Diary
Iranian dissidents speak truth to power
30 October, 2008
On Tuesday I had the pleasure of listening to Amir Fakhravar, an Iranian dissident and leading critic of the Islamic Republic. Mr Fakhravar has been imprisoned and tortured by the authorities for speaking out against Iran’s theocracy and now campaigns for non military means of producing regime change.
His central contention was that limited sanctions were a non starter and that Tehran’s terror regime would only be brought down through a global suspension of business links. The West had to put pressure on Iran by severing all ties, he said, isolating the country and treating it as a pariah nation rather than shamelessly lining its pockets with petrodollars.
He continued with an interesting insight into Bush’s axis of evil speech from 2002 in which Iran was linked to 2 other terror regimes, Iraq and North Korea. While European liberals engaged in a collective hissy fit, convinced that Bush had completely lost the plot, Iran’s students warmed to Bush because they believed that at least the leader of the free world had not forgotten them.
Another speaker from the ‘Council for a Democratic Iran’ urged the West to have no illusions about the Islamic Republic. This imperialist and illegitimate regime sought to dominate the Middle East and spread its own pernicious brand of Islamist extremism, he said. Only constant pressure from the West would bring about change.
While the force of these arguments can hardly be doubted, one might question whether it is right to rule out military action against Tehran. Mr Fakhravar opposes the use of force, indeed his argument was about how to bring about regime change through non military means. Yet what other option can be taken with a regime that believes it has a divine right to join the nuclear club? Nonetheless, these men offered a refreshing example of how to speak truth to power in the most adverse circumstances.
But one must still ask: Why does their fearless courage stand in such contrast to our own leaders’ spineless silence?
topThe BBC in the gutter
29 October, 2008
Perhaps the most comforting thing about the BBC’s latest descent into madness is the overwhelming sense of public disgust at their moronic duo, Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. There is a genuine sense of revulsion and indignation at the antics of these overpaid ‘sewer mouths’ which has now led to some 10,000 complaints from viewers. Reading the transcript of their radio show, it is hardly difficult to appreciate the widespread anger.
Ross and Brand clearly set out to exploit and humiliate retired actor Andrew Sachs, a vulnerable and elderly man of 78. In one phone call, Ross blurted out that Brand had slept with Sachs’ 23 year old granddaughter, using a strong of foul words for good measure. After speculating that Brand had ‘enjoyed’ the 23 year old, we learnt that he used a condom during intercourse. And they ended their obscene phone calls by making the quite repugnant suggestion that Sachs might kill himself after hearing their call.
Given that this show was pre recorded, it simply defies belief that anyone allowed it to go ahead. What does it say about the judgment of BBC executives that they could see nothing wrong with transmitting such offensive and harmful garbage? It is worrying to think that they saw the foul torment of an innocent person as somehow in tune with their organization’s ethos and guidelines.
Indeed this goes beyond a mere issue of poor taste. Brand and Ross must consider themselves lucky that the veteran actor did not call the police and launch criminal proceedings, given that he received a blatantly malicious phone call. As it is, Ofcom have rightly launched their own investigation into whether Radio 2 breached their guidelines on ‘material that may cause harm and offence.’ Their conclusions should be pretty obvious.
Whatever the outcome, the damage has already been done. It is outrageous that Brand and Ross remain employees of the BBC after such a vile and exploitative outburst. By not immediately sacking these radio bullies, the BBC has taken a lethargic approach to this matter and allowed it to become drawn out. That reveals a fundamental arrogance and lack of respect for the public on whose money they are wholly dependent. And money matters here, for the BBC continues to argue for a licence fee on the basis that they offer 'higher quality broadcasting' than their commercial rivals.
With their two foul mouthed loonies let loose on the airwaves, they are rapidly losing that argument.
topThe Syrian conundrum
27 October, 2008
No doubt a whole series of ludicrous conspiracy theories are already proliferating about the American strike on Syria, aided by the understandable silence of the US authorities. Aside from Syria’s hypocritical denunciation of the US (‘this was terrorist aggression’), there is inane speculation that the attack was President Bush’s way of aiding John McCain’s faltering campaign. (McCain is beyond help in the elections). So far, however, enough details have emerged to draw a fairly clear picture of what happened – and why.
It appears that a number of American helicopters swept down on Abu Kemal, a village some 7 kilometres inside Syria and close to the Iraqi border. The village in question has been a safe haven for jihadi fighters who have streamed across the border in recent years in order to carry out murderous attacks against ‘infidels.’ Three days ago, Major General John Kelly described Syria’s border as ‘an uncontrolled gateway’ for fighters entering Iraq. Reports suggest that the airstrikes were targeting Abu Ghadiya, a key Al Qaeda leader, who was involved in smuggling militants across the Syrian border. This attack has echoes of the strike carried out by Israel last year on a Syrian nuclear facility, as well as recent American attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
In each case, the Israeli and US military have operated on the principle that borders are not sacrosanct in fighting a global battle against extremists. Countries like Pakistan and Syria have provided a safe haven for terrorist operatives. In the case of Syria, the authorities have stood by while Al Qaeda planned and carried out acts of mass murder against Western targets. If they are content to allow militants to operate freely on their territory, they cannot cry foul when other countries act against those militants, as they are surely entitled to under international law.
The strikes send out an unambiguous message. If jihadists are allowed to operate freely inside Syria, then their safe havens will be attacked, wherever they are located. So should those of Pakistan, Iran and any other rogue state.
topWhat next - sex education for toddlers?
24 October, 2008
Ye Gods, surely they can’t be serious. The government now wants to force sex education on 7 year olds in order to stem the tsunami of teenage pregnancies blighting Britain. Schools minister, Jim Knight, has proposed that schools teach the facts of sexual intercourse for pupils aged 7 to 11. 5 year olds will be prepared by learning sexual differences and body parts while teachers will be told not to duck ‘explicit sexual matters’ if these are raised in class.
This is just another ludicrous example of the rigidly prescriptive approach taken by central government to education. Instead of allowing individual primary schools to decide on sex education provision (the current arrangement), big government has to step in with its bullying one size fits all approach. The fact that many schools will object to teaching these sensitive topics to young pupils scarcely matters. Big government knows best, after all.
Worse, the understandable objections of parents will count even less. Jim Knight revealed that he would need 'a lot of persuading' to scrap parents' right to pull their children out of such classes. But it should be the right of all parents to remove children from lessons they regard as unsuitable. At the very least, this is a matter of discussion between schools and teachers, not the state. But such is the arrogance and hubris of government ministers, such is their insatiable appetite for control, that they are prepared to ride roughshod over the views of ordinary people. This is another blatant example of Orwellian social engineering disguised as progress.
Naturally teenage pregnancies are skyrocketing in Britain and something should be done to curb this. But if the government really wants to deal with this problem, they must stop making teenage single motherhood an attractive lifestyle choice. They need to introduce American style welfare reforms to provide 'time limited' benefits. Instead of receiving subsidised housing and financial support for life, people receive benefits for up to 5 years and no more. The financial incentive (for some) to get pregnant after leaving school would disappear. Schools can also make sure that every 11 year old becomes aware of the difficulties of raising children on their own, rather than offer a morally neutral guide to relationships.
Just what will Jim Knight propose next? Sex education for toddlers? A school outing to Soho? Perhaps an 8 year old schools minister? Well, at least that last one sounds promising.
topIt is not just Osborne’s reputation on the line
22 October, 2008
George Osborne is, from all accounts, a highly intelligent man and a shrewd politician. So his meetings with Oleg Deripaska, revealed in the last 24 hours, raise genuinely disturbing questions about his judgment. Certainly, if there is any substance in the extraordinary claims made by his ‘friend’ Nathaniel Rothschild, namely that Osborne had solicited money from the Russian, then it is hard to see how the Shadow chancellor can remain in his position. Soliciting a donation from a foreign contributor is illegal, as Mr. Osborne well knows. And such revelations can hardly have come at a worse time. Cameron has done much to decouple the Tories from allegations of sleaze, following the unfortunate episode with Derek Conway. Any suggestion that his MPs are a bunch of sleaze merchants will do untold damage to the Tory revival while giving a huge tonic to the Prime Minister.
Nonetheless, matters should be kept in proportion. The Conservatives never received a penny from Mr. Deripaska and in a meeting between the oligarch and the Conservative Treasurer, the Russian was told that his donation would be inappropriate. In any event, the salient issue was whether to channel the money through one of Deripaska’s British companies, which would have made the donation perfectly legal. These facts at least we can establish.
What Mr Osborne is guilty of is extraordinary naivety. First, he (and his treasurer) should have walked away from Mr Deripaska the moment he started talking about donations. Second, after dishing the dirt on Peter Mandelson by revealing that in a private conversation, Mandelson had dripped ‘pure poison’ about Gordon Brown, Osborne should have anticipated a strong reaction. He could hardly have expected Mandelson, the master of spin to sit idly by while intimate details of his fractured relationship with Gordon Brown were being laid bare. This has rightly been described as Mandelson’s revenge, whether or not he had a hand in Rothschild’s letter to the Times.
That makes it all the more sick. For this scandal has all the hallmarks of the effervescent New Labour spin machine; a classic example of trying to bury bad news. We now know that Mandelson’s own associations with Deripaska stretched back to 2005, and what is alarming is that their first meeting preceded the EU decision to lift tariffs on aluminium. This decision will be of huge financial benefit to the Russian billionaire, implying that there was a clear conflict of interests in the meetings between the two men.
Furthermore, there was an incredible admission by the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, that he had ‘resisted’ making much of Mandelson’s relations with Deripaska during the last 24 hours while the Tories were under attack. And yet we are told that the BBC is politically impartial! In Corfu-gate, it is not just Osborne’s reputation on the line.
topThe time for consensus is over
21 October, 2008
Gordon Brown’s re-emergence as the economic saviour of mankind is filling socialists everywhere with glee. His bank bailout, copied by governments across the world, appears to triumphantly vindicate their core statist belief in strong government control and interference in the economy. The excesses of the marketplace, in their view, can only be remedied by the strong hand of big government, with Brown controlling its levers.
The Prime Minister is clearly relishing his resurgence in the polls. The worse the crisis, the more he (via the Lord Mandelson) can present himself as the architect of recovery - an FDR style visionary for our times. He has been aided by the absence of serious opposition to his plans, both from within his own party and from the opposition.
Some diehard economic libertarians, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, lament the lack of party debate. They believe that the Tories missed an easy target last month and that George Osborne was guilty of a dereliction of duty. This is a rather misguided view. The serious absence of Tory opposition to the bank bailout can only be explained by their lack of a credible alternative. It appeared to sound financial minds that the only way to safeguard our banks was by recapitalising them and guaranteeing their (inter bank) lending. A globally co-ordinated initiative seemed necessary to stave off an unthinkable economic disaster. Nothing would have been worse for the Tories than to have opposed government plans for the sake of mere opposition. They would have been viewed, quite rightly, as cynical opportunists who were wholly unfit to govern. Cameron kept his cool and a sense of sound judgement. For that he deserves credit.
But while political consensus is necessary in a national crisis, democracy always demands the reinstatement of political debate. Last week, David Cameron launched a vigorous attack on Gordon Brown’s record as Chancellor. Yesterday, George Osborne derided the Chancellor’s Keynesian pledge to spend more taxpayer cash on public projects. Both interventions represent a full frontal assault on the government’s poor economic record and need to be repeated in the future. For without a narrative that places Brown at the heart of Britain’s economic woes, New Labour will spin their own narrative, namely that the PM is an innocent victim of global forces.
While ill winds were blowing across the Atlantic in the last decade, Gordon Brown encouraged the creation of a debt fuelled society that could only provide people with a false sense of affluence. Remember those promises every year that Britain would ‘never return to boom and bust.’ They were about as safe as sub prime houses. For a decade, Prosperity Brown increased public spending, raided private pensions and increased taxes so as to fund his public sector ‘client’ state. And after a decade of profligate public spending, Britannia PLC was left perilously exposed when cheap credit began to ‘crunch.’ He also oversaw the creation of the Financial Services Authority, a regulator that notoriously failed to regulate.
Britain’s financial difficulties are directly related to Brown’s Chancellorship while the sub prime fiasco (as I previously argued) can be causally linked with disastrous interventions in the Clinton years. Now Brown has engineered the nationalisation of some of our key banks. One can only hope that this will be a short term measure.
The Conservatives were right to hold fire while the world’s markets teetered on the edge of collapse. Now they should remorselessly attack the government’s economic record, particularly when it involves plans to spend even more taxpayers’ cash. The time for consensus is over.
topLet the gloves come off
15 October, 2008
Tonight John McCain is in last chance saloon as he faces Barack Obama in the third of the Presidential debates. With the polls indicating a huge poll lead for Obama, McCain ought to focus on at least 3 core issues that divide him from his rival.
1. Obama is promising tax cuts for 95% of families in America. Yet as the Wall Street Journal has exposed, this is largely a con as a ‘tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase tax credit.’ Obama is promising to create 7 such credits but the catch is that these credits will be transferred to people with no income tax liability – in other words, they will be no better than welfare payouts. McCain should use simple jargon to expose Obama’s tax cuts as welfare bribes.
2. Obama has claimed that it is necessary to have a dialogue with some rogue regimes, including Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. On his website it says: ‘The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough — it makes us look arrogant.’ McCain needs to ask Obama what he can expect to achieve by abasing himself before the Iranian President, given that for several years, Iran has been offered a multitude of concessions to stop its nuclear programme. These concessions have given Iran’s mullahocracy no reason to cease their nuclear ambitions, and every reason to think that the West is too scared to stop them.
3. We have learnt a lot about the links between Obama and Jeremiah Wright as well as William Ayers, the former militant from ‘The Weather Underground.’ McCain should demand one simple answer from Obama: Why did the senator tolerate the repugnant, racist, bigoted world view of Pastor Wright for so long? While did he take so long to repudiate his spiritual mentor and what does that delay reveal about his character? With Obama surging ahead, it is time for the gloves to come off.
topWho caused the Great Crash of 2008? It was (mostly) the left, stupid.
13 October, 2008
At the moment the ‘Great Crash of 2008’ is playing out fairly well for the centre left. Gordon Brown has enjoyed a new lease of life as the Anglo-Saxon saviour of the global financial system. While the credit crunch has been taking its toll, this master of economic ‘wizardry’ has been busy giving the G7 a very ‘British’ solution to the credit crisis.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Barack Obama has enjoyed an extraordinary resurgence in the polls. No longer are the American public transfixed by Iran and Georgia, those faraway places of which they know little. Instead the agenda has been dominated by a cast of stricken financial giants; Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Fannie and Freddie. It’s the economy stupid, and the recent meltdown on the stock market has played into Obama’s hands. Brown’s resurgence may be deserved, given that his medicine could ignite much needed confidence in the financial system. Still, come the general election of 2010, the general public are likely to be less forgiving to a party that has presided over the worst recession in living memory.
The temporary bounce for the centre left accords with the popular view that this was a crisis caused purely by corporate greed. Banks and other financial institutions spent a decade binging in debt city, leveraging themselves to excess in the hope that the good times would go on forever. In America, banks that were once prudent lenders suddenly threw caution to the winds, fuelled by misguided monetarist policy that saw interest rates cut to incredibly low levels. With consumers increasingly addicted to cheap credit, and to the notion that prosperity and debt were somehow identical, the result was a society drowning in arrears. A crash was always on the cards.
While much of this analysis is spot on, it also ignores the elephant in the room. For the subprime mortgage crisis which led to the present financial turbulence was sparked, not by the profligate Bush Republicans, but the ‘beneficent’ Clinton Democrats. As Dennis Sewell observed in a recent article in the Spectator, ‘This crisis was not caused on Wall Street — it was caused in the White House. The root problem was not financial — it was political.’
Sewell goes on:‘For generations, America’s bankers have been firmly refusing credit to those they judged unworthy of it. Yet the mountain of toxic subprime debt that has threatened to overwhelm the entire financial system, and the astonishing number of mortgage foreclosures across the United States, is proof that, at some point in the relatively recent past, bankers radically altered their behaviour and began to shower mortgages on borrowers who had no realistic prospect of keeping up their repayments.’
In explaining why US mortgage banks threw caution to the winds, one might be tempted to join our own Sharia embracing Archbishop of Canterbury and shriek ‘greed.’ But this would be to gravely misunderstand the political forces at work in 1990s Washington.
Clinton’s administration was determined to increase home ownership among poorer, low income Americans, many of whom were Black or Hispanic voters. Many people among these groups were being denied mortgages by the conservative lending practices of the banks and some suspected that this had more to do with discrimination than good financial sense. This suspicion was shared by Roberta Achtenburg, an openly lesbian nominee for the Senate who Clinton appointed as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The ultra PC Achtenburg pursued the banks with zeal, setting up enforcement offices to test whether the banks were racially discriminating against minority groups. But after exhaustive investigations, Achtenburg’s army of attorneys found no evidence of discrimination in their lending practices. Nonetheless, as Sewell points out, the banks took the hint pretty quickly and became less rigorous in their lending criteria:
‘Mortgages were offered with only 3 per cent deposit requirements, and eventually with no deposit requirement at all. The mortgage banks fell over one another to provide loans to low-income households and especially to minority customers. In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the number of African-American and Latino homeowners increased by two million… At the same time, the government pressed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two giants of the secondary mortgage market, to help expand mortgage loans among low and moderate earners, and introduced new rules allowing the organisations to get involved in the securitisation of subprime loans.’
True, those subprime customers were refinancing their mortgages by equity release during the Bush era, spurred on by low interest rates and ever rising house prices. But then these were largely Clinton’s customers, not those of George W Bush. The subprime problem that has stunned the world was created, not after 2000, but in the 1990s.
One of the great lessons from the credit crunch then is that when progressives make crude attempts at social engineering, the result is often disastrous. Politically correct attempts to reform humanity bring more harm than intended, particularly when launched by the clammy hand of big government. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. And as we wait to see whether or not the world economy goes into meltdown, it is as well to remind ourselves who the real culprits of this saga are. Certainly, bankers and consumers built up oceans of debt for short term profit while regulators were asleep on the job. Yes, monetary policy, particularly in the last decade in the US, was fundamentally ill conceived. But without the misguided and disastrous intervention from the Clinton White House, we would not be where we are today. It was mostly the left, stupid.
topThe bank bailout
9 October, 2008
Perhaps yesterday’s (partial) nationalisation of the banks will stave off the nightmare of financial meltdown in the City. The £500 billion of taxpayer money, divided between the special liquidity scheme, an offer to buy bank shares and guarantees for lending, will undoubtedly give our banks a much needed restoration of confidence so that they can resume lending to each other, and the rest of us. Nervous investors, who had withdrawn vast sums from the money markets, can now sleep a little more soundly, as can the majority of Britain’s depositors. The globally co-ordinated half point interest cut will also be welcome news.
Naturally this will be resented by hardline economic traditionalists. They can’t see why the government has to clear up a financial mess caused by the bursting of a credit bubble. And they can’t justify the massive gamble with people’s money. They are missing the point. We faced a financial panic of unprecedented proportions caused by the collapse of confidence in our banks. Passivity in the face of this crisis would have led to the banking crisis that convulsed America in 1930-1 - and we all know what followed it. Alastair Darling’s intervention was a regrettably necessary action designed to stave off a 1930s style depression and it was rightly greeted by yesterday’s cross party consensus.
Still all this comes at an enormous price, politically and economically. This bank nationalisation represents an enlargement (albeit necessary) of the size, influence and power of the state. It was depressing to hear George Galloway in the House of Commons yesterday praising this scheme to the hilt, while calling for more state control over the banking system. Yesterday’s events were naturally a boon to Britain’s militant socialists who had long been calling for state control of the banks. It is a kick in the guts for capitalism.
Worse, we are now all saddled with an unprecedented liability that will have to be paid for by either increasing taxes or by increasing government borrowing (deferred taxation). The cost of the bailout is equivalent to about £16,000 for every taxpayer and while one can hope that this money will be returned, perhaps with interest, there is simply no guarantee. In the medium term, our national debt has been increased by a staggering degree. With public sector pension commitments, the bailout and Northern Rock on the books, we are talking over £2 trillion, over 150% of our GDP! This is a far cry from the 40% regarded as prudent by one Gordon Brown.
In all of this, there is precious little chance that Britain’s arch interventionist, Gordon Brown, will seek to curb public spending. With Britain heading for (or already in) a recession, this has to be the worst possible news. Economic growth, which had shuddered to a halt, will now enter negative territory, unemployment will shoot up, bankruptcies will increase, consumer spending will fall and investment will dry up. Our economy is truly headed for very choppy waters, the unfortunate but very real legacy of Gordon Brown’s prime ministership.
topIf free speech disappears, our society will wither
7 October, 2008
At first glance one might sympathise with the EU’s extradition request for Gerald Toben. Dr. Toben, a notorious Australian Holocaust denier, undoubtedly has extremely pernicious views. On his website (www.adelaideinstitute.org) Toben describes the Holocaust as a ‘story/legend/myth.’ He denies that 6 million Jews perished under Nazi occupation and says that revisionists, such as himself, are forced to confront a massive 'multi-billion dollar' Holocaust industry. He recently attended the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, later describing the anti semitic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a ‘fearless President.’ One certainly needs a strong constitution to wade through the sickening racist filth on his website.
But the more one looks at this decision, the more incomprehensible it becomes. Toben, no matter how vile his views, has committed no crime in this country as Holocaust denial is not illegal. Yet he stands accused of behaviour which is only criminalized in Germany (and Austria) and is under arrest as a result. The notion that Britain’s sovereign Parliament can be overruled in deciding which actions are crimes, that another government can demand our arrest for actions which are legal in this country, is just appalling. It strikes at the heart of what it means to be a British citizen. Granted, Mr Toben is an Australian, not British, citizen. But what is to stop Germany making the same request again of a Briitish person?
Parliament has rightly rejected a Holocaust denial law as being tantamount to an attack on freedom of speech. The freedom to express one’s opinions, no matter how pernicious, has long been a bedrock of our liberal society. When that liberty is taken away without good reason, it fundamentally alters the relation between the citizen and the state. It is truly the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. Moreover criminalising these opinions is arguably counter productive. It is better to counter lies with the truth, falsehood with evidence and misrepresentation with facts. Nothing is to be gained by making martyrs of people like David Irving and Gerald Toben.
All of this is hard to say in a society which (rightly) shuns racists. Certainly those who deny that the Holocaust happened are guilty of spreading malicious lies about Jews, based on their own perverse and visceral anti semitism. But though it is based on such hatred, this form of historical denial is still different to outright incitement which would bring such behaviour within the range of our own criminal law. We simply have to put up with people who accept extreme ideologies, provided that they do not directly harm others.
But this decision makes a mockery of the EU's claim to be a mere trading block that respects individual nations. It violates our sovereign Parliament's rejection of a Holocaust denial law. What we are therefore seeing here is an attempt to impose a European straightjacket over the legal systems of member states. That is not a blueprint for respecting nationhood but for abolishing it altogether.
topMerkel's U turn
6 October, 2008
As Europe struggles to come to terms with the latest phase of the credit crunch, serious questions are being asked about Angela Merkel's U turn. Why did she apparently promise Gordon Brown that no guarantees would be made to all German depositors and then suddenly change her mind in a spasm of nationalistic fervour? The answer is simple and goes to the heart of why the entire Euro project is a fraud. When it comes to the crunch (pardon the pun), the big bully boys of Europe always fight their own corner. Never mind the sentimental displays of fraternal affection so openly on display at every meeting of heads of states. What ultimately counts is the preservation of the national self interest and bugger the rest.
With Germany shattering any notion of economic consensus in Europe and with the current implosion of the European banking system, we could indeed be witnessing nothing less than the collapse of the Euro idea itself. European unity, if it means anything, means an end to self interested economic nationalism. Germany and France have often bent EU rules in their own favour. Now we have blatant proof that Europe's 'band of brothers' sing from different hymn sheets - and the notes sound horribly discordant.
Gordon Brown has little choice now but to offer the same 100% guarantee to British depositors, or risk a catastrophic flight of capital that will pile further pressure on our already beleaguered banking system. Further measures should include a cut in interest rates and an offer to capitalise our banks using Bank of England (taxpayers) money. Moral hazard long went out of the window. It is now a luxury to be dealt with in happier times. To stave off the imminent demise of the global financial system, urgent measures are needed in all countries affected by the banking crisis. As for Europe, it seems to be each man for himself.
topPolitically, Sir Ian Blair was a dead man walking
03 October, 2008
Already the recriminations are flying over Sir Ian Blair’s sudden fall from power. Did Boris Johnson push the Met Chief into resigning for purely political reasons? Did he effectively sack the Commissioner by going over the head of the Home Secretary? Last night on Question Time, Jacqui Smith suggested that Johnson had committed an outrage by forcing Blair out to suit his own narrow political agenda.
Whatever the issues about constitutional propriety, Jacqui Smith’s attack was entirely misplaced and wrong headed. Are we to believe that her rather pathetic whimper on behalf of Sir Ian on Question Time was a belated vote of confidence in the Met Chief? If the Home Secretary really believed that Sir Ian’s treatment was unjust, she should have acted to protect him yesterday. Her failure to do so can only mean that she (rightly) shared the Mayor’s own reservations.
Whatever Mr. Johnson’s political beliefs, he clearly lacked confidence in Sir Ian’s leadership, character and record. As the directly elected Mayor of London with a popular mandate for change, Johnson was entitled to express his frustration and to see Sir Iain removed from office. The Mayor’s concerns about Britain’s top cop were shared by politicians of all parties and by Sir Ian’s increasingly frustrated colleagues in the Met. Politically, he was a dead man walking. Indeed the only wonder is how the beleaguered police chief managed to survive for so long.
Remember that last year the IPCC report revealed a catalogue of failures following the Stockwell shooting. It also showed that Blair had personally tried to block the investigation. According to Nick Hardwick, the IPCC chairman, ‘much of the avoidable difficulty the Stockwell incident has caused the Metropolitan Police arose from the delay in referral.’ Yet at the time Sir Ian seemed oblivious to any wrongdoing and refused to accept responsibility for his personal failings.
His credibility was already tottering before serious allegations of racism were made by several senior colleagues, including the most senior Asian officer, Tarique Ghaffur. Sir Ian protested his innocence and perhaps he was right to blame Mr. Ghaffur for being mired in a ‘victim culture.’ But that is not the point. Under police guidelines a racist incident is one which is perceived by someone to be racist. For the ultra politically correct Met Chief, that was devastating. It meant that the most PC of PC’s was hoist by his own petard. Then violent crime soared, particularly involving knives, just as politicians like Mr. Johnson were vowing to get tough on criminals. With confidence in Blair ebbing away, the Mayor’s verbal vote of no confidence was perfectly understandable. Much more than that, it was essential.
top