Diary
Media bile from the right too
31 December, 2008
The media bile that has been directed towards Israel in recent days has come from friend and foe alike. In an article in The Telegraph today, Tim Butcher argues rather naively that the Israeli action in Gaza has torpedoed the peace process between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. He writes: ‘As the smoke continues to rise over Gaza, the tragic truth is that the hopes of wider peace in the Middle East now lie in ashes.’
He goes on: ‘After decades of turmoil, violence and disagreement, the celestial bodies of international relations had shifted into rare alignment. Israel and a moderate Palestinian leadership under Fatah’s current chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, were actually prepared to sit down and forge two new countries: Israel, without much of the land it occupied in 1967, and a state called Palestine.’
Er, not quite. In fact Mr. Abbas, far from being a modern political messiah, remains addicted to the bogus right of return for Palestinian refugees. He is on record as saying that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state and has done nothing to stop anti semitic demonization in the West Bank. Some peace partner!
But the naivety does not end there: ‘As well as undermining Mr. Abbas’s moderate leadership, the air assault has a regional impact of even greater significance. Talks between Syria and Israel, brokered by Turkey, have now been called off. It is hard to exaggerate how disappointing this is. Britain has long argued that the key to peace in the Holy Land lies on the road to Damascus. Syria is a key sponsor not just of Hamas but of Hezbollah, the militant group that draws from Lebanon’s Shia minority and that has proved such a menace to Israel.’
Oh please! As if the talks between Israel and Syria were actually likely to go anywhere. If Syria wanted to come out of the diplomatic cold, it would already have broken its strategic alliance with Iran and stopped the funding of its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. The fact that there has not been a fundamental re-alignment in the Syrian-Iranian-Hamas-Hezbullah relationship surely tells its own story.
Butcher digs a bigger hole for himself: ‘Op Cast Lead is proving a powerful recruiting drive for Hamas, encouraging thousands of young men to join, not just in Gaza but, more importantly, in the West Bank.’
Maybe Israel’s actions will have that unintended consequence. But what Butcher fails to address is what choice Israel has in the face of an unrelenting campaign of terror. When you have nearly one eighth of your population (the figure is 700,000) within range of rocket attacks, you don’t stand by idly while the casualties mount. You act of necessity; you respond. That is the prerogative of a sovereign government that wants to protect its citizens and stop them becoming body parts.
Butcher claims that this action is motivated by the forthcoming elections, with Livni and Kadima desperate to show Israelis that they are as tough as Netanyahu’s hawkish Likud. He writes: ‘Israeli voters like strong leaders. By ordering an unprecedented air assault on Gaza, Miss Livni is now able to present herself as someone in that mould. Her polling numbers have already begun to tick up.’
But that is hardly a critique of the action, unless you can prove that Israel has no right, or need, to be launching these attacks against Hamas. But that argument is hard to sustain when you consider how Southern Israeli towns have come under continual bombardment from Gazan terrorists over the last few months and years. No country would exercise a self denying ordinance on behalf of their citizens while those same citizens were forced into bunkers every day by rocket attacks. One would have thought this point so obvious that only the bigoted fanatics of the left would demur. But no. It would seem that commentators on all sides are asleep on the job.
Happy New Year to all my readers.topBogus arguments in Gaza
30 December, 2008
‘Disproportionate force.’ ‘Excessive force.’ Are these words becoming increasingly familiar to you? If there has been one consistent critique of Israel’s actions in Gaza in the last 3 days, it is that the IDF has used excessive force in a disproportionate display of military might against Hamas. Indeed this has become a regular feature of commentary from even pro Israeli papers, such as the Daily Telegraph. Thus the Telegraph’s Sean Rayment declared on Saturday that Israel was ‘addicted to violence’ following its shock and awe tactics on the first day of fighting. Other papers look at the difference in the casualty figures (3 dead Israelis for 300 dead Palestinians) and draw their own conclusions. In a sense, this is simply a case of history repeating itself. Hark back to the 2006 Lebanon war where you will find the same arguments about disproportionality, excessive force and so on.
This is obviously a bogus argument but one which demands a little attention. In one sense, Israel has used disproportionate force in Gaza. If you compare the firepower of each side, Israel clearly has superior weaponry and ammunition and has used it to devastating effect. If you compare the loss of life on each side then yes, the ratio of death is unequal in Israel and Gaza. Far fewer Israelis have been victims of Hamas rocket attacks than Palestinians from Israeli counter attacks.
But wait a second. Who started this latest round of fighting? Why Hamas, and their Iranian friends! Not only did they fire rockets at Israeli towns when the ‘ceasefire’ ended on December 19th but they were firing rockets during the ceasefire and before. Since 2002, the citizens of southern Israeli towns have been beleaguered by Gazan terrorists. 6,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately in 6 years of unrelenting terror. This is war by any standard, conducted by terror groups intent on destroying the Jewish state.
In a war situation, the government under attack is not required to resort to minimal force. Quite simply, they use all the force they can muster to defeat the other side, preferably using overwhelming firepower in the initial stages of conflict to paralyze their enemy. It could hardly be any other way.
Look at it from another point of view. Israel takes care to protect its citizens from rocket attacks by building a sophisticated system of shelters. By contrast, Hamas puts its citizens in harm’s way by using them as human shields, then cries foul when these civilians are killed. If Israel were to turn its citizens into human shields in order to equalise the number of casualties, would that be morally better? If Israel were to make primitive Katyusha rockets and fire them indiscriminately at crowded Palestinian population centres, that might involve more ‘proportionality’ force but it would hardly satisfy the conscience of the world.
But if Israel’s firepower is disproportionate, that does not mean that the response per se is. A genuinely proportionate response means that the country under attacks does everything it needs to weaken and paralyze an enemy nation. It does not exact revenge on civilians, nor does it engage in vindictive displays of military might or carry out atrocities. It defends itself using all necessary means.
Of course in this current round of fighting, Israel should take (and is taking) all steps to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. Mistakes will inevitably (and tragically) occur and human shield victims will multiply, as they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Israel is fighting a battle, not just against implacable Islamist terrorists but against a barrage of Hamas’ propaganda, and the usual assortment of left wing journalists, NGOs and international do gooders who willingly swallow this propaganda. Isn’t truth always the first casualty of war?
topLessons to learn from Gaza
27 December, 2008
Israel’s air strikes against Gaza today were inevitable. After Hamas repeatedly broke the Egyptian sponsored phony ceasefire, and after their militants fired hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into Israel’s border towns, it was only a matter of time before there would be a heavy response.
Already, the BBC pictures suggest a massacre, with Palestinian authorities all too willing to create political ‘facts’ on the ground before the real facts are known. But we should treat with caution the figure of 200 dead which has been disseminated across the world. The Palestinians are notorious for ramping up casualties, as they did in the Jenin ‘massacre’ of 2002. But even if we accept the figure, it may not be composed of non combatants alone but of terrorists, policemen and an assortment of other Hamas hangers on.
Though civilian casualties are terrible, we should never forget how cynically Palestinian extremists resort so readily to the use of human shields. As Mark Regev (Israeli spokesman) pointed out today, Hamas’ centres of terrorist operations are frequently and deliberately sited near civilian areas. Thus even the use of surgical air strikes is bound to lead to civilian deaths.
At least three lessons should be learnt from all this. Firstly all those within Israel’s political establishment who call for ‘deals’ with Hamas are deluded. It is not just that the Hamas Charter, which is virulently anti semitic, calls for the destruction of Israel. Even with a ceasefire in place, rockets were still fired into Israeli towns day after day by Gazan terrorists. Hamas’ truce (hudna) is not worth the paper it is written on.
Secondly, the Arab-Israeli peace talks are futile so long as the Islamic Republic of Iran remains a viable Middle East player. Iran is the chief sponsor and financer of the Hamas terror machine and right now, no Western power is willing to derail the country’s nuclear aspirations. As a result, Iran continues to destabilise the Middle East by empowering its terrorist proxies in the region.
Thirdly, Israel cannot afford to unilaterally withdraw from disputed territory. In 2000, the Jewish state hastily withdrew from Lebanon, creating a security vacuum that was exploited by Hezbollah. The war of 2006 showed the world the deadly but predictable results. In 2005 the Jewish state evacuated Gaza and thousands of its settlers, effectively handing the territory on a plate to Hamas. The attritional terrorism of the last three years was the inevitable consequence. Were Israel to leave the West Bank tomorrow with no guarantee of security, it would constitute a grave dereliction of duty to the country’s civilians. Withdrawal from territory with a viable security infrastructure in place, and with an end to incitement, is an altogether different matter.
topChannel 4 joins the ranks of the disgraced
26 December, 2008
Right, it’s time to break the self imposed silence that was promised last week. Think back to last year when President Bollinger of Columbia University disgraced himself after allowing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to address his students. Remember how the Iranian President used the speech for political propaganda, attacking his enemies subtly while wearing the veil of a peacenik.
Well now Channel 4 has joined the ranks of the disgraced with a similar piece of ‘self indulgent liberalism’. Their decision yesterday to give Ahmadinejad airtime for an 'alternative Christmas message' has been rightly derided as ‘sick’ and idiotic. As predicted, the message of Christmas peace was nothing but a clever smokescreen for an Islamist assault on the West and his principal enemies, America and Israel. Take this appalling diatribe within the speech:
‘If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers. If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.’
Well we all know who the ‘warmongers, occupiers and terrorists’ are, don’t we? According to head of news and current affairs Dorothy Byrne: ‘As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, president Ahmadinejad’s views are enormously influential. We are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view.’
This is a load of self serving tosh. In reality, this is the most cynical of stunts, designed to stir controversy in order to boost the Channel’s flagging ratings. They may well have succeeded in that respect. But if there are no limits to sparking controversy, where do we draw the line? As Zimbabwe and North Korea will be in the news in the next 12 months, are we to see Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il addressing the British public, despite these leaders' horrendous human rights records. Would Channel 4 executives have invited Joseph Goebbels to deliver an alternative Christmas message at the height of the Blitz? It would certainly have stirred controversy.
As for the ‘alternative world view,’ it is espoused by a ranting religious fanatic and Holocaust denying Judaeophobe whose regime has persecuted homosexuals, dissidents and teenagers for fun. Through its support for Iraqi insurgents, the regime is stained by the blood of our soldiers. But the fact that the Islamic Republic is in a state of de facto war with this country is apparently no bar to giving its leader airtime in the British media.
A bigoted and dangerous tyrant has been allowed to deliver a politicized attack on his enemies with the connivance of a public service broadcaster. It would be laughable were it not so tragic.
topLouis
Golders., UK.
27/12/2008
This moment was truly 'tear to the eye time' - for it was so sick and appalling I never thought I would see such a thing happen in my life. It was like some sort of bizzare paralell universe where evil rules and that is the 'Queen's speech'. Such a place is only a bad dream, a nightmare though.. But by doing what they did, does Channel 4 bring us a small step toward the fictional... (irony for a television station ?)
The blog is hibernating
22 December, 2008
What a tumultuous year it has been. We have seen the world slide into a deep recession, marked by the gravest financial and banking crisis for 80 years. We have witnessed the election of Barack Obama to the White House, seen Russia invade one of its neighbours, mourned Islamist attacks in India and lamented the continuing appeasement of Iran. 2009 will be a truly fascinating year on every front.
After writing 146 blog entries and tens of thousands of words on these and other events, I am ending the blog for 2008 and will resume promptly next year.
I wish all my readers a very happy Christmas and Hanukkah. I hope that the coming week provides some much needed cheer amid the terrifying gloom and uncertainty around us.
topThe unthinkable is the new economic norm
19 December, 2008
The decision to bailout the US car industry with a $17billion loan will be viewed by many as a return to 1970s socialism. Then as now, state intervention was responsible for propping up an inefficient industry which was simply not selling enough goods to the public. So it is scarcely surprising then that the gurus of economic libertarianism, like the Telegraph’s Janet Daley, baulk at Bush’s automotive rescue plan. They presumably draw the line at rescuing banks, whose smooth functioning is necessary for any economic activity, while castigating financial packages for specific (and ailing) sections of industry.
There is indeed a valid distinction between saving cars and saving banks. But in one sense it misses the point. As soon as the government nationalises one part of the economy, the clamour will only grow for further interventions elsewhere. As soon as the hallowed doctrine of laissez faire is torn up and debauched, the state ends up having a field day. That is why that wily old socialist Gordon Brown, the arch deacon of centralized intervention, is having such a field day right now.
Not that I am slamming the Bush package for the car industry. It was probably necessary in order to stave off the collapse of America’s car giants and prevent the spectre of mass unemployment. But it represents a rupture, perhaps the final rupture, with the economic certainties of the lat quarter century. In the last few months, banks have been nationalised and untold billions pumped into the markets by nervous central bankers. We have seen interest rates reduced to near zero in the US and Japan. There is even talk of a nuclear option – central banks printing money, either to give to consumers as a fiscal stimulus or to purchase assets. This last measure may seem too far fetched for many. But a year ago would it not have been far fetched to take over banks, or bail out the car industry.
There is one of the true lessons of the Great Crash of 2008. In tackling the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the unthinkable has increasingly become the norm.
topPakistan is a breeding ground for terror
15 December, 2008
On his recent trip to the Asian subcontinent, Gordon Brown named Pakistan as an epicentre of terror. He said that ‘three quarters of the most serious plots investigated by the British authorities have links to al-Qaeda in Pakistan’. He declared: ‘We must break the chain of terrorism that links the mountains of Afghanistan to the streets of Britain.’ What an epiphany! At last Mr Brown is prepared to use the t word, rather than resort to vacuous, limp language that describes suicide bombers as militants.
Of course, there is a chain of terrorism linking tribal areas in Pakistan to the streets of London, and New York and Paris for that matter. Of course we know that Muslim bombers have been indoctrinated by fanatical ideologues who are intent on spreading their lethal jihadist doctrines across the globe. The 7/7 bombers, who carried out the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil, received their terrorist education in Pakistan.
So what does the Prime Minister propose? There needs to be, in his words, ‘increased British support for Pakistani counter-terrorism work’, support for ‘Pakistani police work on detecting and defusing bombs’, a British fund for ‘scanning equipment at Pakistani airports’ and help with ‘forensic science for major terrorist incidents.’
All of these measures can be useful. No doubt, our security services operate a highly sophisticated system of counter terrorism that is the envy of many less developed nations. But alarm bells should be ringing. For a start, the amount of money proposed, namely £6 million, is a trifle compared to the vast sums (some $10 billion) poured by the United States into the Pakistani military over the last 8 years to tackle the tribal areas on the Afghan/Pakistan borders. Despite this largesse, the Pakistani Taleban is thriving in these lawless border regions, which remain a focal point for global terror plots.
Secondly, Brown is dealing with the symptoms, not the causes of terror. For decades Pakistan has been a breeding ground of Islamic terror. It has thousands of madrassahs which are, in the words of Ariel Cohen, senior policy advisor for the Heritage Foundation, ‘factories of terror.’ These alternative schools give various forms of religious instruction and, in many cases, lessons in jihadist violence and terror. You cannot tackle terror without closing down the centres of ideological brainwashing that churn out terrorists. It is like trying to defeat the hydra by cutting off one of its 100 heads.
Tackling madrassahs that promote the jihad, arresting fanatics who preach terror, shutting down ‘factories of terror,’ and using cash to develop the lawless tribal areas should be the least we expect from a nominally pro Western government in Karachi. But if $10 billion can’t do the trick, it is unlikely that Brown’s tiny contribution will.
President elect Obama has already said that Afghanistan is the crucial arena for tackling Islamist terror. One of Obama’s first foreign policy challenges will be to push President Zardari to take effective action in the tribal areas. He should push Zardari to tackle militants, secure the border with Afghanistan, disrupt terror plots, close madrassahs and arrest terrorist ideologues. If Zardari cannot deliver the goods, more US airstrikes will surely (and rightly) follow.
Brown’s remedy for Pakistani inspired terror does not go far enough then. But at least he has offered a belated public acknowledgment that radical Islam is a global problem which cannot be dealt with on a national basis alone. Tackling Islamist terror, and the rogue regimes that fund it, remains one of the central political struggles of our time. It is not a struggle we can afford to lose.
topGood and bad news on knife crime
12 December, 2008
The government appears to have woken from its stupor over knife crime by realising that police stop and search operations actually reduce (shock horror) the number of young people carrying knives. Over the last 6 months, 10 police forces in England have searched some 105,000 youngsters in their ‘Tackling Knives Action programme.’ The figures released by the Home Office show that whereas 1 in 30 people was found to be carrying a knife in July, the figure in October was 1 in 65.
The Home Office has woken up to the fact that tough rhetoric and easy soundbites are no substitute for intelligent policing. People really are deterred from carrying offensive weapons by the certainty that a) they will be stopped and caught by the police and b) they will subsequently be sent to prison. The tabloid press and the right wing bloggers have been right all along. The campaigners from Barnados and UNICEF who complained about the ‘demonization’ of children have been shown up as a bunch of no good bleeding hearts.
But it is not all good news. From these figures, we have a strong indication that a) is true but we have no similar certainty about b). This is because the Home Office refuses to release figures for the number of knife carriers sent to prison for their crime, fuelling the suspicion that they are hiding a damaging statistic. Presumably the only sanction that many of these criminals are receiving is a slap on the wrist, a community sentence order or an ASBO. Naturally, this completely dilutes the effectiveness of stop and search in the first place. If people think that they will not face prison for carrying weapons, then eventually they will revert to their old habits. And we will see more young people stabbed to death as a result.
topAnother self inflicted wound for the state sector
9 December, 2008
Once again the educational establishment has suffered a damaging, self inflicted wound. Sir Jim Rose has proposed that in primary schools, core traditional subjects like history, music and geography are no longer taught separately but are instead merged into units, such as “English, communication and languages" or "human, social and environmental understanding". The advantage, he claims, is that it provides teachers with a much better opportunity for cross curricular learning. As he puts it: ‘We need to teach important things, but we need to give children opportunities to apply them across subjects.”
In non teacher talk, this might mean discussing Hannibal’s adventures one minute, then the topography of the Alps the next. A study of the trenches could blend imperceptibly with a debate on war. “The starting point of a lesson could be a historical point of study, but it could lead to other elements too, such as geography or citizenship,” Rose said.
Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! Teaching is often about making links between different subjects in the school curriculum. So lessons on Black Civil Rights make inroads into music through the study of jazz and the study of British imperialism is advanced by identifying places on a map. Cross curricular study can indeed be a valuable tool for students and teachers alike. But it will mean nothing if those subjects that actually impart valuable knowledge are abolished.
It is one thing to link different subjects, another to abolish them in favour of vaguely worded units lacking any clearly identifiable focus. The Rose formula, with its emphasis on the practical and IT, has rightly outraged traditionalists who believe that children will be academically short changed as a result. In the meantime, the best academic schools will view these proposals as just another example of the state’s tendency to dumb down and dilute the core curriculum. And as long as the establishment’s poisonous ideas seep through the educational bloodstream, private schools will remain a beacon of hope to the rest of us.
topThe decision on interest rates
05 December, 2008
Last night on the political programme, This week, Michael Portillo slammed the Bank of England’s decision to slash interest rates to 2% as economic folly. By reducing rates to this historically low level, he suggested that investors would be disinclined to save, thereby denuding banks of much needed capital in the credit crunch.
He was half right and half wrong. Monetary policy is rarely a zero sum game but rather one that produces winners and losers. Yesterday’s losers include savers and pensioners who rely on their savings for additional income; in other words, it is hard luck on the wise folk who decided to defer a spending spree when others binged on debt. They are suffering now for their wise behaviour.
That said, we should welcome the decision to cut rates so aggressively. Consumer demand needs to be ramped up by a mixture of fiscal and monetary measures in order to stave off the spectre of rampant deflation. To this end, it is right that the cost of borrowing decreases in line with other central banks.
But what about the banks that are reluctant to pass this cut on to their customers? It would be facile to blame their stance on corporate greed and irresponsibility. Banks remain reluctant to lend money because they are concerned it will not be repaid. They do not want to leverage others because they fear that the money may flow one way only in a repeat of the financial disasters of the last year.
The Conservatives have proposed that the government (via the taxpayer) underwrites the lending between banks and businesses, just as they have underwritten inter bank lending. This seems like an eminently sensible suggestion. If the effects of this recession are to be alleviated, it is essential to restore the flow of credit to (good) businesses, and to reassure the banks that they will not suffer as a result. Without this move, tax cuts and lower interest rates will not stimulate the economy effectively. At the same time, let us see a moratorium on tax for savers, so that they too can share in the good times.
topBuck passing from the Speaker
4 December, 2008
So do we believe the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, when he says that the clinching issue in the arrest of Damien Green was the fact that the police did not have an arrest warrant? If that was such an important matter, then the spotlight has to turn on the sycophantic serjeant at arms, Jill Pay, who ought to have demanded to see a police warrant. It reflects badly on the police who did not possess the warrant but, above all, it shows up the Speaker in the worst light. He should have strained every sinew to ensure that the police had the necessary paperwork. Instead he has shifted the blame on to others in an egregious frenzy of political buck passing.
In any case, the police warrant is a red herring. So too is the argument, made too frequently in the past week, that the Parliamentary privilege of MPs somehow excuses them, in principle, from being raided by the police. MPs possess (absolute) privilege to the extent that anything they say in the House of Commons (and recorded in Hansard) cannot be used against them later as evidence during a prosecution. They have immunity from prosecution in virtue of what they say on the floor of the Commons, though not outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. However, this is not designed to protect the ‘activities’ of MPs in the House or outside it. Thus, as I pointed out in Monday’s blog, the principle of MPs being subject to the law is sacrosanct.
No, the issue at stake is that the law which Mr. Green is alleged to have broken does not really apply to MPs who receive (and then pass on) confidential information from whistleblowers – provided (again this is crucial) that that information does not violate national security. The information that has emerged from Mr. Green’s office (and which has embarrassed the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Normington), so far as we can tell, does not violate national security in any way. If it did, it is hard to see how it could have appeared in print. After all, a High Court judge could simply have handed down an injunction on any paper daring to publish such sensitive material.
Naturally the Home Secretary, like any minister, has the right to be concerned at leaks from civil servants, that is, officials who are supposed to follow the civil service code. Let those civil servants be investigated by the relevant authorities, including the police if necessary. But do not arrest MPs who are merely the fortunate beneficiaries of leaked information.
topTo ditch the pound now would be folly
3 December, 2008
Over the last 3 months, Gordon Brown has been cast in the role of a global economic messiah. The worse the outlook for the world economy, the more he finds a spring in his step as he revels, rather perversely, in others’ financial misery. But what may seem like political chutzpah to Brown can come across as arrogance and conceit to others.
According to a report in today’s Daily Express, the government may be about to ditch sterling for the stronger euro. On 30th November the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, had this to say about Britain’s possible adoption of the Euro: "I don't mean to say that it will be tomorrow and I know that the majority in Britain are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration under way and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it.” Barroso had just had talks with senior figures in No. 10.
Perhaps this was no more than annoying Europhile exuberance. But can we really believe that the ‘fiscal Superman’ in No. 10 isn’t planning, or at least thinking about, such a radical move? Let’s assume he is.
A conversion to the Euro would be mistaken for many reasons. It would firstly violate the pledge (supported it seems by the vast majority of the population) to submit the question of Euro membership to a referendum. The government, remember, has form when it comes to reneging on referendum pledges.
It would represent sheer economic folly too. It was lax monetarist policy, keeping rates too low for too long, that contributed to the current catastrophic decline. And while low interest rates are required now, we cannot afford an irreversible transfer of decision making to the European Central Bank which may, in future, impose a wholly inappropriate rate for Britain in order to stave off recession elsewhere.
The fact that our currency is struggling is not an automatic argument for joining the euro. The weak pound is giving a valuable boost to the British manufacturing sector as well as other exporters who are benefiting from more competitively priced goods. In combination with higher priced imports, this can help reduce our balance of payments deficit.
Then there are unwanted political repercussions. Just think of how political debate would change if we could no longer (meaningfully) attack the government’s economic policies because it was no longer they who were making them. If recession took hold for longer than we expected, would we be blaming elected ministers or a group of unelected bankers in Frankfurt? Above all, the Euro is part and parcel of the long standing federalist dream that aims to turn Europe into a single polity. But there is no European (political) identity, least of all among the perenially sceptic Britons. That is the clincher.
The euro is enjoying a temporary boom against other currencies but this is no reason to ditch our own.
topThe arrest of Damien Green should worry us all
1 December, 2008
Damien Green was guilty of revealing the government’s immigration lies – his arrest is an outrageous infringement of Parliamentary freedom.
When I first heard about the arrest of Damien Green, certain thoughts began to race through my mind. What breach of national security had the poor man committed? Had he broken the Official Secrets Act and released sensitive material to the public? Had he unwittingly given information that could help our enemies abroad? Clearly there had to be some reason why the police acted in such an appallingly heavy handed and draconian manner.
It now emerges that the Home Office believe Mr Green might have been ‘grooming’ a Home Office official, a Conservative supporter and former Parliamentary candidate, to provide information for Mr. Green to leak. In other words, the civil servant stands accused of being a Tory mole whose independence has been compromised by Mr. Green.
Now let’s be clear about one thing. Members of Parliament should never be above the law. In a modern parliamentary democracy they are charged with making our laws and they must jolly well abide by them too. But the law that Mr. Green is alleged to have broken is a rather archaic one relating to ‘misconduct in a public office.’ He is specifically accused of ‘aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in public office.’
This law is designed to crack down on public servants who subvert the law to their own advantage, such as Treasury officials who siphon off thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to line their own pockets. It is not designed to crack down on politicians who receive important information from Whitehall whistleblowers – information moreover that is in the public interest. (Whether the whistleblower is protected is a different matter).
On the face of it Mr. Green, with the help of his whistleblower friend, was doing a highly effective job in exposing ministerial incompetence. Remember the story about 5,000 illegal immigrants working as security guards in Whitehall, and the Home Secretary trying to cover it up. (I wrote about this on 16th November 2007) This was clearly a matter in the public interest, it did not violate national security (though the fact that illegal immigrants were working in such sensitive posts arguably was) and the public deserved to know about it. Were the Tory opposition to have returned the security documents to their relevant Whitehall bunker, they would have been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. It is hard to imagine a Labour opposition before 1997 turning a blind eye to such a ‘scoop.’
On Sunday AM yesterday, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, showed not one iota of contrition for Mr. Green’s appalling treatment. She was upholding, she claimed, the principle of the police’s ‘operational independence’ and it would have been wrong to halt their investigation. This was disingenuous nonsense. The police carried out a brutal, heavy handed operation in which Green’s offices were ransacked, his documents taken and his home invaded. If the Home Secretary was unwilling to question such activity, she should not have been in her post. For Jacqui Smith, read also the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin.
The Damien Green affair is doubly sad. It is bad enough that a Member of Parliament was arrested for no good reason with ministers and officials failing to stop it. This cack handed action has also silenced (hopefully only temporarily) an effective opposition spokesman who was busy exposing the government’s lies on immigration. All opinion polls show that unrestricted immigration remains a key concern of the British electorate. This is not, as the liberal media would have us believe, because we are all bone headed, visceral racists clinging to outdated dreams of a white Britannia, but because of genuine concerns about the scale of migration.
Since 1997, we have quite simply lost control of our borders in the most botched social experiment in decades. The result has been an unprecedented increase in population, the creation of ethnic ghettos, social alienation and an army of illegal workers. How can a credible opposition challenge such failure without occasionally using information from a disgruntled whistleblower? Labour in opposition had no qualms about this.
So Damien Green is guilty by one count – he has revealed the truth about New Labour’s criminal negligence. His heavy handed and unnecessary arrest has compromised our democratic principles and will have immense repercussions.
top