In (partial) defence of Alistair Campbell…. February 9, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Alistair Cambell, Andrew Marr, BBC, Daily Telegraph, Iraq, Labour, Media, Mental Health, Opinion, Tony Blair, UN
add a comment
David Hughes is the ‘cheif leader writer for the Daily Telegraph and you can certainly see the vitriol shine through when he comments on Alistair Campbell’s emotional moment on the Andrew Marr show. Comments about Campbell losing his ‘marbles’ and the ‘plot’ are downright offensive to somebody who is documented as having mental health problems.
This is something that Campbell has courageously campaigned on in the past and its something that makes me admire him. Furthermore, his exasperation on the Marr show was clearly heartfelt and deserves respect for that; however, some of the things Campbell said deserve some examination.
Writing in his defence Campbell questions Marr’s use of ‘UN-backed’ to describe the figure of 600,000 Iraqi dead. However, as Daniel points out in comments Marr cannot so easily be dismissed:
He was therefore probably referring to the survey conduced by the World Health Organisation, commonly known as the “IFHS” (Iraq Family Health Survey). This found that between March 2003 and June 2006, 150,000 Iraqis died from violence, and approximately 250,000 Iraqis died from an increase in the mortality rate from its pre-war base. Extrapolating this figure would give 600,000 for the full post-war period.
Regardless of precise figures as Campbell correctly acknowledges alot of civilians died. So did alot of British (and other nationalities) troops on grounds which it increasingly appears were shaky intellectually and morally. Thus Campbell is wrong not to understand why this issue causes such strong emotions and regardless of what Campbell says people have good reason to feel that ‘duplicity’ and ‘conspiracy’ lay behind the drive to war in Iraq.
While Campbell is right to take aim at the media because;
I do sometimes feel that people in public life are now treated by the media as though somehow they are devoid of humanity, do not have feelings, do not really care about anything
he is wrong not to recognise that in this instance they are driven by a genuine sense of betrayal on the part of the public regarding Iraq. This is as much motivated by claims of a ‘dodgy dossier’ as the ‘land of milk and honey’ and highly idealistic and fanciful way the war was sold by the likes of Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell. Until that is recognised and dealt with by the current Labour leadership that sense of betrayal will remain and will licence the likes of Marr in what they do.
Desperation sets in as Conservative poll lead continues slipping…. February 8, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conservatives, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Labour, Opinion Polls, PMQ's
add a comment
I don’t agree with everything Gordon Brown does; policy wise I am on the left and I dont, for example, share entirely his belief that economic cut backs should happen now and think to say they are is the fundamentally wrong. I think mistakes have been made in his tenure as Prime Minister and that in many ways he has tried too hard to be something he isnt.
Having said all that I think the recent Conservative attacks on Brown fall straight into the category of ‘playing the man not the ball’. Conservative Home reports;
Mr Cameron will say in a speech later this morning. “The character of his Government - secretive, power-hoarding, controlling - is his character.” Ouch.
Surely this is a joke coming from a Cameron who presumably supports the extension of CCHQ’s control over Conservative candidates blogs and Twitter pages? A joke coming from a Cameron whose control over his own party is despised by its own MP’s? It surely is not a coincidence that this spate of personal attacks on Brown has intensified in direct proportion to the decline in the Conservatives opinion poll ratings.
However, this line will backfire simply because the electorate has a very limited threshold when it comes to what it sees as personal attacks in politics. At PMQ’s it is an accepted part of the knock about and in other contexts it is tolerated to some degree however, the best personal attacks are those that are left unspoken. In 1997 there was very little direct Labour attack on John Major’s character (in contrast to the Conservatives ‘Demon Eyes’ effort) because the public had already made up its mind. Instead Blair focused on promotion of a positive policy program and ‘feel good’ mood; something Cameron seems incapable of doing.
The ‘Demon Eyes’ campaign was decried and almost mocked as the sign of weakness that it actually was and Cameron’s efforts will be seen in the same light. In fact, he will rally Labour support around Brown and generate more sympathy than otherwise have existed. This is the surest sign of any that the Conservative campaign is faltering and it is indeed ‘GameOn’.
Chalk and cheese; why you cant compare the union link to Ashcroft… February 7, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conrvatives, David Cameron, Labour, Lord Ashcroft, Trade Unions
add a comment
It always amuses me immensely to see Conservatives and various right-wingers bemoan the Labour link with the trade unions. They love to peddle the paranoid line that ‘he who pays the piper….’ suggesting a Labour government is in the pockets of the unions. If only some might say; however, such a view is not bourne out by history which has produced numerous bitter clashes between the two sides.
Secondly, this is always to distract to attention from scrutiny of the donations that the Conservative Party receive from the likes of Lord Ashcroft. Liberal Democrats often equate the two but the fact is that they are not the same thing; for one thing, as organisations unions have a degree of accountability for their actions. This is shown by the fact that members can, if they want, disaffiliate their union from the Labour Party. Who holds Lord Ashcroft accountable? He is accountable to nobody but himself.
The structural links between Labour and the unions are at least transparent so people can judge the amount of influence they have for themselves. Who knows what degree of influence Ashcroft receives in return for his money? Nobody because there is no transparency; we do not know what is said behind closed doors and what promises Cameron makes in return for Ashcroft’s largess.
Furthermore, at least we know what the unions are, what their policies are and where the money comes from; the Conservatives continue to do their best to evade inquiry into his precise tax status. All of this points to a larger question; why is it wrong in a representative democracy that *organisations* that maybe diminished but still collectively combine sizeable numbers of people be denied the right to use their resources to pay towards their own representation or support a party they feel advances this?
The answer is, of course, it isn’t; the union link does not disenfranchise anybody in the way the Ashcroft influence does so the Conservative scaremongering simply doesn’t wash.
Conservative hawks circle over Iran….. February 6, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Afghanistan, China, Conservatives, International Politics, Iran, Iraq War, Labour, Liam Fox, Pakistan, Russia
3 comments
One of the least edifying spectacles of the Iraq War was how when things suddenly went wrong the Conservatives discovered what a very bad idea it had been all along. True, the Labour Party leadership has yet to have that revelatory experience however at least they are being more consistent which should count for something (if not alot).
Liam Fox tells the Daily Telegraph that a Conservative government would support a war with Iran. While not wanting for one second to support the Iranian regime it has to be said that some of the logic Fox uses is mind-bending:
“We know that Iran, more than any other country, is willing to export instability and terror as part of its foreign policy.
More willing than Saudi Arabia? It’s financial support for those that support its puritanical version of Islam is well known. Fox’s check-list of conditions including that ‘Russia be on-board’ is furthermore unlikely to ever be satisfied. This would be the same Russia that has said that Iran has ‘legitimate security concerns’.
Military action of any kind against Iran would cement a schism in world politics between the US and UK and pretty much the rest who would de facto look to Russia and China for leadership and possibly military protection. Of course, such an occurence would be potentially disastrous and far-reaching in its consequences but none of this seems to trouble Fox. Proof-positive that the myopia which blights Conservative economic policy is not just confined to that area.
Strikes on Iran may well also damage relations with Pakistan which values its ties with Iran ‘highly’. Obviously this would further endanger British troops in Afghanistan amoung other things. Of course, it should be taken as a given that Iran developing nuclear weapons is a bad thing but the current climate makes any countries possession of nuclear weapons a threat; the answer is disarmament not the enforcement of a failed and hypocritical ‘non-proliferation’.
Conservative activist suspended over Nazi language…. February 6, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: CCHQ, Conservatism, Conservative Future, Conservative Party, David Cameron, Immigration, Twitter, Yorkshire Evening Post
add a comment
Todays Yorkshire Evening Post tells the story of Conservative Future’s West Yorkshire chairman, David Bolt who likened his organisation’s campaigning to the Sonderkommando – units of Jewish prisoners forced to dispose of the dead in Second World War Nazi death camps:
”In effect, we will form a CF Sonderkommando which will be available to blitz any areas which battleground PPCs (prospective parliamentary candidates] particularly wish to target, whether that be through canvassing, literature drops or visible, high-impact campaigning.”
Bolt, who obviously likes bad metaphors (later he quoted Sun Tzu), has found himself deservedly suspended. Meanwhile, perhaps partially as a response CCHQ announced it will be vetting Conservative candidates tweets. Conservative Home reports also that CCHQ is desperately trying to stop its candidates from mentioning immigration. However, all of this should not be allowed to detract from the real issue which is that prejeudice beats strongly at the heart of the Conservative Party.
Meclanchthon takes David Cameron to task for attacking the Church of Englands attitude to homosexuality but echos Cameron’s view that re is nothing left to discuss in terms of homosexual rights;
I used to be much more interested in the politics of homosexuality. That was when there were lots of important changes to be made or to prevent.
Therein lies the genesis of the seeming Conservative conversion to socially liberal attitudes; an acceptance and defence of what is, ie, conservatism not a committment to genuine equality or progress. This is why the conversion is skin-deep and does not represent a major shift. When it comes to making an actual change the Conservatives and Cameron revert to type as the man himself demonstrates by despite being personally ‘disdainful’ of the ban on homosexuals donating blood still waiting for the results of an independent review. Cameron wants to wait for ‘logic’ to dictate change because he has no ideological committment to it.
Conservatism will never be a force for change no matter how hard Cameron tries to spin it as one….if Britain elects a Conservative government it will find this out the hard way.
Public prefer AV+…..just…. February 5, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: . Political Betting, Anthony Wells, Conservatives, Electoral Reform, Gordon Brown, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Mike Smithson, New Statesman
add a comment
Political Betting has an interesting poll on voting reform. Firstly, it finds that overwhelmingly prefer ‘First Past the Post’ with 62% either satisfied with it or very satisfied compared to 38% who are not. However, people overwhelmingly support the idea of a referendum on it or alternative vote and a majority of 41% would vote for AV+ in a straight run-off.
This is may not be as straight-forward as it looks though because the 23% who ‘Dont Know’ could easily swing a poll against AV+. This poll leaves us a bit in the dark regarding the publics attitude to STV and more purely proportional systems however, it may be tentatively assumed that the high levels of satisfaction with FPTP mean appetite for a radical switch to STV is likely to be limited. This, however, is impossible to say with confidence by purely consulting this poll.
What it does suggest that there is not widespread enthusiasm for change but a general feeling some might be a good idea (perhaps in response to the expenses scandal?). Support for a referendum might sound good but Anthony Wells points out;
as I’ve often said before, people normally say yes when asked if they’d like a referendum about almost anything.
Mike Smithson wonders if there maybe some cynicism about Gordon Browns conversion to the cause of electoral reform however, its pretty impossible to tell either whether this is true or whether it would effect how people would vote in a referendum from the poll. It is to be hoped that a rebellion from Labour MPs will not damage progress towards change next week. The size of the rebellion would have to be significant as it seems the Liberal Democrats will depart from the fence to vote with the government. The one certainity with electoral reform is that it has no chance under a Conservative government proving, once again, as the New Statesman points out that they are hardly the party to make 2010 a ‘year for change’.
Time to halt the tidal wave of anti-terror powers…. February 5, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Civil Liberties, Government, Labour, Opinion, The Times, War on Terror
add a comment
The Times tells us that the government will rush forward emergency legislation after its orders to freeze the assets of terrorism suspects were found to be illegal. One thing that struck me was the emotive language used by the government;
The Treasury argued that refusing a suspension “would give rise to the risk of those assets being dispersed and used for the purpose of terrorism, with the attendant risk of causing serious and irreparable harm to the national interest of the United Kingdom.
Notice how the *assumption of guilt is attendant* to the application of the orders. In other words these people are assumed to be guilty but have never been proved so in a court of law. Indeed, it seems there is not even enough evidence to warrant them being arrested and convicted. So, why then should they be subjected to punitive measures that are unproven in their justification?
Traditional notions of justice and its very foundations are being turned on their head by the government in its quest to exponentially increase the states power. It is assumed traditionally that people are *innocent until proven guilty* not the other way around so, it follows that punitive or restrictive measures cannot be undertaken until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. If these people are guilty then why can they not be arrested and convicted and if they cannot then it is wrong to punish them?
It maybe argued that they are left to ‘roam free’ in order to facilitate greater intelligence gathering but this practice is risky and ultimately should not be part of the strategy when combating terrorism. It is precisely this strategy that allowed the bombings of July 7th to happen; the intelligence agencies ‘lost track’ of some of those who ultimately participated. None of them would have been greatly inconvenienced by having their assets frozen; in fact, such an action is likely to drive people further underground and further from a position where they can be observed. So, once again this power is unnecessary and potentially counter productive like just about all the actions the government has taken in this ‘war’ without an end.
PFI time-bomb explodes under NHS….. February 4, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Alistair Darling, Conservatives, Core Values..., Health, Labour, NHS, PFI
add a comment
Channel 4 has this story which, hopefully from a Labour Party perspective will have slipped under most peoples radar. It says that despite the rise in overall expenditure on the NHS; capital expenditure (ie, on new hospitals and equipment) is facing ’savage cuts’ of around 22% in real terms. Tellingly, this is;
in part because contribution from private finance is expected to almost halve from just over £1 billion to just £580m.
Coupled with a cut in public expenditure of £900 million this equals a 21.9% cut. Firstly, this can be said to show the absolute ideological and economic folly of making public facilities dependent on private finance. When the economic weather is foul (which it is) where did the originators of the scheme imagine private sector priorities would lie? Would it be in the maintence of the public good or trimming back to profits? To ask the question is to answer it.
Introducing a ‘mixed-economy’ in things like health service provision is a ticking time-bomb which has just exploded under the NHS. In the long run rather than cut the burden to the public purse it is also likely to increase it as private companies leach the public purse. They are a Conservative invention that Labour should have ended long ago. Now the consequences of the failure to end it will be felt by patients because as Alan Johnson told NHS managers last year there is no ‘plan b’.
Plan B could be to invest public money in place of private and therefore provide jobs and direct economic stimulus through public sector investment in the provision of a vital service however Alistair Darling seems to not just want to do that but add to the cuts with ones of his own. In terms of demonstrating the need to return to some ‘core’ values could there be a clearer example of how desperately that is needed?
Legg Report is the wrong response to expenses scandal… February 4, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: MP's expenses, Opinion, Political Reform, Sir Thomas Legg
add a comment
Today the Legg report comes out and it raises the possibility that once again the expenses issue will become centre-stage at least for one day. I would love to see an issue tracker poll on this issue because while I expect it will spike again briefly today I can’t help but feel that alot of the anger over the issue has dissipated.
This is probably helped by the fact that it is a non-party political issue; no one party is that keen to make a big thing of it because no party is innocent and all the leaders realise the lack of wisdom in throwing bricks in glass houses. I would still expect it to resurface in local contexts as the opposition parties seek to capitalise on a possible ‘reverse incumbancy’ effect. Mike Smithson says that while this is bound to have an impact his betting advice is not to ‘overreact’.
Widely trailed has been the demand by Legg that over £1million be repaid and this may go a little way to sating anger. However, my view of the Legg report is dim because it was conceived as a reaction to a mood which to my mind came close to witch-hunting many times. Legg’s remit was wrong; he does not seriously look, for example, at the fact that staffing allowances should probably be increased to allow for the payment of interns. The sole purpose of Legg was to saté public anger not to look seriously at how people from all backgrounds can enter politics and it was not conceived of to show the public that the brutal truth about democracy is that it costs money and in some instances probably should be costing more.
If the public were asked do they want to only be represented by those whose background provides with the financial means to do so then I feel their attitude would soon change. Legg should not be the final word; a report inquiring into the above issues should be the next priority and it is the changes it could bring that would have a more lasting positive impact on our democracy than the punitive Legg report.
Unions and Labour; Sometimes an awkward partnership…. February 3, 2010
Posted by darrellgoodliffe in Uncategorized.Tags: Conservatives, Labour Party, Mark Serwotka, Opinion, PCS, Strikes, Trade Unions
4 comments
It is entirely predictable that public sector unions would start to become restive and probably not surprising that the PCS; headed by Mark Serwotka, is the first to ballot its members on strike action. I can’t help but feel sympathy for Serwotka and his members who are wrongly being asked to bear the brunt of the financial pain caused by the bail-out.
It is wrong for any government (Labour or otherwise) to target low-paid workers and what is worse in the current climate it’s also economically counterproductive. Some people will feel its wrong for unions to ‘rock the boat’ in the lead-up to an election, however their ultimate duty has to be to their members. If they have legitimate grievance then they are entitled to pursue a strategy that has the greatest chance of winning the day for them; regardless of the interests of the Labour Party.
However, in recognising this somewhat independent existence there is a quid pro quo that Labour can expect. The unions have to do the same and realise that as a political party; Labour has to try and establish a wider base and fight for policies that reach beyond the immediate interests of the unions. Of course, the unions also have to recognise the difference between a Labour and Conservative government; a difference that their members will doubtless feel.
No doubt the Conservative press will try and use this action against Labour while in the next breath complaining about the union’s being Labour’s ‘paymasters’ with no clear sense of irony. I think this will backfire because people no longer perceive unions as a ‘menace’ in the same way they would rightly regard say bankers as being so and as I have previously said I think the current climate offers opportunities for the unions to grow.
In this case I also think the unions are right to try and change the governments course as it is patently wrong. Ultimately, however the unions may have to remember that changing the course a Labour government is taking is as much dependent on how they operate within than without the Labour Party itself.
