blair is originally a Scot too, though those times are long past. John Reid is running the nationwide NHS, and he's a Scot. So the economy and the health service are run by Scots. And the PM is arguably a Scot too. Robin Cook is not in the Blairs good books right now, but he's a Labour grandee - and he's a Scot too. No Scots, no Labour.

The Barnett Formula is intended to ensure that all parts of the UK get the same quality of public service. What this means in practice is that London, responsible for a quarter of the nations GDP, subsidises the rest of the country. As Scotland is worse off than England and especially southern England is, this means big subsidies go north of the border, typically to the tune of Scottish departments having 20 percent more cash than equivalent English ones.

and finally as a party political point, Scotland is a den of socialism, and represents a big chunk of red on the map, and those MPs help the Labour Party gain power over the entire nation. They are still voting for the Scottish Socialist Party (translation : communist Trots complete with the red star) up there, even.

Devolution came about because of the last point above in reverse, a long standing Tory government, installed by the English electorate, imposed on the Scottish. Arguments could be made for a federal system based on that, but what we've got to put up with now is a complete and utter botch job, which was predicted to cause strife.

And so it is. Being a Tory, needless to say I'd rather devolution never happened, and there was no Scottish parliament. As it's now a fact of life, I would like devolution to be done properly, which the current situation clearly is not, with West Lothian questions and suchlike. And, to be honest, if the choice was keep the status quo, or Scottish independence, out they should go. Don't let the door smack your ass on the way out.

Reform of this situation is not going to happen. Not under Labour, with the vested interest of those Scottish votes and valuable Scots of intelligence to act as Tony's ministers, like John Reid. Tonee only won a contentious vote on hospitals the other day thanks to Scottish support, and the issue doesn't even affect Scotland. I suspect the Tories won't reform it either, constitutional reform is generally anathema to a Conservative after all. Indeed, the UK government is and always has been terrified of breaking the Union, so the bribery of the Scots goes on. To quote Lord Barnett, the man responsible for setting the funding formula as it is...

“I didn’t know it would last all of these years. I thought it was a temporary expedient but it finished up as a formula - nobody wanted to change it. There is huge scope for improvement because there was no assessment of real needs - that’s the real trouble. So consequently this formula that I used in 1978 is still being used today and that was purely political – there was no proper needs assessment - but Margaret Thatcher and John Major were frightened to change it for fear of loosing seats. The present government are reluctant to change it despite the fact that it clearly needs changing, and you should look at real needs - they are reluctant to change it now because they fear what will happen because of devolution in Scotland – Scotland gets far more than it should.”

Sadly, this is not a fine example of the evolving British constitution, its a fine example of a Tony Blair botch job, like so many others, so it needs some attention. And if thats letting those ungrateful, miserable, one issue wretches who are addicted to more than their fair share of my tax money north of the border go, so be it. Though it would be sad to see the end of the United Kingdom. And I like the blue background on the Union Jack, too.

2003-07-09T15:56:00.000Z

For those who may not know just how great my chosen Prime Ministers are (see below), here are some links.

Benjamin Disraeli, "Empire for Empire's sake"
Gladstone, classical liberal
Palmerston, of the gunboat diplomacy (Never leave a man behind, 19th century style)
Churchill, who needs no introduction, and finally
the Iron Lady.

2003-07-09T15:27:00.000Z

Here is a nice modern example of the principles of Newspeak in action.

Whoever controls the present, controls the past. Whoever controls the past, controls the future.

2003-07-09T12:01:00.000Z

I really hope this is smoke and mirrors. I would say "But the Times is usually quite good" but of late I think the Times has let me down, so I'm treating this with more scepticism than before.

It must be remembered that armies are blunt instruments when it comes to maintaining the force of law. That was well proven in Northern Ireland. I would not like to be an Iraqi right now, but again, it's too soon. If this is still going on in 12 months I think something has seriously come adrift there, but it's still too soon to be sure.

The report mentions local magistrates, the fact there even are any gives me hope and tells me that things are moving along.

2003-07-09T10:53:00.000Z

The Telegraph has followed up on the old Giscard of the Diamonds story with an opinion piece which is fairly biting.

As is pointed out, the Telegraph columnists were all over Blairs "victory" there as soon as it happened, it didn't fool anybody of Eurosceptic tendencies. But it didn't stop the Europhiles from trying, to be manipulative, to deliberately set out to deceive, to sweeten the bitter pill, to railroad, to coerce. These tactics are not new when it comes to any policy involving the EU. To quote some Ted Heath...

In 1973 : "There is no European single state."

1998 on Question Time with Peter Sissons :

Sissons "...a European state, a single government, did you know about this when you took us in?"
Heath : "Of course, Yes"

This is beyond political debate and into blunt deception. Whenever there is resistance to the EU, we get things like this. Like, say, Nice. Whenever I think about Nice, I'm reminded of an episode of Babylon 5, when Garibaldi is slamming some victims head repeatedly into the bar. "I'm going to ask this again *slam*, and again *slam* until we get it right..."

And with all this backdrop, the Minister of Europe, via the Times, has the gall to say something like this.

Instead, the Tories have reinvented themselves as the party of Chamberlain, treating Europe as “a faraway country of which we know nothing”.

Words are failing me, again. It is the Labour Party who are into appeasement, supine before the almighty Commission which, time and time again, just keeps proving its absolute pie-in-the-sky ineptitude, not to mention corruption. If anything IDS is playing the role of Churchill, the man standing astride the "tide of history" (its not history at all, more like a tide of Lefty propaganda) and having the guts to say No.

Yes, I know the British electorate are supine and don't care. Its always been just what our Minister said in the electorates eyes, a faraway country of which we know nothing, and don't care, and certainly won't be voting about, when there are issues much closer to home to influence the vote. The electorate will only care when it's too late.

Gah! I'm foaming again. I'm feeling a Garibaldi moment coming on myself. *slam* We can sit here all night until we get it right. No to the EU! *slam*

Or, to answer Denis McShane's question,

"It is a question only a new generation of Conservatives can answer."

all I can really say is display_middle_finger.gif.

Incidentally, I don't care how rich, or how poor, we will be thanks to or in spite of the EU. I personally think any economic arguments in favour are utterly risible, (I'll debate this some other time), but even if they weren't, even if the EU was going to make us all rich, the answer is still no. Thats a compact the Chinese government made, and there are rumblings of discontent even with their economic miracle. A decent government and a free country are worth more than a thousand quid a year, or whatever advantage the EU may in a best case scenario accrue to me. Hell, the government is just going to swipe it all anyway with higher taxes.

All EU, All Day!

2003-07-09T08:28:00.000Z

Time to weigh in about gun ownership again. Woo! The reason being, as Steven points out at Clueless, is because the UN recently released a new report on global firearm ownership.

Steven, of course, defends the Constitution (Hurrah!) and no bad thing too. I already blogged on gun ownership here and my views have not changed since Porphy and I had a major debate over ICQ on the subject. However...

I think supporters of the 2nd Amendment must temper their enthusiasm with a few factoids. The Iraqis had heavy machineguns and rocket launchers in their homes, and it didn't help them against their own totalitarian government. US troops know that some things, like RPGs, are just over the top, and have been working on removing them. There are kids in Africa with undescended testicles who have access to military grade hardware, not the stuff the typical American can get his mitts on. Every household owning an AK did not help the Iraqis (it's apparently an Arab tradition to let loose with some AK fire into the sky during celebrations like weddings, now thats a gun loving culture), being able to swap last years mobile phone for a clip of 7.62 and a phosphorous grenade is not helping the Congolese.

Gun ownership is, to me, a pretty trivial issue, even now. I can see it's an infringement of liberty to take weapons away from the populace. I can see the issues regarding self defence and crime. What I cannot see is just how being armed to the teeth helps maintain a stable government. No way. If so, the Congo wouldn't be a hellhole. That can only come from respect for the rule of law, and a government which enjoys the support of it's citizens.

My Russian friend came from the Motherland the other day (he's a student here in the UK), and he's amazed at how crime has rocketed, even by his standards. Apparently all his friends are in the mafia there now, pretty much everybody he knows is on the take at least somehow. Corruption from top to bottom, criminality is a way of life. And he said there is no social stigma attached to it at all. It's just taken as red (excuse the pun) that everybody is involved with the mafyas somehow. That, to me, is a pretty diseased nation, where respect for law and personal integrity are at rock bottom. That, to me, is more important a factor at determining national success than how many guns they have.

Caveats aside, I'd tell em to go to hell too if I was an American. Incidentally, it's quite possible that gun control will be one of the very few things which could possibly be more liberal under an EU government rather than a UK government. The United Kingdom apparently has the most restrictive gun laws on the entire planet, and that I can believe. If the European Union decides it has "competence" on this issue, and overrides Parliament, it is almost certain that gun laws here would be relaxed.

Of course, it's equally likely that for a change the EU will harmonise everybody else to have our gun laws, thus bringing all of Europe to the most illiberal stance possible. Oh well...

2003-07-08T15:21:00.000Z

Hey!

But aside from these fun and games, what they've failed to realise, is that the reason most of us classical liberals are classical liberals, no matter what our starting position was — whether socialist, fascist, communist, Last Tory Boy, or whatever — is because we have been prepared to argue our case in a sensible calm fashion.

Is that a swipe at me in there? ;)

2003-07-08T10:48:00.000Z

More angst between Turkey and the US today.

It wasn't all that long ago, when la perfide Francais was holding up moving Patriots to Turkey, that Turkey was America's Friend. I recall posts in NRO from long ago saying how America should just drop NATO and stick with allies they could trust. Like Turkey.

How short sighted. Not like the Turks have much (anything?) in common with the US and their interests. Anyway, politics have moved on, and now it's Turkey proving that they are quite capable of being a pain in the American ass.

2003-07-08T10:37:00.000Z

Not that this was not already well known by any with eyes to see, but its nice to see something approaching a blunt admission from Giscard of the Diamonds.

Communautaire, indeed. Out, now, I say.

All EU, All Day!

2003-07-08T09:56:00.000Z

This article on the EU at Samizdata is great. The comments are the best part.

See how the resident Europhile (Kodiak) creates a lot of hot air by taking offence at the desecration of the Holy Flag of Euroland.

All EU, All Day!

2003-07-08T08:51:00.000Z

Steven Den Beste provides some answers to this questionnaire, and as I'm all blogged out at the moment, what the hell, I'll weigh in.

1. Do you have a personal hero? If so, who is it?

...not really one for heroes. If pressed, I'd answer Churchill, or possibly Isambard Kingdom Brunel (19th century's best engineer).

2. What is your favourite book of all time?

Lord of the Rings. Yes, I'm sad.

3. What does "diversity" mean to you?

A left wing political slogan used as a tool to bring about the end of the United Kingdom, and usher in the New Age of EUtopia. (Yeah, I'm radical).

4. What is the wildest thing you've ever done?

Drinking alcohol after taking a hay fever pill (I forgot). Was so out of it, I had a shower with my clothes on. And then went to bed. Without drying off. Next morning was not good.

5. Do you regret doing it?

Yes! Was an accident.

6. Can you drive a stick shift?

No, I can't drive anything.

7. Whats the highest speed you've ever travelled in a car?

A bit over 100mph.

8. Were you driving, or riding at the time?

Riding. See 6.

9. Which is better: snakes or spiders?

Snakes.

10. What is the most disgusting thing you ever ate?

Seaweed soup. Least, thats what I assume it was. Green, salty, had seaweed in it - and vile.

11. Have you ever shit your pants? Be HONEST!

Nope.

12. Was losing your virginity an enjoyable experience?

....nope.

13. Should oral sex be outlawed or encouraged?

Neither. Horses for courses.

14. Name one man with a fine ass.

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that one...

15. Do you watch golf on television? If not, will you iron my shirts?

No, and no.

16. Who is Martha Burk?

No idea.

17. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I'd be less lazy. Indolence seems to be my natural state, unfortunately.

18. Do you eat raw oysters?

No. Anything that came out of the sea is bad. See 10.

19. Are you claustrophobic?

No.

20. If you rode a motorcycle, would you wear a helmet even if the law said you didn‘t have to?

Yes.

21. Name five great Presidents.

Not really qualified to answer. I can name five great Prime Ministers though. Churchill, Disraeli, Thatcher, Palmerston, and Gladstone.

22. Name three shitty Presidents.

See 21. Three shitty PMs would be Chamberlain (Show some balls man!), Lord North, and Ted Heath (Funnily enough, all the PMs I hold in low regard are Tories!).

23. Now call me fanny and slap my ass. Just kidding.

Uh huh...

24. This is the 4th of July. Did you set off any fireworks?

No. I'm not that pro-US. Besides, see 17.

25. If you could have dinner and conversation with anyone in the history of the planet, who would you choose?

Thats a tough one... I guess it would be a choice between Jesus Christ (I'm curious what he'd think of the modern Church), George Washington (I'm curious what he'd think of current affairs) or Benjamin Disraeli (ditto).

2003-07-04T14:08:00.000Z

Just saw this article in the weekly Spectator. In particular, this paragraph draws my eye.

The dilemma is especially piquant for those people who were enthusiastically in favour of the war against Iraq without ever shedding their reservations about Mr Campbell or New Labour. In normal circumstances they would be happy to throw rotten eggs at the Prime Minister’s director of communications. They have done so many times. But in the row between the BBC and Mr Campbell they are not in a chucking mood. They fear that the case against him is the case against the war. Mr Campbell vehemently denies ‘sexing up’ last September’s dossier with its oft repeated threat that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might be discharged within 45 minutes. These pro-war people must believe in the reality of these weapons as a justification of war, and consequently have the appalling experience of discovering themselves in the same bed as Mr Campbell. This is the position in which the Sun and the Daily Telegraph find themselves.

Rubbish. I was in favour of the war even without WMDs, on the grounds that Saddam was a tyrant and a threat to the Wes via terrorism of a more mundane sort. So was Janet Daley of the Telegraph. If I had my way we'd be removing Robert Mugabe right now too, and Zimbabwe doesn't even pose a terrorist threat to us, it's merely another corrupt thugocracy.

2003-07-04T12:09:00.000Z

I forgot to ram this point about Silvio Berlusconi home in my last post, so here it is.

Compare and contrast, if you will :-

Chirac :-
"French President Jacques Chirac is to remain immune from prosecution for his alleged role in party-funding scandals for as long as he is in office, a judicial commission has recommended. However, legal proceedings could resume once he stands down, say the 12 experts picked by President Chirac himself. Their report recommends that sitting presidents should neither be prosecuted nor investigated by a French or foreign court.

Berlusconi :-
"The Godfather" was the title of Der Spiegel's blistering attack, which asked how a leader who had just rammed through an immunity law, days before a court delivered its verdict on his bribery trial (he might have faced 11 years in prison), could embody Europe's moral aspirations for the next six months.

One is acceptable, one is not. One is the Right Kind of Eurocrat (All EU, All Day), one is not.

2003-07-04T12:02:00.000Z

Oh. Happy July 4th, to any Americans reading this. ;)

2003-07-04T11:14:00.000Z

More from the Torygraph (and more) on Berlusconi. Note how baiting Berlusconi was fine, but uttering the "N" word was not.

I don't know. I don't like the placing of fascists on the "right" of the political spectrum. They seem more left wing to me. What is the "right", anyway? If right wingers eschew regulation, social engineering and nationalisation, does not "far right" imply an anarchist or a libertarian?

Whereas on the left, which favours government intervention as a solution for problems, surely "far left" implies the most draconian form of government intervention possible - ie, a totalitarian state, be it communist or fascist?

This German milksop was, as I said before, barracking Silvio and trying to drown him out. The Left sees nothing wrong with such tactics, because the Left ultimately has no respect for things like freedom of speech. The Left is inherently drawn to totalitarianism. Political correctness is, to me, the modern form of Orwellian Newspeak and Party orthodoxy. OK, European socialism is not totalitarian (yet) but socialism has a totalitarian core at its heart in a way in which no true right winger will have.

Or to put it another way, in the heart of every Nazi was a socialist trying to get out.

""Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

Uttered by a psychopath with a silly moustache, who was pontificating at the time about the joys of regulation and State control of the individual lives of citizens. (Gosh, thats familiar)

2003-07-04T11:02:00.000Z

A sad day indeed for Lady Thatcher.

In her memoirs it is clear just how much Denis supported her behind the scenes. May he rest in peace, and my condolences to Lady Thatcher.

2003-07-03T10:07:00.000Z

Oh, the cat is in the pigeons now. Go Silvio!

It's important to remember, incidentally, that Berlusconi was being barracked and slow handclapped by the German socialist and his econazi buddies (on matters of Italian domestic policy, none of which is relevant to a German MEP), Silvio's outburst was not without provocation.

Incidentally these same MEPs didn't see fit to barrack Giscard of the Diamonds, but rather shower him with praise. Such hypocrisy. The reason for the abuse Silvio caught is because he is

a right winger

pro-US

I didn't see the Euroslime running to censure the European Commission after it was revealed they all had their fingers in the till, or running to protect the whistleblower who pointed out that there was massive fraud afoot in the EU.

2003-07-02T19:06:00.000Z

My respect for Silvio Berlusconi has gone up a bit at his merciless ripping into his EU "masters".

OK, he may be still somewhat too Europhile for me (but then, I'm as implacably opposed to Europe as anybody could possibly be), but he has a certain panache with a performance like that one.

Go Silvio!

2003-07-02T12:55:00.000Z

Look what I found with google!

Many, many moons ago I blogged about this friend of mine, when I attempted to find out what the Liberals of Southampton were up to in the EU. (I failed. And sadly, the post since got eaten by Blogger). And here he is. (He's far more of a Toryboy than I am.)

2003-07-02T12:51:00.000Z

Oh spare me. More from the Times, advocating all-women shortlists for Conservative would-be MPs.

The idea that such a party would stoop to sexual discrimination to get the "right" people in the halls of power, based upon demographics rather than ability, makes me ill. God forbid IDS ever resorts to such a thing.

Encourage women, surely. All women shortlists? No.

Incidentally these "shadowy selection panels" are made up of representatives of the local constituency organisation. The Tory party is, compared to the centrally appointed Labour communist machine, remarkably democratic. The democratic nature of the Tory party is why we have a duffer like IDS running the show (MPs hate him, Tory party members (apparently) love him, mainly, I bet, because he's Eurosceptic). It is also why Theresa May is finding it hard to strongarm the local constituencies. I thought decentralisation was a good thing? When its about the Tories it is only considered to be "shadowy".)

2003-07-02T12:38:00.000Z

New blog from Iraq going in my blogroll, to help me deal with my paranoia.

I'm trying to keep my blogroll small, it's not like a huge number of people read this stuff, and I'm using it more so people can see the sites which have an impact on my thoughts than me trying to spread my (0.02) hits around. ;)

2003-07-02T12:23:00.000Z

Elsewhere in the Times no less a man than the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, has been given a column.

While Berlusconi is generally paraded by the right-leaning press as a friend against the EUrocracy, I have to confess I've never personally been much impressed. And not merely by factoids like him bringing back immunity to prosecution for Italy's top politicians to save his own skin (Given what Italy's crime scene is like, I imagine such things are par for the course). No...

"It is not business as usual to sign a new constitutional road map which will be binding on a group of nation states, which will be joined by ten new members, and to do so in a way that does not unravel the good work carried out by the Convention chaired by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing. "

From where I sit, Berlusconi is merely the same creature with a slightly different skin colour - that creature being a Europhile. Giscard hasn't produced any "good work" that I can see, the proposed EU constitution (about a third the way down the page) is a horrific document that should be consigned to the dustbin of history post haste.

I expect no root and branch EU reform from Berlusconi, which is sorely needed. I expect only more of the same EU rubbish.

2003-07-02T12:00:00.000Z

My paranoia is being fuelled again by reports like this one. And this wasn't penned by a Guardianista, but is in the Times, a far more middle of the road source.

Still, it hasn't been very long. Give the forces out there more time. They've only had a couple of months to get things sorted out, it's hardly surprising that there hasn't been much progress in that time. Even without the likely addition of Shia politics in the mix, it was pretty obvious that this was going to be a shaky time.

The Americans here have to show some balls.

“The American people are going to have to adjust . . . to the fact that things can get worse before they get better,” said John Rockefeller, a Democrat. “We are here for a long haul.”

Yup, thats definitely true. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will New Iraq.

But relatives of the 22 servicemen who have lost their lives since the war officially ended still remain surprisingly supportive.

Good. Do not let the obfuscations of the BBC and other assorted lefties distract from the fact that a murderous tyranny has been put down, and that with continued support and attention, there is a real possibility of giving Iraq a better future. And by extension, giving all of us a better future, by shining a beam of light into the morass of the Middle East.

If, however, the powers that be decide to fold and cut their losses, the end result could conceivably be even worse than if Saddam was still in power. That cannot be allowed to happen. Stick it out, improvements take time.

Incidentally, the viewpoint that this is "turning into another Vietnam" is bullshit. North Vietnam was propped up by a nuclear superpower. The US war aims in Vietnam were adjusted accordingly to a wholly defensive stance. You cannot win a war without taking the fight to the enemy, unless your willing to get into a war of attrition on the battlefield, which is almost without fail a Pyrrhic victory even when it is a victory.

Iraq is wholly different. The war aims are clear and mostly already accomplished. There is no nuclear superpower for Saddam to hide behind. He can be pursued to all intents and purposes to the ends of the earth, along with all of his supporters. The only "power" which has even a remote chance of playing the Soviet Russia to Ho Chi Saddam is the United Nations, and Bush seems to have recognized that and made it clear that he won't be played for a sucker.

Not Vietnam. Tough it out, do the job, and it will be, at the end of a road of struggle, a victory for the free world.

2003-06-30T09:04:00.000Z

Friday was a busy day, hence no daily rambling.

I'm not sure if it made big news in the US, but last week six soldiers were killed by an Iraqi mob in a town near Basra. The soldiers were RMPs (Royal Military Police) who seemed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Earlier, elements of the Parachute Regiment was going through the town trying to remove weapons from the population, and it wasn't going smoothly. It is quite possible that the Paras were going in too hard, they have quite rep in the rest of the Army for being gung ho, and the regiment is still stained by Northern Ireland (it was the Paras who opened fire on demonstrators on Bloody Sunday), but the events are clearcut so I shouldn't get too dismal about possible Para over exuberance.

In any case, the Paras evidently saw fit to respond today.

I can see the reasons for doing this - a show of force, trying to make out to the Iraqis that they would much prefer us as friends than as enemies, but I'm sceptical that such a tactic is going to work. Its intimidation, and intimidation breeds resentment. It's a tough situation, but is removing weapons from the population so necessary? OK, they are interested in heavy weapons only, they are letting them keep their AKs, but I personally can't see why they should be trying to take these toys away themselves. I would have thought it would be better for all concerned if they waited until some Iraqi policemen have been trained up (thats why the RMPs were in there), and get them to collect the guns.

Watch this space, but I have an awful feeling that this town could well become a trouble spot, possibly even a no go area. Going in hard isn't going to help if the population are against you, I know this doesn't sit easy, especially with a military outfit like the Paras, and even more especially after those six deaths, but it seems to me from my armchair that they should be kissing ass more than they are kicking it.

2003-06-26T11:56:00.000Z

Well, Bah. Bloggers new software has done horrible things to this blog. Doubtless it'll need some pushing and some prodding of various settings to get it riht, but as of now, I'm too busy to do so for a while.

Bah!

2003-06-26T10:59:00.000Z

Have to disagree with this post from Steven at USS Clueless. What he is showing is merely how the British unwritten constitution has evolved over the years. He's correct in that the monarch took an active role in running the country once upon a time (Lord North was put in power against Parliaments wishes by George III, for example) but thats not really fair. What Steven is describing is, in effect, a "constitutional amendment" made over time. Women couldn't vote in the US until the Twenties, meaning that 50% of the US population was disenfranchised. Also, need I mention slavery? I don't think either are relevant though, the beginning date of the United States is clear, to the very day.

No. All constitutions change and evolve over time. I would say ours is a constitution formed by evolution, but to say the government is as recent as the latest modification to its constitution is pretty much bunk. The Parliament Act of 1911 perhaps? The Act of Union in 1707? Joining the European Common Market in the 70s? Maybe even decolonization? Making life harder still are all these old relics from bygone ages who are still with us, and still with significant power. The Lord Chancellor (still here, just), the Privy Council, I suppose even the likes of Black Rod have some say in whats going on, albeit in -very- minor, ceremonial duties. And of course has our constitution really evolved that much? Steven says that the monarch has been toppled from absolute power but on paper thats not actually true, the Queen, in theory, still enjoys the same powers now that the monarch did in 1776, though convention dictates that she not use that power. A flag wasn't hoisted up one day here declaring independence after all, it's a harder thing to pin down that that, a transition which has for centuries been continuous and gradual evolution.

No. I think personally that the genesis of the very early British state, though it had a lot of evolution and "constitutional amendments" to go, was probably the Glorious Revolution in 1688, though the idea of a modern "Instrument of Government" (a very embryonic form of a written constitution) was set up by Cromwell about thirty years earlier. Far as I know the Instrument of Government was done away with during the Restoration of the monarchy, and after some unease eventually the Glorious Revolution happened.

The British state is the end result of constant reform and tweaking, and while the government of 1689 bore little resemblance in practice (though considerably more on paper) to the modern British government, with the Reform Act of 1832 and the Parliament Acts yet to come, it is still year dot, the point when the evolutionary process began. There has been no revolution since that point, no tearing up of the constitution, no massive realignment of government powers. Power has inexorably migrated from Monarch to Lords and from Lords to Commons over at least three hundred years, but this is evolution, not founding, in the same manner as womens suffrage and freeing of slaves.

(And the End of Days is probably near, when the EU Constitution is signed. Constant continuous and gentle have not been bywords of the Blair government.).

On the other hand, France has had 5 republics in 200 years, and France, Germany and Prodi's own Italy are no older than 50 years each, thanks to World War 2, de Gaulle's new government, and denazification. So even between them, they aint as old as the US. But then Prodi always was full of hot air.

Not that having a government founded in the mists of time is a good thing, the English Declaration of Rights is so far back in the centuries now, and so ignored, and so anachronistic to modern eyes, that its value and the statements in it it makes are debased to the point of irrelevance. Sadly.

2003-06-26T09:37:00.000Z

BoJo fires a salvo at the EU again (All EU, All Day) on the latest lunacy to emanate from the EU.

Seems to me this would affect just about everything aspect of society. Are they trying to eliminate gender???

...we shall abolish orgasm...

2003-06-26T09:36:00.000Z

Once upon a time, it was not politic to accuse the BBC of malpractice. It was akin to blaspheming against Mother Church - The BBC is Good And Pure, whatever they say must be the truth, free from political inflection. Thats the reason why we pay the license fee after all, no? To insulate the Beeb from the petty concerns of marketing and sponsorship, so it can be truly objective. To challenge this assumption was to brand you a philistine, and was possibly indicative of a sign of a lack of love for ones country and its national symbols, for the BBC was a national symbol.

No longer.

I recall when Greg Dyke, a long time Labour apparatchik, was put in charge of the Beeb. It happened almost minutes after the 1997 election which swept Blair to power (I wonder why), and there were many rumblings of dissent from the Tories, even then. But, hey, it was accepted that when the Government chooses the man to head the Beeb they put a friend of theirs in there (the Tories are no less guilty), even if perhaps not with quite as much speed. And the BBC is Pure, so they would never be biased now, would they.

Well, with the war coverage which is now infamous on both sides of the Atlantic, and the election campaign coverage (An entire night of Torybashing, with a sort of almost ashamed "Er, the Tories won" tacked on the end), and near constant needling, it looks the Tories have finally had enough.

Anybody who doesn't think the Beeb is biased is either a socialist, in which case what the Beeb says is The Purest Truth (bit like the Guardian really), or has never been greatly exposed to it.

Thing is, the BBC is a truly vast organisation, and they have many services, and some are much worse than others. In the normal everyday viewing, the news broadcasts at 6 and so on, it does manage to be pretty much neutral. Usually. But out on the fringes (The BBC World Service, the various people that live in the basement of BBC central and get dusted off to attend to election coverage, whoever it is who decides on a panel consisting of A CND Supporter, a Baathist, The Iranian Ambassador, The MP for Baghdad Central and an American With a Bullseye Drawn On His Face) are some quite shockingly bad examples of "an angle", to put it mildly.

Of course, making matters even worse are Tory ideas to break the BBC up and privatise parts of it. So the BBC is now involved directly in the debate. If the Tories get in, all those public sector fatcats like Greg Dyke could well be out of a job. I think few would believe that this does not affect their reporting. I think a journalist would have to be a saint not to have that colour their journalism a little, and the BBC is no saint.

The organisation did not get the nickname of Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation for nothing. The fact that the BBC represents an enormous, state sponsored slice of the British diet of televised media should be cause for worry, and should make any accusations of bias be taken very seriously indeed.

2003-06-24T20:53:00.000Z

The knives are out for Alistair Campbell, says the Telegraph will ill disguised glee.

Not sure how this will go, it could go badly for Campbell and Tony B Liar, but I suspect not. Possibly Campbell is being set up as sacrifical lamb by Blair, but I suspect the end result will be that while the dossier was dodgy, it won't be dodgy enough to really bring down the wrath of Parliament upon the miscreants.

2003-06-24T11:47:00.000Z

This morning, while walking to work (no car) with my work colleague (also no car), we were talking, as is normal amongst human beings, about football. To be precise, the Brazil vs Turkey match last night, and Brazil's humiliation at the hands of the Turks, and the subsequent violence from the Turkish fans. My colleague went on about how he thought that Turks in general were prone to violence culturally, and backed this up with a story of his days in London.

Apparently, one day he went into a kebab shop in London with a friend, and after buying a kebab, thought it was overpriced and tried to haggle with the owner. The owner wasn't impressed, and then my colleagues friend piped up saying he worked for the local council and could cause said shopkeeper to lose his license unless he charged more reasonable rates for his kebabs. At which point the shopkeeper told em to get out either on their own steam or propelled by his fist (such respect for the State there, anyway :).

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the retail sector and just what meddling local government gets into there, but my colleague was saying that he had the right to expect kebabs at a reasonable rate, or the government would kick the retailer out. Something about how "if someone wants to set up a kebab shop, they ask the council for permission, the council then determines if its good for the residents before granting Captain Kebab permission to lay out his wares. If the owner of the shop then is deemed not to be "good for the community" the council can and will shut him down.".

OK, I can understand it if the guy was abusive for no reason, that seems to be more a matter of personal conduct. But selling overpriced kebabs means the council should turf him out? My colleague was most insistent that yes, thats exactly what should happen. In other words, price fixing set by the State to a level deemed acceptable.

My point that he could just go elsewhere and take his custom to another kebab shop if he was unhappy with the one in question for whatever reason fell on deaf ears. If the government was not involved kebabs would be overpriced everywhere because they would form a cartel. Apparently.

To my knowledge, the corner shops, kebab shops and chip shops of London are not likely to be formed into an evil corporate enterprise intent on stitching up all their customers to bleed them white as they search for ethnic fast food products. I was just struck by what a shocking lack of disregard this guy had for the free market. He really did think the only way that these rapacious kebab sellers could be prevented from ripping him off was to get the government to price fix them.

I was - am - a little speechless. It sounds practically communist to me, like he was suddenly talking to me in Russian not English, and my sole response was to listen uncomprehendingly and nod every so often. And the really scary thing is :-

This man voted Conservative.

If this guy is a Tory, the country is doomed. Wheres my green card?!?!?

2003-06-23T09:49:00.000Z

More from All EU, All Day!

The Torygraph reveals a little of just what was going on when the British public was bamboozled into joining the Common Market back in the Seventies under the august Edward Heath.

It makes one wonder just what is going on behind the scenes at the BBC right now, when the government is doing its utmost to drag us in to the EU at the same time as dismantling every governmental institution we have that does not conform to the blueprint the EU has laid out for us.

2003-06-20T15:44:00.000Z

This is a gem of insight which I found at ARRSE again (Soldiers have plenty of insight it seems) on the subject of Tony Blair and just how far his prime ministerial fiat goes.

Where you are getting mixed up is with where the ultimate power and will of the people is exercised, and that is not with Blair, much as at present he likes to think so. The ultimate power and will of the people lies with Parliament, the whole of Parliament. Yes, Blair can form laws, can lead the Treasury, enact tax regimes etc. etc. but only insofar as Parliament allows him, and any law or constitutional issue is controlled and run by Parliament. Blair may be the man that leads those that put the issues to Parliament, but he still needs a majority to enact those issues, he has NO POWER outside of this, and his office carries no personal weight or power in and of itself. He has one vote, and one vote only, whether it be on the budget, deployment of troops, or whether to build new roads, and that one vote carries no more weight than any other MP's in Parliament.

2003-06-20T14:55:00.000Z

Ahh, the balmy relief of a source of news which is not the BBC. It even includes some digs at Robert Fisk, of which my favourite has to be

"It was this that led Robert Fisk, whom my colleague Stephen Glover regards as a ‘genius’, to suggest in print that when the Yanks claimed to be at Baghdad International Airport they’d in fact wandered by accident on to an abandoned RAF airfield many miles away. Nobody who knows anything about a modern military or even the kind of GPS technology that Chevrolet now include in their mid-price trucks and SUVs would say anything so stupid in print — unless he were so blinded by irrational Yankophobia that he was impervious to anything so prosaic as reality. "

Hysteria happily off, until the next lefty BBC report.

2003-06-19T14:56:00.000Z

I just found this via a link from ARRSE. If that is true, the US military better get its act together quick, or it'll be like Ulster. Or Vietnam. Neither of which are particularly encouraging.

Now, before getting hysterical, it must be pointed out that

This is the BBC we're talking about here - any Iraq/America news must be treated with scepticism, for fear of institutional bias

This represents an interview with a handful of soldiers who may or may not be representative of the occupying army as a whole

Given the above point, and the fact that no news, while good news, will not fill a BBC webpage satisfactorily, it is likely that these individuals represent the most jaded, traumatised, stressed out and violent misfits they could find.

Given we see the BBC beating its political drum towards the end of the report, the the above comment seems more than likely true to me...

However, even if all the above is true , it is still a significant issue which, I feel, requires addressing. (If you don't believe the Beeb, try an article with a different slant which yet recognises the problem at NRO). I notice that I've not seen any reports from the admittedly much smaller British army presence out there (if anybody can give me an example of some "over exuberant" British soldiers showing lack of self restraint and discipline, please email me, I'm curious). I suspect that the US Army is not well equipped in terms of training or ethos to deal with the rigors of being an occupying army in an at least partially hostile land. The US Army is all about defeating other conventional armies. The unquestioned ability of this army was demonstrated by going through Saddam so effectively (and that was as much a matter of training as it was of fire power). But peacekeeping is an ugly word in US circles, with UN connotations, and there are persistent, usually only half heard, accounts of US peacekeeping operations which are best described by the word incompetent, harsh though that may seem.

I've heard several anecdotal tales from military friends RL about utterly botched US peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. The events Hollywoodised in Blackhawk Down stemmed from another botched peacekeeping mission in Somalia (the US government of the day, not the military, shoulders much of the blame for the Somalia debacle). The US hasn't even attempted to send a significant peacekeeping force to Afghanistan for fear of casualties, with the result that Afghanistan has reverted to feudalism, President Karzai is president in name only, and the Taliban still has not yet been wholly rooted out. And now we have similar tales of lack of peacekeeping finesse coming from Iraq.

This is not really surprising. The US army is not intended to be an army of occupation, but of liberation and of defence, so it can hardly be blamed for being perhaps bemused by the sudden very different situation of being an occupying army. But - given the realities of the post Cold War world and the war on terror, it looks like the US army is going to be doing more peacekeeping than ever before. , and to be blunt, they better start shaping up to it. Peacekeeping is a nasty business, and it doesn't earn much kudos. A year of miserable occupation (or 30 years, like in Northern Ireland) do not make good impressions, unlike watching statues of Saddam fall. But life isn't all about the star studded jobs which make you look good. To finish the job, to do some nation building, to really make a positive impact, at some point the Western armies are going to have to do some of that onerous duty - peacekeeping. Occupying. Providing security. Call it whatever you will, if "peacekeeping" is a word too tarnished by the UN to be stomachable.

I'm not going to compare the British army to the US in detail, as I'm sure it'll just seem patronising, but while the US brass may mock "hearts and minds", in my view, they should take heed, and get a grip on the tendency to solve problems with a gun, or even better, by pressing a red button while safely 200 miles away.

Fortunately, I don't think I am the only one to notice this deficiency is US military (or is it paramilitary?) ability. I have heard (sadly, no link, but an URL on NRO is out there, somewhere) that an idea was bandied around in the US to create a military force specifically for peacekeeping duties. The reasoning goes that you want to keep your army sharp and focused on the business of defeating enemy armies, and not potentially lose that razor edge by making them double as policemen. Sound enough reasoning, assuming you have enough peacekeepers and can put them in their quickly enough when the war is officially over. I'm a little sceptical of the approach (Better a soldier be a generalist I think, these messy situations involving bullets and bombs often stymie attempts to allocate the right numbers of specialists at the right time) but glad to hear that someone, somewhere, is perhaps addressing this problem.