Diary

Racism, immigration and another shameful attempt to suppress free speech

29 May, 2007

Last week Margaret Hodge became the latest victim of the smear campaign which is undermining free speech in Britain. The Minister of Industry and the regions suggested that the allocation of council houses had to be ‘transparent’ and ‘perceived as fair.’ She went on to suggest that it was perceived as unfair because newly arrived immigrants with children were being given priority treatment over those who had lived and worked in the country for years. A fairer system, she suggested, would be one where families from the indigenous community were given priority in council house allocation over newly arrived immigrants. The indigenous community had a ‘legitimate sense of entitlement.’ The reaction was immediate, startling and predictable. Alan Johnston offered a swift condemnation, accusing her of ‘using the language of the BNP’ while backbencher Diane Abbott accused her of being a ‘mouthpiece of the BNP’. Ken Livingstone weighed in, saying her suggestion was ‘catastrophic for community relations.’ The unspoken assumption was that the spectre of racism had raised its head and infected the British body politic.

But if anybody has given the BNP an easy propaganda here it is the zealous anti racism czars. By denouncing Margaret Hodge they have once again attempted to stifle public debate on a most sensitive issue and allowed the BNP to pose as the sole critics of immigration policy. But then speaking out on the great questions of immigration and asylum has long been a taboo subject for the New Labour McCarthyites. Since the advent of mass immigration in the late 1990s, New Labour’s default position has been to accuse people of racism the moment they question government policy on asylum and immigration. This has made the issue taboo and rendered those commentators who dare tackle it seem, at the very least, controversial. One of those commentators was Oxford University Professor (and demographics expert) David Coleman, who was recently hounded by the Oxford Student Action for Refugees.

Now Margaret Hodge, from all accounts, was ill informed in her comments. In general, newly arrived immigrants do not generally get priority treatment in council housing. Some have pointed out that the real issue is the lack of affordable council housing, this being a rather severe indictment of government housing policy. But instead of responding rationally to her suggestion as befits the marketplace of ideas, the politically correct zealots showered Hodge with abuse and accusations of racism. How this advances the argument on the best way to allocate social housing is hard to see. A sensible and informed debate is desperately needed on immigration, asylum and national identity, issues which, according to many opinion polls, top the list of voters concerns at present. If free speech is stifled, minority parties like the BNP will surely prosper while the flames of suspicion and resentment will spread among indigenous communities.

top

Double Standards - again

25 May, 2007

In the last fortnight there has been a dramatic upsurge in Islamist violence in the Middle East. The breakdown of yet another ceasefire has seen the Fatah-Hamas rivalry played out bloodily on the streets of Gaza, leading to the resumption of rocket attacks by Hamas on Southern Israel. Not surprisingly, Israel has had little option but to hit back at the militants and promise harsh measures in the event of further unprovoked attacks. As sure as night follows day, the BBC coverage of this issue has implied that Israel is the prime aggressor with her retaliatory actions being seen as further evidence that the Palestinian tragedy is being stoked up by the Jewish state. It is easy to believe from the broadcasts that there is some kind of basic moral equivalence between Hamas terrorism and Israeli counter terrorism. This is a familiar part of the BBC’s distorted and biased agenda which was used to full effect in the coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War.

With Gaza slowly burning, another battle against Islamic extremism has been playing out in Lebanon. During the last week the Lebanese army has been tackling Fatah-Al-Islam, a radical Sunni Islamist group, in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. Fatah Al Islam, which is ideologically affiliated with Al-Qaeda, has infiltrated at least one Palestinian refugee camp and has been linked to a number of recent terrorist atrocities. Left unchecked, the Islamist militants would be able to spread their lethal brand of religious extremism to other refugee camps, destabilizing the country and presenting a grave threat to the Lebanese government. The Lebanese army’s clash with the militants is part of the wider struggle against the forces of radical Islam. Prime Minister Siniora’s vow to ‘eliminate the Fatah al-Islam phenomenon’ deserves the support of all moderate forces in the region. Yet despite the civilian causalities and the exodus of thousands of desperate Palestinians from the scene of carnage, there is little vilification of the Lebanese government. I hear no MPs demanding a UN Commission of Inquiry or a fact finding mission. There is no criticism of heavy handed tactics or of ‘disproportionate’ behaviour, no talk of ‘genocide’ or ‘massacres’ or human rights abuses. No, such vicious unbalanced and intemperate language must be reserved for Israel alone, the pariah among the nations. Fair reporting? No. Double standards? Yes. Some things don’t change.

top

Doing things Howard's Way

24 May, 2007

Which Western leader has been most steadfast in the last 5 years on confronting tyranny, illegal immigration, militant Islam and multiculturalism? For my money it is Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard. A man once described by his election guru as being ‘as boring as batshit’ has become, quite simply, a legend in his own lifetime. As early as the mid 1980s, when he stood for the leadership of the Liberal party, Howard was attacking the doctrine of multiculturalism, arguing correctly that it stood in the way of a vigorous assertion of national identity. When his government intervened in East Timor to prevent repression by the Indonesian militia, he took on a powerful stronghold of Islamist terror. In 2001 he refused permission for a Norwegian freighter carrying asylum seekers to enter Australian waters, adding that his government had to "decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". Hard to imagine that coming from the lips of a New Labour minister! But then Australia is not bound by the pointless and draconian directives of the European Union.

His staunch support for the US following 9/11 provided an important moral boost to the West and despite being part of the ill judged decision to invade Iraq, he has since remained steadfast about maintaining troops there until Iraq has been stabilized. No Western leader has better articulated the need for resolution in confronting the despotism and militancy that threatens the West. He recently called on moderate Muslims to be more critical of the terrorism carried out in their name, adding that it was also essential for them to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "We shouldn't pussyfoot around," he said.

His recent decision to ban the Australian cricket team from touring Zimbabwe therefore comes as little surprise. Howard claimed that he did not want to give a propaganda victory to a ‘grubby dictator’. The Australian press gave its backing to the PM with one Australian paper putting the case for a ban very aptly: "Any suggestion that politics should be kept out of sport pales into insignificance against the need to deny the odious Robert Mugabe aid and comfort of any kind, making the government's decision to block the Australian cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe entirely appropriate.”

What a contrast with our own foreign secretaries, John Straw and Margaret Beckett, whose responses on this issue have been marked by hesitation, confusion and utter spinelessness. In 2004, the English and Wales Cricket Board was looking for a political lead on whether to tour Zimbabwe, a lead that was sadly conspicuous by its absence. Jack Straw could only muster the following: ‘ItIis for the ECB and not the government to make the decision about whether or not the team should tour’. Howard’s tough approach stands in even greater contrast with the sick mockery of the United Nations. For Zimbabwe was recently elected to chair the UN committee on sustainable development despite Mugabe’s neo fascist regime overseeing the destruction of the country’s formerly prosperous economy. But then this was the same organization that elected Libya as Chair of the Human Rights Commission in 2003, despite furious opposition. If the UN had been around in the 1930s, it would have elected Adolf Hitler to the chair of the racial tolerance committee, while Joseph Stalin would have advised the body on political openness.

Caught between the hot air of Western leaders, and a corrupt international body intent on rewarding tyranny, Howard has consistently demonstrated strength of purpose and moral conviction. Other Western leaders need to follow Howard’s way.

top

TEAM CAMERON JUST DOESN'T GET IT

22 May, 2007

Last week the Tories shed yet another layer of their traditional clothing by announcing that they would not expand grammar schools. In a key policy announcement David Willetts declared that grammars only served to entrench privilege for the few and that his party would focus on continuing Blairite reforms. He promised that a Tory government would build more City academies than a Gordon Brown premiership while advocating streaming within classes. His reasoning was spelt out clearly enough:

Many people, genuinely worried about social mobility, believe that grammar schools can transform the opportunities of bright children from poor areas. For those children from modest backgrounds who do get to grammar schools the benefits are enormous. And we will not get rid of those grammar schools that remain. But the trouble is that the chances of a child from a poor background getting to a grammar school in those parts of the country where they do survive are shockingly low. Just 2% of children at grammar schools are on free school meals when those low income children make up 12% of the school population in their areas.

It may be going too far to describe this as a Clause 4 moment but the significance of the announcement is hard to miss. For a long time it has been a Tory article of faith to support grammar schools with their promise of individual advancement and academic enrichment. Cameron was not doubt banking on getting an outraged response from more traditionally minded supporters – and using that to argue that his party had moved on and ‘changed.’ He admitted as much in an article on the Conservative party website: ‘This is a key test for our Party. Does it want to be a serious force for government and change, or does it want to be a right-wing debating society muttering about what might have been?’

It is true that at present the grammar schools do mainly cater for middle class families. The vast majority of students are not from deprived backgrounds, as measured by numbers receiving free school meals, but from a socially and economically advantageous background. In this sense, David Willetts is obviously right. Yet the Tories have missed the most obvious point of all, namely that there are simply not enough grammar schools in the country. Of course when these schools are located in relatively prosperous middle class areas, they will attract children from corresponding backgrounds whose privilege will be entrenched. But if there were to be an expansion of grammars into more deprived areas, it would begin to attract pupils from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds. Grammar schools were always designed to be meritocratic, selecting pupils on the basis of academic ability rather than bank balance. In other words, they offered a real and lasting opportunity for social mobility.

And it is precisely this declining social mobility which has exercised the Tories in recent years – with good reason. It is far harder today, compared to 50 years ago, for people from the bottom 20% of the social order to rise to the top 20%, which is the usual criterion of a socially mobile society. What this means is that a government committed to the centralised ‘one size fits all’ comprehensive system has signalled failed to achieve its most cherished ideological goal – to equalise the chances of students being successful in society after the age of 16. And no one quite knows why the bottom 20% of students fail so miserably, whether due to a lack of ability or to wider factors in their family background – or a mixture of the two. Grammar schools may not help this category of pupils but then perhaps no change in educational policy can.

What is surprising about the Conservatives’ argument is that they do not oppose academic selection completely. In his speech Willett declared: ‘I believe that whole class teaching, setting and streaming, and a robust discipline policy are very effective ways to improve standards.’ Indeed, but setting is itself a form of selection in which brighter pupils are hived off from the rest in order to be stretched to the limits of their intellectual ability. It is a short step from this form of selection to another, namely where children are taught in a separate, non comprehensive school. Furthermore, as Willetts pointed out, selection already exists and can hardly be disinvented. In the maintained sector, parents move to areas with the best schools, paying a premium for houses in the process, and thus use their financial clout to ‘select’ the best schools for their offspring. Willetts claimed that it was wrong to write children off at the age of 11. But entrance to grammars is not confined to the age of 11 as children can enter at the ages of 13 or 16.

The Tories should have proposed to build more grammars not simply keep the existing number. But Cameron is so obsessed with demonstrating the party’s seismic shift on policy that he has quite lost sight of what he is in opposition to do. A commitment to grammar school expansion would have been welcomed by a huge number of British voters who are disillusioned with state education. Instead the Tories have demonstrated that they are on the wrong side of aspiring and hard working parents and pupils. New Labour and Blue Labour – what a choice!

top

Team Cameron just doesn't get it

22 May, 2007

top

A decision too late

18 May, 2007

In a posting two weeks ago I argued that Prince Harry should be prevented from serving in Iraq because of the greater risks he would face on the frontline. The insurgents on both sides had made a point of targeting him and that meant increased dangers for him and those serving around him. The recent decision of Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, to stop him going is therefore one I welcome. But there is just a whiff of incompetence about this whole affair. For it is impossible to disguise the significant propaganda victory that the Iraqi insurgents can claim in this instance. They will interpret Harry’s withdrawal as a consequence of their own blood curdling threats to the Prince (one apparently spoke of cutting off his ears and sending them to the Queen) and see it as evidence that they are winning the battle in Southern Iraq. To some extent the blame for this propaganda coup lies with Sir Richard himself. For months, it should have struck him as obvious that Prince Harry would face extraordinary risks in a battlezone where terrorists were seeking high profile targets. It was obvious too that the endless speculation about his serving in Iraq would be grist to the mill of insurgents in their media battle with the West. Dannatt's decision, albeit the correct one in my judgment, has clearly been made months too late. Nonetheless, by not sending Harry to this fraught battle zone, the insurgents have been denied the much greater propaganda coup of capturing a member of the Royal Family and exposing him to the glare of the international media. For that we should all be thankful.

top

The Blair Years III

18 May, 2007

Perhaps the government’s most glaring failure was its inability to reform the welfare state. Back in 1997, and with the economy growing at a steady rate, the government sought to abolish youth employment and a culture of living on benefits. With good reason Gordon Brown declared that “refusing the whole range of offers that are open, and staying on benefit, will now not become an option”. But as a new study commissioned by the political think tank Reform points out, the latest figures show that there are over half a million unemployed 18-24 year-olds, 70,000 more than in April 1998. In April 1997 there were 912,000 people who were classed as neither in employment, education or training (NEETS). Current figures reveal that the number of NEETS has increased by 131,000 since the government came to power. The percentage of those 18-24 year olds classed as economically active has also decreased since 1997. Thus the government’s much lauded New Deal, which cost over £3 billion, failed to achieve what it set out to do. As Labour MP Frank Field argues, the welfare system requires drastic change through the introduction of time limiting benefits for the unemployed and radical changes to incapacity benefit system. Sadly this government has little stomach for reform. All its tinkering has merely entrenched a culture of dependency which is hard to get out of.

The social achievements of the Blair years were also modest. The Civil Partnerships Act was welcomed by some as a socially progressive measure, but seen by others as a betrayal of the sanctity of marriage. There was also a bill to outlaw religious discrimination, which was lauded in many quarters as a necessary antidote to religious bigotry. In reality, it was a sop to British Muslims who were disillusioned with the Iraq war, as well as a restriction on freedom of speech.

For all its talk of radicalism, this government not only failed to challenge but actually entrenched the twin dogmas of political correctness and multiculturalism. Blair and his ministers rattled on about Britain being a multicultural nation which was young, diverse and forward looking. But as policy, multiculturalism implied the absence of a dominant or even worthy cultural and religious heritage. Instead minority values and cultures were to be celebrated, no matter how much they conflicted with the values of the majority. Thus Britishness came to be seen by officialdom as a mish mash of separate and confused identities and criticism of minorities (especially powerless ones) was deemed unacceptable. The enduring architectural symbol of Blairism, the Millennium Dome, told us little of our past and everything about the vacuous project called ‘New Labour.’ The human rights culture was given a massive boost with the decision in 1998 to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. The result was a form of judicial activism which severely hampered the government’s ability to deal with Islamic terror. But to even call terror ‘Islamic’ was problematic under the new rules of political correctness.

All of these problems were worsened by a sudden and vast increase in immigration. Immigration remains crucial for the UK in order to fill gaps in our economy and enrich the fabric of society. However, immigration has always been a social good when it limited and controlled. From 1997, when the net inflow (the difference between the numbers migrating and immigrating) was steady at around the 50,000 mark, the number of immigrants to the UK has dramatically increased. In 2005, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, the net inflow was 185,000 due to 565,000 migrants arriving in the UK. These figures do not include hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers who have remained in the country or people who have overstayed their VISA. The ONS figures may be a gross underestimate of the net increase in population from immigration since 1997. The scale of increase is clearly unsustainable in the long term with dramatic consequences (if it continues) for housing, water, pensions and public services. Yet the impact that it may soon have on social cohesion and national identity could be more startling still.

Yet if anything truly defined the Blair years, it was the corrosive culture of spin and sleaze in government. In 1997 Blair promised a whiter than white administration. He was, after all, a ‘pretty straight kind of guy.’ But a decade in power produced a kind of sleaze that was, if anything, worse than that under the Tories. We had the Hinduja passport affair, the Bernie Ecclestone affair, Peter Mandleson’s undeclared loan from Geoffrey Robinson, Mittalgate, Cheriegate, several Blunkett-gates and the unfortunate sexual antics of Mr. Prescott. To top it all came the saga of cash for peerages in which a serving prime minister was, for the first time, questioned by police. Was this being whiter than white? More like blacker than black.p>

In 1997 the Blair machine rolled into Downing Street promising that ‘things could only get better’. After a decade in power, it is incredible that so little was achieved.

top

The Blair years II

16 May, 2007

On the domestic scene, Blair’s greatest triumph was undoubtedly the transformation of his own party. After the 1992 election defeat, it was glaringly obvious that Old Labour, a party committed to nationalization, punitive taxation and old style socialism, could never appeal to the aspirational classes of ‘Middle England.’ To his credit, Blair realized this straightaway and his Clause 4 moment in 1994 ranks as one of his finest achievements. The economic successes enjoyed by the government stemmed rather ironically from a decision to devolve power to a non governmental body. Thus the decision to grant independence to the Bank of England in 1997 paved the way for a decade of relative economic stability. Unlike previous Labour governments, this one could claim some degree of economic competence, with Gordon Brown presiding over a decade of growth, low interest rates and inflation and relatively low unemployment. Of course the government never acknowledged the fact that since 1992 the UK economy had been growing comfortably and that by 1997 the economy was in good health. Nonetheless, three Labour election triumphs speak for themselves.

However, the government’s economic record is hardly one of unimpeachable integrity. Over the last 10 years there has been a massive increase in the tax burden which has hit middle income earners and young families the most. This has been achieved through a vast number of measures, including increases in corporation tax, national insurance, air passenger duty, the abolition of the married couple's tax allowance, the raid on private pensions in 1997, council tax rises, green taxes, and a host of other stealth measures. Figures from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) recently showed that the increase in the tax burden – (39.5 per cent of GDP in 1997 to 42.7 per cent in 2007) - was one of the very biggest in the western world. Aware that the tax burden was its highest for 20 years, the IMF recently warned the Chancellor to slash public spending or risk driving businesses away from the UK.

The government used the vast tax revenues at its disposal to fund an enormous expansion of public services with their vast armies of managers, bureaucrats and consultants. After the 2001 election, tens of billions of pounds were poured into the NHS and state education in a drastic attempt at transformation, yet the real legacy is waste and mismanagement. Take health as a starting point. Spending on the NHS increased from just over £40 billion in 1999-2000 to over £80 billion this year, a doubling of cash in real terms. Much of this money went on salary increases across the board and a huge increase in administrators and managers, as well as a hideously expensive online computer system. According to one estimate there are now more administrators than beds in the National Health Service while NHS trusts are in debt to a tune of £1.3 billion. While the longest waiting times have been reduced, average waiting times have changed little since 1997. According to the OECD, reductions in death rates from cancer and heart and circulatory diseases have declined but the rate is no faster than it was in the 1990s when there was no vast funding increase. The radical reform required in healthcare, namely giving patients individual choice in their care, treatment and hospitalization so as to end an iniquitous system of health rationing, and enabling primary care trusts to purchase health on behalf of their patients, is something this government never contemplated.

Labour cited impressive increases in exam results as evidence of sound educational policy. Over the decade there were increases in the number of pupils obtaining 5 good (A*-C) passes at GCSE with 60% of pupils succeeding in 2006. At A level in the same year, roughly 1 in 4 students received a top grade. But these figures are interesting for what they leave out. For if English and Maths results are factored into the equation, less then half of all students currently receive 5 good GCSE’s, a figure that drops still further when a modern language is included. The government conveniently ignored the easing of exams, the lowering of passmark thresholds, particularly in Maths, and the dropping of harder subjects such as languages and single sciences. It doesn’t require a genius to see how these developments would produce consistently rising pass rates year on year. The new modular system for A levels, allowing pupils to endlessly re-sit exams if they failed, also helped boost the A level pass rate.

The one piece of radical reform, the creation of trust schools which would have greater independence from local authorities, had to be watered down because of backbench opposition. Any notion of academic selection, vital for the nurture of gifted students, went out of the window. Indeed this government came to power promising an end to selection and the abolition of the hugely popular and successful grammar school system. The government ignored the obvious point that grammars, unlike expensive private schools, offer a meritocratic route to excellence in education. With education in such disarray, it made little sense for Tony Blair to pursue his pet project of tuition fees. What was lost on Blair was that artificially massaging the numbers at university based on targets, rather than the intellectual ability or needs of students, was a futile exercise.

As Blair poured endless sums into comprehensives and the NHS, he failed to grasp that the problem in both was not a lack of resources. To drive up quality, there would have to be increased parental choice with a corresponding reduction in government interference, directives and targets. This could have been achieved with a voucher system where money followed the pupil and patient, rather than the school. But this was a radical step too far for it would remove one thing this government was addicted to: central control. For all his talk of liberty and ‘rights,’ Blair never countenanced freeing people from the clunking hand of the state. Nowhere was this better seen than in the failure to reform the welfare state.

The final part of 'The Blair Years' will follow shortly.top

The Tony Blair years (PART I)

14 May, 2007

With all the grace of an actor enjoying his final performance on stage, Tony Blair began the long farewell as he announced his resignation from the Labour party on Thursday. The words were carefully chosen, the voice resonant, the eyes tearful, the performance near perfect. It was a consummate piece of political theatre from a master practitioner. But now that the worst kept secret in British politics is out, how will history assess Tony Blair’s legacy? For most people the answer can be summed up in 4 letters: Iraq. In a sense this should come as little surprise. Prime Ministers have often chosen foreign policy as a battleground on which to stake their reputations. One thinks of the obvious cases: Churchill and the Second World War, Chamberlain and Munich, Eden and Suez. But the Blair years have been marked by two attempted revolutions: one at home and one abroad. In each case, the legacy has been decidedly mixed with results that are inconclusive at best and disappointing at worst.

Tony Blair’s foreign policy was, at times, genuinely statesmanlike. His decision to join the United States in liberating Kosovo from the clutches of Slobodan Milosevic showed a genuine boldness of vision and a willingness to face down a ruthless tyrant. In 2000 he successfully argued the case for intervening in Sierra Leone and, in between, helped to raise the profile of the British military around the world. If one moment defined his foreign policy it was his response to 9/11. With a passionate sense of moral certainty, he declared that Britain would stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA and proceeded to build an international coalition to help remove the Taliban from Afghanistan. His ability to grasp the dangers of Islamist extremism was fundamental and in speech after speech, he spelled out the dangers of appeasing Al Qaeda’s brand of lethal aggression. He certainly showed dignified statesmanship in the aftermath of the 7th July attacks in 2005. Important too was his support for Israel during its Lebanon campaign of 2006. Despite the intransigence of much of his party, he correctly connected the threats posed by Iranian extremism, Hezbollah and radical Islam.

But the mark of a great statesman is not just courageous vision and resolute defiance but sound judgment and a willingness to advance the national interest. Here Tony Blair can be found wanting. For Iraq will define his legacy, just as much as Vietnam defined Lyndon Johnson’s. His case for the war rested on near certain convictions despite receiving very equivocal intelligence from MI6. Without denying that he possessed benign, even honourable intentions, he singularly failed to grasp the strategic and political complexities of what he was getting into. Worse, he did too little after the invasion to impose a sound post occupation plan for Iraq, thus buttressing the arguments of the left that Blair was essentially Bush’s poodle. Since 2003 Iraq has witnessed the exodus of much of its professional class and a violent terrorist insurgency that is scarcely abating. It would be wrong to blame all this misfortune on Blair himself but he can scarcely be absolved of blame.

Then there is Europe, the issue that brought the curtain down on successive Tory administrations. With all the fervour of an evangelist, Blair talked publicly about Britain’s destiny in Europe and sought to cement his place in history as the man who brought the Euro to Britain. Fortunately, he did not succeed though not before advocating the imposition of a new but very undemocratic EU Constitution. For all his talk of Britain being the ‘greatest country in the world’ he failed to grasp that the national interest would not be served by being submerged in a financially ruinous, meddling and bureaucratic superstate. He failed to see that a solid national identity, so essential for any great nation, would only be undermined by mass immigration which has reached an unprecedented scale during the Tony Blair years. Since 1997 at least 1,500,000 immigrants have swelled the UK population, an unsustainable rate if viewed in the long term. Nor did he grasp that Britain would no longer be ‘Great’ if it were threatened by the secession of its weaker members. Devolution was designed to curtail moves for independence in Scotland and Wales but the recent triumph of the SNP has shown the folly of such a view.

Even in Northern Ireland, where Tony Blair felt the ‘hand of history’ on his shoulder, peace was achieved only after the appeasement of extremist Republicanism and the undermining of moderate Unionism led by David Trimble. Blair must take his share of the plaudits for the peacemaking but there was a price to pay.

But did Blair’s domestic achievements eclipse those abroad?

PART II TO FOLLOW SHORTLYtop

The Tories must look across the Channel

9 May, 2007

The Conservatives are currently basking in their recent local election triumph. According to some observers, the party is finally on course for a major electoral triumph whenever prime minister elect Brown decides to call a general election. One report, extrapolating from the local election results, claimed that the Conservatives would have a 20 seat majority in a general election, smaller than that enjoyed by Thatcher in 1979 (43 seat majority) but enough to comfortably form a government. The Conservatives seem to have good reason for their elation. First, the party achieved its target of 40% of the popular vote, the minimum required for a return to no. 10. Second, the government did get a battering, though not as much as they initially feared. Labour suffered at the hands of the SNP in Scotland and did badly in parts of the South East where disgruntled voters switched to their two main rivals.

But before David Cameron breaks open the bubbly, a word of caution is required. As the Sunday Telegraph reported last week, there were over 700 key wards where the average Conservative vote increased by only 0.4 per cent, hardly something to cry out from the rooftops. In parts of the South East, there were signs of electoral progress but the Tories made little headway in Scotland, the North of England or Wales. There are large parts of the country that are simply not warming to the Tory message and this should be worrying news. After Iraq, cash for honours, a decade of sleaze, rising inflation, higher levels of violent crime, poor performing schools, overcrowded maternity wards, the scandal of mass immigration and a variety of other policy embarrassments, the opposition should be capitalizing much more effectively. Local lections are, after all, an opportunity for a jolly good protest vote and while Cameron’s Tories performed well enough, the result was hardly spectacular.

The truth is that Cameron’s strategy of wooing liberal (and women) voters with his brand of ‘caring conservatism’ has only worked to a point. Sure, the Tories have helped eradicate the image of the nasty party and persuaded voters that they stand for more than knocking the Euro and illegal immigrants. Non Tories simply could not warm to Mr. Hague promising to save the pound or Mr. Duncan Smith full stop. With a manic obsessiveness, Cameron’s Conservatives have changed their logo, embraced the green agenda and started hugging hoodies. And while it is vital to shift the focus towards issues of domestic concern, there are signs that this liberalizing has gone too far. The sad truth is that British politics is witnessing an unravelling of ideological debate. The mainstream parties show little interest in challenging a prevailing orthodoxy dominated by an expensive and burdensome welfare system, failed comprehensive schools and the NHS. For all his talk of decentralization, Cameron has not offered a serious alternative to taxpayer funded public services swallowing huge sums of public money. Yes, there is talk of tax cuts but this hardly constitutes a serious policy commitment. In any case, any call for tax reductions in one area is always being balanced by a call to raise them elsewhere. In short, the Tory philosophy seems to be one of tax redistribution, not tax cuts.

What Tory strategists must do is look at recent events across the Channel. Nicholas Sarkozy has justly won a mandate from French voters with calls for economic liberalization and domestic reform. In neo Thatcherite mode he has promised to invigorate the French economy through incentives and competition, forcing the unemployed to accept to accept work, thus reforming the benefits system, and promising a tough approach to crime and illegal immigration. We wait to see how much of this he can deliver. The point is that French voters, having been offered a fierce ideological debate, opted for change and reform, rather than the status quo. It is time the voters of Britain were offered the similar choice.

top

The Winograd Report

5 May, 2007

The long awaited Winograd report, an interim version of which was published a few days ago, has offered a scathing assessment of Ehud Olmert’s leadership in last summer’s Lebanon war. The report cites a number of failures at the highest level that include poor leadership, lack of preparation, inexperience and strategic failures. The main criticisms are as follows:

'The decision to respond with an immediate, intensive military strike was not based on a detailed, comprehensive and authorized military plan, based on careful study of the complex characteristics of the Lebanon arena. A meticulous examination of these characteristics would have revealed the following: the ability to achieve military gains having significant political-international weight was limited; an Israeli military strike would inevitably lead to missiles fired at the Israeli civilian north; there was not another effective military response to such missile attacks than an extensive and prolonged ground operation to capture the areas from which the missiles were fired…These difficulties were not explicitly raised with the political leaders before the decision to strike was taken. Consequently, in making the decision to go to war, the government did not consider the whole range of options, including that of continuing the policy of 'containment', or combining political and diplomatic moves with military strikes below the 'escalation level', or military preparations without immediate military action - so as to maintain for Israel the full range of responses to the abduction. This failure reflects weakness in strategic thinking…Some of the declared goals of the war were not clear and could not be achieved…The IDF did not exhibit creativity in proposing alternative action possibilities, did not alert the political decision-makers to the discrepancy between its own scenarios and the authorized modes of action, and did not demand - as was necessary under its own plans - early mobilization of the reserves so they could be equipped and trained in case a ground operation would be required…Even after these facts became known to the political leaders, they failed to adapt the military way of operation and its goals to the reality on the ground. On the contrary, declared goals were too ambitious, and it was publicly stated that fighting would continue until they were achieved. But the authorized military operations did not enable their achievement.'

The report singles out for criticism the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff. Olmert is accused of making up his mind ‘hasilty’ despite ‘the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one’. He did not study the ‘complex features of the Lebanon front or of the military, political and diplomatic options available to Israel’ and made his decisions without ‘systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs.’ He failed to ‘adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing.’ For Winograd, this represents a ‘serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence.’ These are serious charges against the serving prime minister of a country that has long prided itself on its military prowess. While it lacked the remit to call for his resignation, the report has rendered Olmert’s position virtually untenable.

The report makes difficult reading for those (like myself) who championed (and still champion) the second Lebanon war. Israel was fighting to dismantle Iran’s proxy army in Lebanon, a bloodthirsty militia that was supposed to be disarmed under UN Resolution 1559. The failure of the Lebanese government to patrol South Lebanon, allowing Hezbollah to stockpile its deadly arsenal, gave Israel a morally sound green light to attack the militias themselves, following the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers. While the civilian casualties were certainly tragic, they did not obscure the basic moral dimension of the conflict. This was a democracy which, for all its faults, was vigorously defending itself against militant Islamofascists. Hezbollah’s tactics of hiding among the Lebanese civilian population while attacking Israel exemplified cowardice of the highest order. The argument about proportionality was one of the sillier criticisms to emerge in 2006, though not in this report. Israel was accused, even by some of its friends, of using disproportionate force against the Lebanese population. Well, naturally Israel’s attacks were disproportionate for they were seeking to win this conflict and wars are usually won by the overwhelming and disproportionate use of force. While the end result was inconclusive, the IDF did inflict serious damage on Hezbollah, destroying a quarter of their best fighters and much of their infrastructure.

Nonetheless, the report reflects the enduring strength of Israel’s democracy and the accountability of its leaders. As the Winograd report makes clear, ‘Israel must be a learning society - a society which examines its achievements and, in particular, its failures, in order to improve its ability to face the future.’ It is hard to imagine many other democratic governments risking such scathing criticism and such a blatant form of political suicide. That said, Olmert’s decision to remain in power now looks increasingly dubious. His military inexperience has proved to be an embarrassing Achilles heel which no amount of political maneuvering can remedy. He ought to do the honourable thing and quit, as should his equally beleaguered defence minister Amir Peretz. That leaves Tsipi Livni, the foreign secretary who has already indicated her willingness to lead Kadima. I am sure Ms. Livni is an ambitious politician who is keen for the top job but her public call for Mr. Olmert’s resignation, without stepping down herself, is nothing but an outrageous act of personal disloyalty. In behaving this way, she has ensured that the search for a successor will be that much harder.

top

I'm afraid, Mr. Blair, we all deserve an inquiry

3 May, 2007

The conviction of 5 Muslim radicals on Monday for their part in the ‘fertilizer bomb plot’ was a great victory for the intelligence and security services. They helped avert a series of attacks that might have proved more deadly than the horrors of 7th July and for that, we must all be grateful. One fears, however, that these 5 may simply be the tip of an iceberg. Scotland Yard’s counter terrorism commander, Peter Clarke, recently claimed that the number of Muslims in the UK being investigated for possible links to terrorism runs into ‘thousands.’ This is a truly horrifying estimate, making the current ‘terrorist’ threat to the UK greater in scale than any we have ever known. But questions about the effectiveness of MI5 cannot be brushed under the carpet. We have since found out that 2 of the 7/7 bombers were on the fringes of this latest terrorist plot, and were personally acquainted with some of those now convicted. Surely this entitles us to ask why MI5 did not pursue these leads vigorously or at least pass their details to other forces who could have carried out vital surveillance. We must know if this reflected a lack of resources (something MI5 have claimed) or whether other factors came into play that hindered the service’s effectiveness. The only way in which these questions can be answered is through a fully independent inquiry, though not necessarily a public one where sensitive information could be leaked into the public domain. No one should seek to assign blame for the events of 7th July beyond the perpetrators and supporters of this heinous crime. The overriding imperative is to prevent further atrocities and mass killings.

top