Letter from Wherever I Hang My Hat

Peace without Justice? A discussion on Israel/Palestine

2011-07-25T08:14:00.000-07:00

Sunday 24th July Molesey Methodist Church

Talks were given by

Rabbi Danny Rich (Chief Executive Liberal Judaism)
http://www.liberaljudaism.org/communities-rabbis/rabbis/175-rabbi-danny-rich.html

and

Jo Goggin (Ecumenical Accompanier)
http://www.londonquakers.org.uk/events/ecu-accompaniment-in-palestine-and-israel

Danny is firm believer in the 'Two State Solution'and advocates Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank. He talked of '10 Principles' for justice and progress which he had presented at a previous Methodist Conference.
(URL needed)
Danny is optimistic that the moderates from both sides will prevail leading to peace via recognition of relative perspectives and narratives.

Jo spoke of her experiences with the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in 2009.
Her views of the possibility of conciliation were less optimistic than Danny's.

A spirited discussion ensued on whether Israel's policies toward the Palestinians can be accurately compared with those which operating under the apartheid system in South Africa.

Vehicular Electrification

2011-07-21T02:56:00.000-07:00

20th July at Imperial College Energy Futures Lab

Michael Hurwitz, Director of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/administration/energyfutureslab/eventssummary/event_30-6-2011-16-28-34

An entertaining presentation with some elements from
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/presentations/Hurwitz.pdf
I particularly liked the slide with the photo instructing 'G Brown 2p off'.

However, there is little point in reducing road CO2 emissions if they are replaced by equivalent outputs from the electricity generators. As overnight battery charging will serve to even out power demand this is a further issue in disputing the green obsession with costly wind power.

Other input:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8650005/Electric-car-scheme-fails-to-excite-motorists.html
Electric car scheme fails to excite motorists
The £400 million drive to persuade motorists to buy electric cars is proving a costly failure, according to the latest Whitehall figures.
Only 215 cars were bought under the scheme, which offers subsidies of up to £5,000 each, over the last three months.
Of these it is understood that around three quarters were bought by businesses, meaning that just over 50 were acquired by private motorists.

'More questions than answers'

Energy Policy, Climate Change and all that

2011-05-22T09:25:00.000-07:00

Posting on http://www.economist.com/node/18712497/comments#comment-923970

'legally binding targets'?

"In the probable event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"
This is the question I posed on 17th June 2010 at a seminar for the Imperial [College] Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICEPT) and the Energy Futures Lab. given by Lord Stern and Will Cavendish.
Lord Stern's answer: "It's just words".

Meanwhile, Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget will increase power bills, encourage industrial CO2 emigration (e.g. Tata Steel aka Corus aka British Steel), yet have a negligible effect on climate change – assuming that the climate models are accurate – on a global view the UK’s contribution is miniscule.

There is an on-going series of ritual international genuflections on stabilising and reducing CO2 emissions at selected resorts: Bali, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Rio ...
Despite these earnest objectives global fossil fuel consumption continues to rise. The International Energy Agency baseline prediction: CO2 emissions will increase from 30 GTonnes in 2010 to 57 GTonnes in 2050. This is a clear consequence of population growth and increasing living standards.

The philosophy of the UK governing establishment is therefore masochistic and ineffectual: we are to be punished for the perceived sins of the past in leading the fossil fuel powered industrial revolution whilst producing no net benefit by reducing the perceived future threat of climate change.
To what extent should we accept a readily quantifiable economic penalty now to meet an uncertainly predicted danger in 50 or 100 years time? What technology could emerge in the interim to fix the problem?

Cui bono?
[Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?" … is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.]

If we do accept the dogma that global warming is taking place and anthropogenic CO2 is the cause, then, given the increase in fossil fuel burn, global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come - ice will melt; sea levels will rise.
(But: What plans do the pragmatic Netherlanders have to cope? - the UK government’s view in DECC is that the existing Thames Barrier will provide adequate protection until 2070.)
Fossil fuels produce C02; the defossilisation/de-CO2-ification of increasing global energy consumption will become an imperative.
Carbon capture & sequestration is an expensive and unproven palliative.
Wind is intermittent and needs back up from other generators; there are also significant costs to develop a distributed grid infrastructure. The UK is not routinely blessed with sunshine even if solar PV gets cheaper.
Therefore in the immediate term the only viable solution is nuclear (fission) power. This does have the associated problems for managing the waste residues as well as the potential for terrorist attack and WMD development.
In the longer term the ultimate ‘get CO2 free card’ is nuclear fusion. There are no associated residues or risks of catastrophic failure; however, the technology needs major R&D investment to bring down the lead time. This has hitherto invariably been presented as a problem whose solution is "30 years away, and always will be". But there is evidence over the past 40 years that this slippage is entirely attributable to inadequate funding. Using relatively primitive design, communication and computational tools the Manhattan project delivered fission technology for the bomb within 5 years at a cost of $2Bn (less than $30Bn today). Whilst it seems possible and acceptable for institutions like the Fed. and the BoE to create billions if not trillions at the stroke of a pen/at a key-stoke, it seems bizarre that greater urgency is not being given to accelerating the development of fusion technology (an area where UK has world-leading expertise) to deliver carbon-free electricity.

Evidence-based Policy? Or not?

2011-05-19T03:16:00.000-07:00

Input to discussion on
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/05/if-conservatives-can-convince-voters-that-we-have-hearts-as-well-as-brains-we-can-dominate-politics-.html

It's all very well debating head versus heart but if government policies are seen as wrong-headed the heart considerations will hardly be relevant.

Adam Afriyie and David Willetts have espoused the principle of 'Science-led, evidence-based policy'.

We now have examples in Climate Change, Defence, Education, Electoral Reform, Energy, Health, Justice where rational debate has been overwhelmed by noise - just like the environment in the Commons chamber.

Specific recent examples:-

1) Chris Huhne's 'legally binding' carbon budget which will increase power bills, encourage industrial emigration, yet have a negligible effect on climate change - even if the climate models are accurate.

2) Liam Fox's announcement of £3Bn spend on the Trident renewal programme - this at a time when the Defence budget is being cut.

There has been minimal reporting on these matters.

Climate Change Issues: 'Legally Binding Targets'

2011-05-16T01:52:00.000-07:00

From BBC R4 Today programme this morning

'0853 The government is preparing to commit the UK to legally binding cuts in carbon emissions, in a deal brokered by the prime minister which will be announced tomorrow. Steve Elliott, chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, looks at whether the targets are too stringent.'

email to the editor

This topic will clearly be raised again tomorrow following the government announcement.

Please get your interviewers ask, and keep asking until they get a clear answer: "in the (probable) event that the 'legally binding targets' are not met, who penalises whom and how?"

Alternative Vote: There is an Alternative to FPTP

2011-05-02T02:59:00.000-07:00

“No Government undertakes Reform Bills if they can possibly help it. It is the most ungrateful and difficult task with which any Government can be confronted” - Walter Long
[British InterParty Conferences (1980) by John D Fair]
[The electoral system in Britain since 1918 (1963) by D Butler]

The referendum next Thursday provides a once in a generation (if not a once in a lifetime) opportunity to reform the UK's political process.

The proposal is to change from ‘First Past the Post’ – FPTP – to ‘Alternative Vote - AV

The inadequacies of FPTP have been recognised for more than a century; reform has proved elusive.

We should grasp the opportunity for the modest improvement afforded by this Referendum.

There is ample evidence that change is required:-
* The disillusion with political process following the MPs' expenses scandal;
* Reducing turn-out at elections
* Reducing membership of political parties

Prior to the May 2010 General Election David Cameron was unequivocal on the issue:
Fixing Broken Politics 26/5/09
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/David_Cameron_Rebuilding_trust_in_politics.aspx
‘ ..anger at the expenses scandal is just the most forceful expression of a deep frustration people feel with our whole political system.
‘It’s a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street. We’ve been seeing the symptoms of that for years. Decisions made behind closed doors. The Houses of Parliament bypassed and undermined.
‘Money buying influence. Too often just an elite few choosing the people who become MPs for many years. We can’t go on like this.
‘We’re just weeks away from an election. This should be the highest point in our democratic life – but never has the reputation of politics sunk so low. We’ve got to fix our broken politics and we’ve got to start fixing it now. The question is: who’s going to do it, and how are they going to do it?’

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx

this political crisis shows that big change is required.
We do need a new politics in this country.
We do need sweeping reform.

Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.

The opponents of AV claim that it will lead to more coalitions with policies decided after the ballot rather than strong government following election of a Party with a defined manifesto.

However, consider the UK's economic performance since WW2; despite the huge endowment of North Sea oil it compares very unfavourably with that of similar nations: France, Germany - or even Italy.
Much of this relative decline is clearly attributable to the major policy swings from Left to Right and back again associated with the extremes of the two party system: "we have a manifesto commitment".

It should also be noted that the leader of the Conservative Party is selected in a series of votes until the winner gains at least 50% support of the voters. This is effectively the AV system.
The same procedure was adopted last year to select some Conservative Parliamentary candidates in ‘Open Primaries’.

AV has been used effectively in Australia since 1918; despite the allegations of the No-sayers the system remains popular.

Historical Perspective

1909 Winston Churchill on FPTP (as a Liberal)
‘The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.
- Response to a delegation from the Manchester Liberal Federation 25 May 1909

1910 Electoral Commission
A Royal Commission of 1909-10 [Cd 5163] unanimously recommended the AV system for the House of Commons.
http://lib-161.lse.ac.uk/archives/fabian_tracts/153.pdf
‘The Alternative Vote.
Second ballot is the usual method for determining an election when three or more candidates stand for one seat, and its advantages are obvious, because it prevents the election of a candidate who is voted for by a minority of the actual voters. Our present system—also the rule in the United States and in nearly all the British Dominions—which only allows one ballot, forces compromise before the election, or splits between the various groups or parties which support the ministry or the opposition, with the result that the seat may go to the most solid and not to the most numerous section. The presence of an active and important third party in English politics, the Labor Party, makes some form of second ballot imperative. The alternative vote here proposed is strongly advocated by the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into Electoral Systems in their Report of 1910, signed by Lord Richard Cavendish, the Hon. W. Pember Reeves, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, and others.’

1917-18 The Representation of the People Bill
included proposals for STV and AV following a Speakers Conference of January 1917 which recommended STV in urban constituencies returning 3-7 MPs and AV in rural single member constituencies.
The Bill passed all its Commons readings but was blocked by the House of Lords.
At this stage, Winston Churchill, as a Liberal, supported the proposal.

1931 Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill
Context
In January 1931, the minority Labour government, then supported by the Liberals, introduced a Representation of the People Bill that included switching to AV. The Bill passed its second reading in the Commons by 295 votes to 230 on 24 February 1931 and the clause introducing AV was passed in the committee stage by 277 to 253. (The Speaker had refused to allow discussion of STV.) The Bill's second reading in the Lords followed in June, with an amendment replacing AV with STV in 100 constituencies being abandoned as outwith the scope of the Bill. An amendment was passed (by 80 votes to 29) limiting AV to those constituencies in boroughs with populations over 200,000. The Bill received its third reading in the Lords on 21 July, but the Labour government fell in August and the Bill was lost.
Hansard: debate c. 7hours
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1931/jun/02/representation-of-the-people-no-2-bill#S5CV0253P0_19310602_HOC_298
The Secretary Of State For The Home Department (Mr. Clynes) moving the 3rd Reading
’The Bill marks a definite step in the establishment of democracy on a surer and broader basis … by the device of the Alternative Vote, which endeavours to secure that Members are not returned to this House against the wishes of the majority’
Winston Churchill (as a Conservative)
‘I should greatly have preferred the method of Proportional Representation to the method of the Bill’
‘If the Government reject Proportional Representation, I think … the next best method is the second ballot.’
‘It would have been a wise and prudent feature in our constitution if a substantial proportion of the constituencies voted a few days later in the light of the situation resulting from the first ballots. All the more is this true when such enormous masses of voters are attached to no particular party, and when vast numbers of electors take little or no interest in public affairs, when they have to be almost dragged out of their houses to poll, when millions of people treat the whole process on which the Government of the country rests with indifference’
‘The plan [AV] that they have adopted is the worst of all possible plans. It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal that the Government have embodied in their Bill.’

1998 Jenkins Commission Report
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-112.pdf
‘The Labour party has had a commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform since 1993, when John Smith promised one in the first term of a Labour Government. The manifesto did not give a timescale for the referendum, but the joint Labour/Liberal Democrat Joint Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform which reported on 5 March 1997 committed both parties to a referendum in the first term of a new Parliament.’
‘Its report in October 1998 recommended a mixed system, of 80-85 per cent of the Commons to be elected by the Alternative Vote in individual constituencies, and the remaining 15-20 per cent by means of a party list- to be known as Top Up members.’
‘The Commission .. concluded that there was no perfect system: STV required very large constituencies; AV on its own was not proportional; party lists could not offer the same type of constituency link, would be likely to lead to long-term coalitions and were open to manipulation by party bureaucracies.’

Feb. 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill – 4½ hours
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100209/debtext/100209-0011.htm

Feb. 2010 House of Commons Library Briefing Paper
http://main.hop.lbi.co.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05317.pdf

More references:-
http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=327.0

The Economist is also conducting a debate
http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/202?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fdb%2Fbritainalternativevote

Other comment
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/ten-reasons-why-the-labour-no-campaign-are-wrong-on-av/

Hansard Society: The 8th Audit of Political Engagement
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2011/03/31/2969.aspx
The report shows that while last year's momentous political events increased the public's interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity. Beyond voting, people were no more likely to get involved or participate in politics than they are in non-election years.
‘Despite very mixed views about the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Vote (AV) system, most who took part in our research discussion groups said that, if they vote, they will likely support a change in the system. This was not because of particular dissatisfaction with First Past the Post. Rather, their dissatisfaction with the current system of politics, with MPs, Parliament and government was such that almost any change was preferable to the status quo.’
‘Despite an increase in perceived knowledge of Parliament, fewer people are now satisfied with it (27%) than at any time in previous Audits (36% were satisfied in Audits 1 and 4; and 33% in Audit 7). The level of ‘dissatisfaction’ is broadly consistent with previous years. Rather, the change can be discerned in the number of people – a third compared to around a quarter in the last Audit – who say they are ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ with the working of Parliament’

Speaking about our electoral system in 1909 Winston Churchill said: "The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."

The same could be said today. In the 2010 general election the largest party was the Conservatives which, with 36.1% of the vote, got 47.1% of the seats and no overall majority.

Contrast this with the result of the 2005 general election when Labour, with 35.2% of the vote, got 55.1% of the seats and a majority of 66 seats in parliament. Labour's share of the vote in 2005 can be compared to the support enjoyed in past elections by losing parties.

Attlee's share of the vote in 1955, when Eden's Conservatives won a majority of 58 (comparable to Blair's majority in 2005), was an amazing 46.4% and Attlee lost the election. Of course, in 1955 there were effectively only two parties fighting the election.

A study of the results of general elections over the last hundred years shows that there is no correlation between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats it gets in the Commons. You might as well toss a coin for determining who should form the government. The present system can be seen to be rotten.

Because of our electoral system the political parties are only interested in the ten per cent of constituencies which are marginal and of those only the ten per cent who are floating voters. In other words, they are only interested in one per cent of the electorate because they are the ones that determine the results of the election. (The IPPR think tank assesses these swing voters at 1.6% of the electorate. Lewis Baston describes them as the 'ruling minority'). It is because the two main parties concentrate on this narrow focus that their policies converge.

Our three main political parties in the last election concentrated on what the focus groups were telling them the one per cent wanted. The other 99% were ignored, so even though a majority of the people wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, none of the main parties gave them one. Even though a majority of the people wanted the troops brought home from Afghanistan, none of the main parties offered them that. Even though a majority of the people do not believe in man-made climate change and the subsidies that go with it, none of the main parties offered to scrap the subsidies. This cannot be right. When political parties spend their time and energy on just 1% of the electorate voters feel that democracy has died.

As a method of election First Past The Post (FPTP) is broken. It is not fair. It is time to change. What are the arguments in favour of FPTP?

It gives strong government. Yet we have had minority or coalition governments in 33 out of the last 100 years including at those times when we needed strong government most of all - the two World Wars and the great economic depression of the 1930s. You can add to these critical times the world economic crisis we face today.

It enables an electorate to kick a government out. Yet only once in the last 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by an opposition with a working majority. The only time this happened was in 1970 when Harold Wilson lost the election to Edward Heath. In most cases change takes place over three parliaments.

It is our tradition. History shows that this is not correct. We had proportional representation in the university seats up until 1950. Up until 1884 we had multi-member seats and we had those for over 600 years. It is FPTP which is the newcomer, and it was only brought in because the political parties found it easier to control candidates and to manipulate the results. The political parties started seriously organising in the 1870s.

In the referendum we will have a choice between FPTP or the Alternative Vote (AV). One great advantage of AV is that every vote will count so this should increase turnout. Another advantage is that two thirds of the seats will become marginal. This will force the political parties to address the concerns of the majority of the people rather than those of the one per cent. This will stop the practice of one man, Lord Ashcroft, financing 100 Conservative marginal seats and the trade unions doing the same for Labour. That has to be good for democracy.

AV is used to elect party leaders. It is used to elect the Speaker of the House of Commons. So MPs do not oppose AV on principle. Preferential voting was used to elect the leader of the Conservative party. Why? Because when you get over 50% of the vote it gives you legitimacy. We want the same legitimacy for members of parliament.

In 2010, in terms of votes per MP, Labour had 33,370, Conservatives 34,940 and the Liberal Democrats a massive 119,944. Even worse than the Liberal Democrats were Ukip, which got no seats in spite of receiving 920,334 votes. By contrast the Democratic Unionists only needed 21,027 votes for each of their seats.

Our parliament is supposed to be a representative democracy, but it is not representative of women. It is not representative of ethnic minorities. And it is not even representative of our political parties.

Our electoral system is morally bankrupt, so let the people decide.

Goldstone Report: update and commentries

2011-04-05T02:15:00.000-07:00

1. The Original Report 25 September 2009
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

2. Update from the two other members of the Commission 19 November 2010
Hina Jilani is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
Desmond Travers is a former officer of the Irish Army and war investigator
http://search.wn.com/?results_type=videos&language_id=1&search_type=expression&search_string=un+goldstone+event+with+hina+hilani+desmond+travers&sort_type=-pub-datetime&template=cheetah-search-adv%2Findex.txt&action=search&corpus=current

3. Washington Post article 1st April 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

4.Review on countercurrents
http://www.countercurrents.org/emmerich030411.htm

5. Review on honestreporting
http://honestreporting.com/goldstone-if-i-had-known-then-what-i-know-now%E2%80%A6/

6. Further response from Hina Jilani 4th April 2011
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/interviews/2207-member-of-un-fact-finding-mission-on-gaza-conflict-insists-report-still-stands-unchanged

Mayhem in the Mediterranean: further update 23rd January 2011

2010-12-16T02:39:00.000-08:00

23/1/11 Turkil Committee report Part 1

http://www.turkel-committee.gov.il/content-107.html

Update on Ban Ki-Moon Inquiry from

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=deadline-for-un-probe-into-deadly-flotilla-raid-postponed-yet-another-time-2011-01-09

Deadline for UN probe into deadly flotilla raid postponed yet again
Sunday, January 9, 2011
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
A U.N. inquiry into the Mavi Marmara tragedy has again postponed the release of its report. The report will be released in April.

27/9/10 UNHRC report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf

Squaring the Circle: London 13th December

2010-12-12T10:50:00.000-08:00

On Monday 13th December 2010 the Henry Jackson Society and Just Journalism are holding a ‘Panel Discussion’: “Squaring the Circle? Britain & the De-legitimisation of Israel”
The panellists are: Israel Ambassador to UK Ron Prosor; Baroness Ruth Deech;
Daniel Finkelstein; Nick Cohen; Rafael Bardaji; Stephen Pollard.

More details on: www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?pageid=49&id=1840
- reproduced below

Any criticism of Israeli policies seems to stimulate a bombardment of largely ad hominem abuse in which Gentiles are categorised as ‘anti-semitic’, Jews as ‘self-hating’.

My own heritage: according to the National Geographic research project, my maternal DNA is associated with Ashkenazi Jewish descent.

The current round of peace talks initiated by President Obama has foundered with the impasse over the freeze in settlement construction.

The BBC’s Today programme, Radio 4 Saturday 11th December 2010 featured an interview with Martin Indyk Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, former United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration.

[Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Indyk served as United States ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration. He is arguably best known as one of the lead U.S. negotiators at the Camp David talks - Wikipedia]

His biographical data indicates that he is firmly pro-Israel.

He said:
‘If there are going to be 2 states, the border between them has to be defined’
‘so “it’s the borders, stupid”’ is the new mantra’
He suggested that the way forward should be:
Upfront: Mutual recognition of the 2 states: then state-to-state negotiation.
Revert to the language of the 1947 UN resolution.
Revert to Resolution 242: Borders based on the line of June 4 1967
Settlement blocks: The 1993 Oslo Accords followed by the Camp David negotiations between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak provided agreement in principle that the settlement blocks which hold about 70% of the settlers but exist on about 3-4% of the West Bank territory would be absorbed into Israel with swaps of territory from Israel to compensate the Palestinians.

So to the questions I hope to put:
Do you agree with Martin Indyk’s proposals?
Is it realistic?
There are probably some 350,000 settlers in the West Bank so this implies that there are either c. 100,000 relocations or that these people join the Palestinian state.
(‘As of July 2009, 304,569 Israelis live in the 121 officially-recognised settlements in the West Bank’ – Wikipedia)
Is Israel prepared to publish an indicative map?
Ow would this compare that published currently on the internet with Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

You might also wish to comment on the negative image which Israel presents exemplified by:
1) Its studied nonchalance on the possession of WMD despite independent evidence from South Africa (1975), Mordechai Vanunu (1986), Jimmy Carter (2008).
2) The casualty figures in Operation Cast Lead; the use of phosphorus munitions; supporting testimonies of Israeli combat soldiers.
(http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/news_item_e.asp?id=1)
3) The interception of the Mavi Marmara.

Other references:-

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-official-barak-s-vision-of-dividing-jerusalem-is-not-government-policy-1.330184
Defense Minister Ehud Barak's expressed support for partitioning Jerusalem along Jewish and Arab lines according to an initiative presented by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 is not official Israeli policy, an official in Jerusalem said Sunday,
In his address to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy seventh annual forum in Washington, the defense minister said that Israel should retain control of all Jewish neighborhoods in the capital and relinquish sovereignty over heavily Arab areas to the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/clinton-to-israel-time-to-deal-with-the-core-issues-1.330102
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in a speech on Friday that the United States will step up pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move toward establishing a Palestinian state.
Also, in an unusual move, Clinton held an hour-long meeting in Washington with the head of the opposition, Tzipi Livni. Clinton made it clear that the prime minister must begin mapping out the borders of a Palestinian state in the coming weeks, even without direct negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself," Clinton said in her speech at the Saban Forum in Washington.
"And starting with my meetings this week, that is exactly what we are doing. We will also deepen our strong commitment to supporting the state-building work of the Palestinian Authority and continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision."
Clinton focused on simple messages: The peace process will continue, and the leaders must stop trying to find excuses and people to blame. The United States will only step up its efforts in the region. The bottom line, she says, is that a Palestinian state is an inevitability.
"So even as we engage both sides on the core issues with an eye toward eventually restarting direct negotiations, we will deepen our support of the Palestinians' state-building efforts. Because we recognize that a Palestinian state achieved through negotiations is inevitable," Clinton said.
The U.S. administration began on Thursday night by relaying messages to Netanyahu during a meeting with Isaac Molho, the prime minister's adviser. The United States is very serious and wants to advance the process, Clinton told Molho.
An Israeli source who was briefed on Molho's meetings said the Americans described them as "very bad," and Clinton made clear she will not let Netanyahu "water down" the talks and avoid submitting serious positions on the core issues.
Over the weekend, neither Netanyahu nor his office published any response to Clinton's speech.
Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is due to arrive in Israel tomorrow, his first visit in four months. He will meet with Netanyahu tomorrow and with Abbas on Tuesday.
Several hours before her speech, Clinton sent Netanyahu another message by meeting with Livni in her State Department office for the first time since the establishment of the Netanyahu government. Clinton only met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak for 20 minutes in a side room at the hotel where the Saban Forum was held.
The Obama administration's dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's delaying tactics was evident in Clinton's speech. Contrary to the compliments she offered to Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, she had nothing good to say about the Israeli prime minister.
She said that one does not need to read secret diplomatic cables to know that the situation is difficult. "I understand and indeed I share the deep frustrations of many of you in this room and across the region and the world," she said.
"But rather than dwell on what has come before, I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America's continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal."
Clinton said borders and security are of the highest importance, but also mentioned the thorniest of issues in U.S.-Israeli relations.
"The fate of existing settlements is an issue that must be dealt with by the parties along with the other final status issues. But let me be clear: The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself."
She later said that to "demonstrate their commitment to peace, Israeli and Palestinian leaders should stop trying to assign blame for the next failure, and focus instead on what they need to do to make these efforts succeed.
"And to demonstrate their commitment to peace, they should avoid actions that prejudge the outcome of negotiations or undermine good faith efforts to resolve final status issues. Unilateral efforts at the United Nations are not helpful and undermine trust. Provocative announcements on East Jerusalem are counterproductive. And the United States will not shy away from saying so."
Offering condolences to the families of the victims in the Carmel fire, she praised the international contribution to the firefighting effort.
"Israelis are always among the first to lend a hand when an emergency strikes anywhere in the world. So when the fires began to burn, people and nations stepped up and offered help. It was remarkable to watch," she said.
According to Clinton, "The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened. We say it often, but it bears repeating: America's commitment to Israel's security and its future is rock solid and unwavering, and that will not change."
However, Clinton stressed that "Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel's long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel's future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States."
Meanwhile, senior Palestinian figures said yesterday that Clinton should have clearly laid the blame for the failure of the talks on Israel. Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the PLO Executive Council, told Palestinian television that the United States has admitted to the failure of its policy for the first time since Vietnam, and that the party responsible for this failure was Israel.

“Squaring the Circle? Britain & the De-legitimisation of Israel”
A Panel Discussion: 7:00-8:30pm, Monday 13th December 2010

Tony Blair, in a recent keynote speech at the Herzliya Forum for Diplomacy in Israel, identified two forms of de-legitimisation of Israel. Traditional de-legitimisation, whereby Israel’s very right to exist is questioned or challenged, is easier to combat because its objectives are clearly stated. But the second form, which Blair termed ‘insidious’ de-legitimisation, ‘is a conscious or often unconscious resistance, sometimes bordering on refusal, to accept Israel has a legitimate point of view.’ This is expressed in subtler fashion and therefore all the more difficult to counter.
Much of the British media has taken a hostile view towards Israel and its actions, be it with respect to the Free Gaza flotilla raid, renewed peace negotiations or the on-going threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Honest criticism of Israeli policies is often overwhelmed by strident voices which refuse to countenance any justification or explanation of those polices, must less acknowledge Israel’s fundamental right to exist. Misleading or tendentious journalism gets published in a cultural atmosphere where the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, designed to weaken Israel economically, is considered a viable means of debating the complexities of the Middle East. The British intelligentsia and political class morally compare antisemitic terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to Israel – and often compare them favourably. On radicalised university campuses, ‘Zionism’ is routinely anathematised and presented as a byword for Judaism.
De-legitimisation is a problem with serious and far-reaching consequences not just for Israel and the Jewish diaspora, but is troubling for all those wishing to have a civil discussion in the UK about the Jewish state’s past, present and future, about peace in the Middle East and about the strategic implications of the intellectual currents it so often masks. It is a harbinger of an intellectual climate that must not go unchallenged.
This panel, jointly hosted by the Henry Jackson Society and Just Journalism, is an opportunity to partake in a discussion on the topic with some of the most distinguished voices in the UK who will attempt to analyse the problem and explore strategies for combating this noxious trend across all fields, from politics to the media, academia and the arts.

Biographies

His Excellency Ambassador Ron Prosor has been Israel's Envoy to the Court of St. James’s since 2007. Mr Prosor joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1986 and was in 2004 named Director General, having been previously Senior Deputy Director and Chief of Policy Staff to the Foreign Minister. He was also Minister-Counsellor for Political Affairs in the United States and Spokesman in London and Bonn. He is Fluent in English and German. Serving in the United States during the Clinton-Bush election and the transition from Labor to Likud governments in Israel, Mr. Prosor was part of the Israeli delegation to the Wye River Plantation talks in Maryland in 1998. In London he was instrumental in arranging the first Israeli state visit to the United Kingdom by President Ezer Weizmann, and in Bonn oversaw relations with reunified Germany's five new federal states. Mr. Prosor is married to Hadas and they have three children.

Baroness Ruth Deech taught law at Oxford University until she was elected Principal of St Anne’s College, from 1991 to 2004. At Oxford she was a pro Vice-Chancellor and chaired the Admissions Committee. In 1994 Ruth Deech was appointed chair of the UK Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, a national committee charged with monitoring all IVF clinics and laboratories in the UK, and with approving assisted reproductive treatments and embryo research. In the period of her chairmanship to 2002 the HFEA oversaw the introduction of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and stem cell research. From 2002 to 2006 Ruth Deech was a Governor of the BBC, participating in the accountability and strategy of national TV and radio. From 2004 to 2008 she was the first Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education for England and Wales - a national campus ombudsman - responsible for reviewing student complaints from 147 universities. In 2008 she was appointed Gresham Professor of Law, lecturing in the City of London on reproductive law and ethics. She is a frequent broadcaster on these topics. She is also chair of a national committee on equal opportunities for Women in Medicine. In 2005 she was created a life peer (Baroness Deech, of Cumnor) and sits in the House of Lords as a non-party legislator.

Daniel Finkelstein OBE graduated from the London School of Economics, where he studied economics & politics. He was awarded the OBE in the 1997 honours list. Between 1981 and 1990 he was a member of the SDP, becoming Chair of the Young Social Democrats during the 1983 general election campaign. Before working for the Conservative Party, Daniel Finkelstein was Director of the think tank the Social Market Foundation for three years. Between 1995 and 1997 Finkelstein was Director of the Conservative Research Department. Between 1997 and 2001 he was political adviser to the Leader of the Opposition Rt. Hon William Hague MP, and, together with George Osborne, Secretary to the Shadow Cabinet. Finkelstein joined The Times in August 2001 as part of the leader writing team and was Comment Editor from March 2004 - June 2008. He became Chief Leader Writer in June 2008 and is currently the Executive Editor.

Nick Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and writes occasional pieces for many other publications, including Standpoint and New Humanist. Cruel Britannia, a collection of his journalism, was published by Verso in 1999, and Pretty Straight Guys, a history of Britain under Tony Blair, was published by Faber in 2003. ‘What’s Left?’ the story of how the liberal-left of the 20th century ended up supporting the far right of the 21st was published by 4th Estate in February 2007. His latest book is ‘Waiting for The Etonians’.

Rafael Bardaji is the Executive Director of the Friends of Israel Initiative, a high-level international leadership project recently launched by former President of the Spanish Government José María Aznar to counter the increasing attempts to de-legitimise the State of Israel and its right to live in peace within safe and defensible borders. From 1986 to 1996 he was the Director of the “Strategic Studies Group” (GEES), a private, non-partisan institution based in Madrid which conducts research and produces analysis on international security and defense issues. In 1996 he was appointed Senior Strategic Advisor to the Defence Minister of Spain. In 2002, he became National Security Advisor to Mr Aznar for the remainder of his term in office, and continues to advise him on national and international policy issues.

Stephen Pollard is the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle. He was previously President of the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based think tank and is the Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism. His biography of David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, was published in December 2004. From 1998-2000 he was a columnist and Chief Leader Writer on the Daily Express. From 1995-98 he was Head of Research at the Social Market Foundation, and from 1992-95 Research Director at the Fabian Society. He is the author of numerous pamphlets and books on health and education policy, and is co-author with Andrew Adonis of the best-selling A Class Act - the Myth of Britain's Classless Society (Penguin 1998). He has been described by the BBC as 'Britain's most prolific columnist'.

4th September: Battle of Britain 70th Anniversary - Concert at Chartwell

2010-09-05T05:26:00.000-07:00

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-events/w-events-find_event.htm?c=1

This was a stirring patriotic event: music from the Central Band of the RAF; flypast from a Hurricane & a Spitfire; subsequent chase of a Messerschmitt Bf 109 by the Spitfire.

We also had a vivid pyrotechnic depiction of the London blitz.

The setting was Winston Churchill's family home: he would have approved.

However, I hope Liam Fox and George Osborne were present; failing that some of their senior civil servants. One of the film clips featured suggested that the Red Arrows might be reduced to a team of 11 motor-scooter-cyclists mounted on (Italian!) Vespas.

The impending Strategic Defence Review will be formative - if not traumantic.

1st September: Frontline Club - Pakistan under the spotlight

2010-09-05T05:13:00.000-07:00

A lively debate chaired by Jon Snow

http://frontlineclub.com/blogs/theforum/2010/09/pakistan-under-the-spotlight-floods-terrorism-and-political-conflict.html

Subsequently a google search on 'Pakistan failed state' produces about 629,000 results including:-

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_failed_states_index_2010

Pakistan has been ranked the 10th most failed state in the 20 10 Failed State Index released by the prestigious US Foreign Policy magazine. The list is topped by Somalia, followed by Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Chad.

The Trident Programme

2010-09-01T03:10:00.000-07:00

It seems that the system is vulnerable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7969017/Russian-subs-stalk-Trident-in-echo-of-Cold-War.html

If the Russians want to get the acoustic signature of the Vanguard subs I guess they could just sit on the shores of Holy Loch with a cassette recorder and a submerged microphone and watch the traffic.

31st August: Afghanistan in the UK

2010-09-01T01:42:00.000-07:00

The Frontline Club: A screening of 'Afghanistan in the UK' followed by Q&A with Director Andy Capper, Associate Producer Stuart Griffiths and Richard Dare, former private in the Royal Anglian Regiment.

http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/screening---afghanistan-in-the-uk.html

The army has set up a training facility in Suffolk which attempts to replicate conditions the troops will face in Afghanistan. The chaos and confusion depicted must be an order of magnitude less than that in the field.

Richard Dare's views - following head wound and discharge from the army: it is almost impossible to distinguish Taliban from 'peaceable' inhabitants; we are there to protect the locals from the excesses of the Taliban; however long it takes.

We will see what the lessons of history have taught us in 5-10 years time.

25th August: Gideon Levy in conversation with Jon Snow

2010-09-01T01:33:00.000-07:00

This was held at the Frontline Club in Paddington; subject Levy's book 'The Punishment of Gaza'.

It is viewable at:-
http://frontlineclub.com/events/2010/08/insight-with-gideon-levy.html

It was a re-run of the event held the previous evening at Amnesty which is reported and commented on Jon Snow's blog:-
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/an-increasingly-lone-israeli-voice

There is critical review from Richard Millett (unfortunately with lots of mutually abusive comments from third parties} on:-
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/gideon-levy-packs-them-in-at-amnesty/

Again Afghanistan

2010-07-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

This is a reiteration and update of my past posts on this fraught subject.

Our government says it is committed to the principle of 'evidence-based policy'; let us see this followed in this situation where we are faced with continuing needless expenditure of 'Blood and Treasure'.

The oft-repeated justification for this, Britain's 4th Afghan war, is that it is to keep the street of Britain safe by preventing Al Qaeda's use of Afghanistan as a base.

There is little evidence in the public domain which supports this assertion; indeed the reverse is true.

On 20th July Eliza Manningham-Buller gave evidence the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq. Baroness M-B was Director General of the UK Security Service MI5 from 2002 to 2007. She said she had warned what many senior Whitehall officials believed in 2003: that the invasion of Iraq would increase the terrorist threat to the UK.
More than once, the former head of MI5 emphasised to the Chilcot inquiry that the invasion exacerbated the terrorist threat to the UK and was a "highly significant" factor in how "home-grown" extremists justified their actions.
"Our involvement in Iraq radicalised a few among a generation of young people who saw [it] as an attack upon Islam," she said.
Manningham-Buller said she was therefore not surprised that UK citizens were involved in the 7/7 suicide attacks in London or by the increase in the number of Britons "attracted to the ideology of Osama bin Laden" who saw the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as threatening their co-religionists and the Muslim world".
The invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly" increased the terrorist threat in Britain.

The recent detailed disclosures of the actions of the NATO forces in Afghanistan via Wikileaks can only exacerbate the situation.

Other eminent speakers in Parliament have recently suggested that the real issue is that failure in Afghanistan would lead to wider conflict involving China, India and Pakistan.
Our attention should logically be directed to addressing this – e.g. by fostering an equitable solution to the Kashmir problem – and leaving the Afghanis to sort out their tribal rivalries internally.

In May Liam Fox described Afghanistan as a “broken 13th-century country”.
This is one area where I agree with him.

Here is a quotation from a display at Auschwitz:-
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana; 1905

Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897! (or even the 13th century.)
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated; this serves to fund the Afghan 'insurgency' whilst creating huge consequential costs in our own society.

Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.

Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?

Present and Past Posts

1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: J June 2009/July 2010
2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009
3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009
3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009
4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10
5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009

7. Correspondance with Government via FCO 18th September 2009
8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009
9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010

1. Responses to Tobias Ellwood: June 2009/July 2010

14th June 2009 The Blue Blog
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/We_must_provide_greater_reconstruction_support_in_Afghanistan.aspx

26th July 2010 Conservativehome
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/06/tobias-ellwood-mp-if-were-serious-about-successfully-concluding-military-operations-in-afghanistan-w.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e2013485b5bd9e970c

The Lessons of History

The First Anglo–Afghan War lasted from 1839 to 1842. ... It marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region after the consolidation of India by the British East India Company.

The Second Anglo-Afghan War .. lasted from 1878 to 1880. .. Abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, but having achieved all their other objectives, the British withdrew.

The Third Anglo-Afghan War - 6 May 1919 to 8 August 1919. .. It was essentially a minor tactical victory for the British in so much as they were able to repel the regular Afghan forces, in many ways it was a strategic victory for the Afghans.

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict
The initial Soviet deployment began on December 24, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviet equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.

"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbor. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897

2. Gordon's Justifications (Brownian Motions) 18th August 2009

What are we doing in Afghanistan? A review of Al Qaeda inspired activity

Our leader is widely quoted – although not on government web pages.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8203711.stm
UK deaths in Afghanistan pass 200

Mr Brown said their efforts were helping to make the world safer and that progress had been made in allowing forthcoming Afghan elections to take place.
"We have created space in which we can have Afghan government, Afghan police and Afghan forces and that will make it very difficult for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to reassert themselves,"
"Three quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan,"
"And it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain and keep a stable Afghanistan."

There is no published evidence to support this assertion.

The situation is reminiscent of another triumph of foreign policy which produced the following parliamentary resolution (voted down by New Labour):-
Iraq — Weapons of Mass Destruction Inquiry - 4 Jun 2003 - Division No. 217
This House
* recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction capable of being used at 45 minutes' notice;
* further recalls the Government's contention that these weapons posed an imminent danger to the United Kingdom and its forces;
* notes that to date no such weapons have been found; and
* calls for an independent inquiry into the handling of the intelligence received, its assessment and the decisions made by ministers based upon it.

Analysis of Past Attacks

11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).

7 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Mohammad Sidique Khan – born in Leeds
Shehzad Tanweer – born in Bradford
Germaine Lindsay - born in Jamaica
Hasib Hussain – born in Leeds

21 July 2005 London bombings
Bombers:-
Yasin Hassan Omar: originally from Somalia and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers, in 1992. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000.
Ramzi Mohammed: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992. Also reported to be a Somali National.
Muktar Said Ibrahim: originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992
Manfo Kwaku Asiedu: Ghanian
Osman Hussain: born in Ethiopia, a naturalised British citizen.

29 June 2007 London car bombs
Bilal Abdullah
Kafeel Ahmed

30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Attackers:-
Bilal Abdullah: British-born, of Iraqi descent
Kafeel Ahmed: Indian Muslim

Other Sources

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/08/where-do-the-terrorists-come-from/
Where do the terrorists come from? August 16, 2009 4:11pm by Jim Pickard
I was struck by Gordon Brown’s insistence today that: “Three-quarters of the terrorist plots that hit Britain derive from the mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it is to make Britain safe and the rest of the world safe that we must make sure we honour our commitment to maintain a stable Afghanistan.”
I also noticed Labour MP Caroline Flint making the same point on morning TV.
But - I’m not a Foreign Office expert - I thought I’d read somewhere else that three-quarters of terrorist plots in Britain came from Pakistan per se.
Yes, here it is, back in the spring. From Mr Brown himself: “Three quarters of serious plots investigated in the UK were connected to Pakistan.”
In other words, they are not necessarily anywhere near where we are fighting. (Karachi, where I grew up, is 1,104 km from Peshawar in the mountains).
This seems seriously disingenuous.
The duty press officer at the Foreign Office wasn’t able to answer this one yesterday. Nor did Gordon Brown’s spokesman have the exact details of the stats this morning beyond saying that the UK faced a major threat from people on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“I don’t think we can necessarily pinpoint exactly where each of these plots orginates…the point that we set out in April is that we need to tackle security in that border area.”
Um, where does the statistic come from then?
I’m told by one reporter who visited Pakistan on the PM’s jet earlier this year that the figure was then said to be closer to 60 per cent than 75 per cent, although I have no proof of this.
(By the way, worth pointing out that it only covers recent years - and so excludes Northern Ireland incidents.)
Now I stop to think about it, maybe most of the people on the list are UK citizens who happen to have relatives in Pakistan? If so, what relevance do they have to our battle in the “mountainous areas”? Do we actually know?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/mumbai-terror-attacks-india
Gordon Brown: 75% of UK terror plots originate in Pakistan
Gaby Hinsliff in Islamabad guardian.co.uk, Sunday 14 December 2008
"Three quarters of the most serious plots investigated by the British authorities have links to al-Qaida in Pakistan. Our aim must be to work together to do everything in our power to cut off terrorism” [Gordon Brown] told a press conference in Islamabad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/6040956/Afghanistan-Our-fight-is-against-terror-and-tyranny---not-just-the-Taliban.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6052127
Afghanistan: Our fight is against terror and tyranny - not just the Taliban

"Up to 90 per cent of the recent Islamist terror plots against Britain have originated from the lawless terrain that straddles Afghanistan's southern border with Pakistan."

Gordon Brown said 75%.
Can anyone substantiate these numbers?
Else, they could be as reliable as Bliar's (sic) "45 minutes" scare story.

3. Milly Molly Mandy on Afghanistan: Today, today 21st August 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8213000/8213516.stm

David Miliband interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme 21/8/09

Where are the real facts claimed by Milly?

DM “The security of Britain depends, to a considerable extent, on the degree to which terrorism is suppressed in the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. ....”
JH “ ...How can we justify the British military presence there, except on the basis, which is now the justification for it that it will keep the streets of Britain safer, which of course many people dispute anyway”
DM “I don't think many people do dispute that. I mean it's a fact ....”
JH ” Oh, but surely the do. They point out that, for instance, the London bombers had no connection whatsoever with Afghanistan. It was a home grown plot”
DM “Well, hang on. They certainly did have – there are very significant links to what I call the badlands between the border country between Afghanistan....
JH “But it's pretty tenuous isn't it?”
DH “No, it's not tenuous John ....
JH “A significant link. What does a link mean?”
DM “..... When we say that over 70% of the terrorist plots that are pursued in Britain have links to the badlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan, we're talking about ungoverned space that is used for training, that is used for planning, and that in its ultimate form was used for planning 911 but which is also used for training, yes, British citizens, who go to Afghanistan or Pakistan for training. That is a deadly practice and its very important that I'm able to explain to British people on programmes like this that we don't say, in a flip manner, that this a security challenge of the highest order. It's based on real fact about murder that's being
done to British citizen both in Britain and around the world from this place.”

3a email to David Miliband 21st August 2009

Dear Mr Miliband
From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
as above-
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.

11 September 2001 - “911” Attack
7 July 2005 London bombings
21 July 2005 London bombings
29 June 2007 London car bombs
30 June 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Names as listed in in Section 2 above

An answer of sorts was eventually provided - See 7.below

4. International Terrorism: FBI Names 24th August 2009 updated 26/7/10

Not much mention of Afghanistan here

URL http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

WANTED as at 24/8/09

Rank Name Place of Birth Citizenship

1 Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
2 Adam Yahiye Gadahn United States American
3 Daniel Andreas San Diego Berkeley, California American
4 Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah Egypt Egyptian
5 Ayman al-Zawahiri Egypt Egyptian
6 Ali Atwa Lebanon Lebanese
7 Anas al-Liby Libya Libyan
8 Fazul Abdullah Mohammed Moroni, Comoros Islands Comoros, Kenyan
9 Hasan Izz-al-Din Lebanon Lebanese
10 Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali Egypt Egyptian
11 Jaber a. Albaneh Yemen Yemeni
12 Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan Kenya Kenyan
13 Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana American
14 Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam Kenya Kenyan
15 Ahmad Ibrahim al-Mughassil Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
16 Ali Saed bin Ali el-Hoorie Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
17 Saif al-Adel Egypt Egyptian
18 Ibrahim Salih Mohammed al-Yacoub Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
19 Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah Gaza Palestinian
20 Abd al Aziz Awda Gaza Palestinian
21 Isnilon Totoni Hapilon Philippines Philippine
22 Mohammed Ali Hamadei Lebanon Lebanese
23 Jamel Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi Yemen Yemeni
24 Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian

WANTED as at 26/7/10 - new names
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
Fahd Al-Quso Aden, Yemen Yemini
Husayn Al-Umari Jaffa, Palestine Unknown
Wadoud Muhammad Hafiz Al-Turki Baghdad, Iraq Iraqi, poss. Palestinian
Abdul Rahman Yasin Bloomington, Indiana US
Jamal Saeed Abdul Rahim Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Abdullah Khalil Hussain Ar-Rahayyal Lebanon Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Muhammad Ahmed Al-Munawar Kuwait Palestinian, poss. Lebanese
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub Tarut, Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian
Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia Guyanese

URL http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/terrorismsi.htm

SEEKING INFORMATION as at 24/8/09
Name Place of Birth Citizenship
1 Mas Selamat bin Kastari Singapore Singaporean
2 Noordin Mohammad Top Malaysia
3 Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan Kenya
4 Amer El-Maati Kuwait
5 Adnan G. El Shukrijumah Saudi Arabia
6 Faker Ben Abdelazziz Boussora Tunisia
7 Abderraouf Jdey Tunisia

SEEKING INFORMATION as at 26/7/10 - new name
Abdullah Al-Rimi Ta'iz, Yemen Yemeni

5. David Cameron on Afghanistan today 6th September 2009
www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/Why_we_are_in_Afghanistan.aspx

“We need to make it clear to the British people why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s simple – to stop terrorism here in Britain. We must help the Afghans to stop their country from once again hosting the world’s most dangerous terrorists. So we need to train and equip the Afghan army to root out terrorists, and to support them until they can do this for themselves. “

My Response on the Blue Blog (yet again!)

Plus ca change...
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above

More
We will always be "the stranger".
Better equipment is not the answer; consider the Russian experience.
Train the Afghan army by all means - but do it in Pakistan, or India, or Sandhurst.
Stifle the supply chain into Afghanistan and its funding via the opium trade - is it not cheaper to buy the entire crop than suffer the consequences of the alternative?
I (and others) have asked Brown/Miliband/Straw to justify their contention that the threat of terrorism "on streets of Britain" is linked to Afghanistan/Pak.

6. Afghanistan Adventure 216/830 17th September 2009

From The Times September 18, 2009
General David Petraeus: allied failure ‘would intoxicate terrorists’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6839321.ece

The Generals say;-
“no quick fixes” = a 40 year commitment?
"NATO had yet to find the right formula for success" - what constitutes success?
Lessons of history.

This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure.
The Russians failed despite huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?

Of course, we have yet to deploy the most valuable (costly) weapons in our armoury: Eurofighters, nuclear submarines, Trident missiles...
Think of the difference their use would make.

Meanwhile...
"Italy wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday after a suicide bomber killed six Italian soldiers in one of the worst attacks suffered by a Nato contingent in Kabul."

7. Correspondence with Government via FCO 18th September 2009

On 21/08/2009, Richard Tebboth wrote:

Dear Mr Miliband

From your interview on the Today programme with John Humphrys this morning:-
…
The facts currently in the public domain on the origin of terrorist attacks are listed below.
I request that you provide evidence supporting the "real fact" to which you allude.

From JB@fco.gov.uk
to richard.tebboth@gmail.com date 18 September 2009 15:11
subject RE: Afghanistan Aberrations

Dear Mr Tebboth,

Thank you for your email to the Foreign Secretary dated 21 August 2009. As an officer with responsibility for Afghanistan, I have been asked to reply.

There is no question that Afghanistan under the Taliban was a safe haven for terrorists to use as a base from which to plan and implement attacks against the international community. Our involvement in Afghanistan is as vital to ensuring our security in 2009 as it was in 2001, and it is focused on an enduring aim as expressed by the Prime Minister in a statement to the House of Commons in December 2007: “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world.”

Your email raises your concern about the nationalities of those involved in terrorist attacks and whether they had links to Afghanistan. Regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators, the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them. This has been illustrated in a number of high-profile terrorism trials in recent years; for example, the trial relating to the plot, disrupted in January 2007, to kidnap and murder a British soldier. Furthermore, the conflict in Afghanistan remains ideologically significant for Al Qaeda and the draw of Afghanistan for extremists worldwide is significant in providing Al Qaeda in Pakistan with recruits and finances.

Your email includes a transcript of an interview which raises the issue of ‘home grown’ terrorism. With regards to British nationals, our strategy for preventing terrorism includes working with the Afghan and Pakistani governments as well as building resilience in UK communities. The police and security services work hard to disrupt those who wish to travel to undertake terrorist activity abroad. Where they have evidence or intelligence that individuals wish to travel abroad to commit terrorist acts, the police will act to disrupt this travel using a range of powers available to them.

The UK also recognises that extremists across the world continue to use the presence of Western forces in Afghanistan to radicalise vulnerable individuals. We are, therefore, not complacent about the importance of engaging with Muslims in Britain and elsewhere to explain the UK’s role in Afghanistan. We have implemented a programme of outreach to Muslim communities around the UK by Ministers and senior officials to engage on a variety of foreign policy issues which are of most concern to those communities, including Afghanistan. We are also committed to engaging with the general public more widely in the UK and international community to explain our foreign policy goals.

From RT to JB

Dear JB

Thank you for your email.

It is difficult to comment on the events in 2001; the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not well understood; given bin Ladan's background one could probably construct a significant Saudi link.

Ii is my view that our efforts in Afghanistan are ineffectual in “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world” but are too easily portrayed in the madrassah culture as being anti-moslem. They are also clearly proving disruptive within Pakistan.

"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger." - Winston Churchill 1897

We are "the stranger".

You say "the majority of significant attack plots against the UK have links to Al Qaeda and/or other militant groups in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the UK-based networks linked to them"; I would be grateful if you would direct me to the evidence supporting this claim.
This assertion has repeatedly be made by government ministers associated with numbers like 70% or 75%; this implies at least 10 such plots. There is little evidence in the public domain of any large number of plots; what evidence is available points to the few plots being almost exclusively "home-grown".

Returning to the military situation:-
This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure; the previous three ended in ignominy.
The Russians failed despite the investment of huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?

JB has not replied as at 29/7/10

8. Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury 25th September 2009

On Wednesday 23rd September there was a "fringe meeting at the LibDem conference which was addressed by Lord Avebury and attended by inter alia the Afghan ambassador.

Dear Lord Avebury,

I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"

To reiterate and expand the question:

"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?

Why do the Afghan population harbour them?

Are we not seen as the insurgents?

You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.

If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.

Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?

Surely, our only rational and achievable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.

Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.

I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."

I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
Winston Churchill 1897 quote as above.

9. Cameron’s War 29th June 2010

Comment on Times article
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2579794.ece
Afghanistan is the Prime Minister’s conflict and he needs to clarify his aims over commitment and exit strategy

It is reported that some 77% of the UK public are in favour of early withdrawal;

the available evidence supporting the contention that our presence is necessary to make the streets of Britain safe is minimal;

the cost in immediate "blood and treasure" is immense - as are the consequential costs of caring for the returning troops;

the lessons of history of Britain's previous three Afghan adventures - as well as those of the Russians - go unlearned;

there was a much trumpeted "success".in delivering a turbine to the Kajaki dam - it lies uninstalled;
opium production continues thereby funding the insurgency and causing further consequential damage to our society.

"Let's call the whole thing off".

Liam Fox as reported on Conservativehome

2010-07-05T00:17:00.000-07:00

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/06/liam-fox-reaffirms-why-british-troops-remain-in-afghanistan-and-explains-that-their-return-is-depend.html#comments

Liam Fox reaffirms why British troops remain in Afghanistan and explains that their return is dependent on national security needs

My Comments

Times' readers are equally vociferous; where is the commitment to evidence-based policy - for Afghanistan and for Trident renewal?

Is LF past his sell-by date?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana; 1905

Evidence for policy making:-
1. There is no effective central government in Afghanistan. This has not changed since Churchill's analysis of 1897!
2. The Kazai regime is corrupt.
3. Opium production continues unabated.

Conclusions:-
1. Deal with local tribal leaders; motivate them to deal with 'insurgents' whom they can identify far more readily than can 'coalition' [LibDemCon?] forces.
2. Disrupt the Taliban supply chain; Control opium production; by buying it at source and/or destroying it.
3. Invest in development not pay for war.

PS Why are we sending our men out on patrol to be targets for snipers and IEDs without an accompanying group of ANA soldiers?

Berlin

2010-07-03T22:26:00.001-07:00

Work in Progress: Blog & City

The vuvuzalas (vuvuzalae?) tooted happily in sedate Frankfurt am Main last week, in extrovert Berlin the response to last night's result was tumultuous.

24 years since my last visit to Berlin.

Then there was a wall dividing two different systems of political and economic belief and practice.

Today there a few battered remains of that wall preserved as a monument.

This provides stimulus for profund thought.

If that physical wall can be torn down - largely by the spontaneous work of ordinary people - what will it take to remove those other walls in Belfast, Israel/Palestine ... ?

Such physical walls are the product of 'thought walls' of religious and racial bigotry.

The WWW together with mobile phone networks, digital video and photography means that facts and evidence cannot be suppressed.

We have seen the effects of this revolution in the UK political system with the exposure of malpractice on expenses of our publicly-funded representatives.

Timely, generally available facts and evidence must lead to increasing accountability. I fear that many of our politicians "just don't get it".

Terezin to Oświęcim

2010-06-27T09:28:00.000-07:00

Work in progress: need comment on Wansee conference, Allied inaction

Terezin (Czech Republic) to Oświęcim (Republic of Poland):

In another time:-

Theresienstadt (Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of the Third Reich)
to
Auschwitz (General Government for the Occupied Polish Territories).

By road this is 340 miles/550 km with a predicted journey time of some 7 hours.
We are traveling on motorways in the air-conditioned comfort of a new Ford Mondeo with a peak speed 0f 130 km/h.

In 1942-45 the rail journey would have been less direct with a peak speed of perhaps 60 km/h. This implies a journey time of at least 24 hours.

The comparison of our journey with that endured by many thousands of men, women and children in railway cattle trucks in the cold of winter or the heat of summer could hardly be more profound.

Terezin is a garrison town cum fortress originally constructed in the late 18th century.
Gavrilo Princip who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 thereby precipitating 'The Great War' was incarcerated here in durance vile dying at the age of 24 from TB and malnourishment.

Renamed Theresienstadt following the German invasion of Czechoslavakia it became a 'concentration camp' predominantly for Czech Jews but also other parts of occupied Europe including the Channel Islands. Any deaths (although there were ens of thousands) here were incidental to the 'concentration' process; this was a transit point en route to the main 'extermination camps' in Poland - principally Auschwitz.

Oświęcim

Oświęcim is a small bustling town.
On its outskirts lie three more sombre places: the camps of Auschwitz.

Auschwitz I: the pilot plant.
Auschwitz II: the production plant.
Mm: the overflow plant.

Production line genocide: the raw material 1.5 million human beings - people like us;
the product: some labour, hair, gold & silver from teeth, carefully sorted personal possessions - spectacles, false limbs, children's clothes...

more ..

Frankfurt am Main

2010-06-23T22:39:00.000-07:00

A litle while since my last visit to Deutchland: still manicured and litter-free but there seems to be less discipline in observing pedestrian crossing lights.

The Germans appear to have welcomed on-shore windfarms. However, as eleswhere, there seem to be at as least as many at rest as turning.

The happy toot of the vuvuzela accompanied Germany´s victory over Ghana yesterday evening. I now have 3 of these `instruments´ directly imported from S. Africa as gifts for grandchildren to be `enjoyed´ by their parents.

Elsewhere to `Crystalise´ an issue: to lose one General "might be regarded as unfortunate..."; the FT this morning reports a succession of 5 US commanders in Afghanistan since 2003 - Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKeiran, McChrystal.
Good luck David Petraeus! - at least he has a copy of "The Story of the Malakand Field Force", a source he referenced in his recent talk to the Henry Jackson Society in Parliament. Lessons yet to be learned?

MPs' Independent Thought

2010-05-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

See http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/05/david-cameron-has-won-1922-rule-change-by-168-to-118-votes.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e20134813b602d970c

Plus ca change...

When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

From the New World 2: UK Fixed Term Parliaments

2010-05-16T21:52:00.000-07:00

Fixed term Parliaments and the 5 year deal.

A problem with a May election is that any Budget measures would have been put into effect only 5 weeks before it.
It would surely make more sense for all future Budget proposals from this government and its successors to be made in mid November. This would allow the proposals 2014 Budget to form part of the election campaign whilst leaving 6 months to plan the implementation of any changes.

Another benefit of fixed term parliaments would be the avoidance of the Machiavellian wash-up deals we have just seen.

From the New World 1 - Victoria BC: UK Science Policy

2010-05-16T07:08:00.000-07:00

Prior to the election Adam Afriyie set out intended Tory policies in a presentation to RAEng: see
http://www.adamafriyie.org/AR%20-%20Royal%20Academy%20of%20Engineering%20Policy%20Network.html

Labour & the LibDems were also invited to present their policies but failed to appear.

It would be helpful if David Willetts were to reiterate the new government's policy given the change of Minister and the brave new world of coalition.

Parliamentary Progress and Processes

2010-05-10T02:46:00.000-07:00

The list would of Conservative gains almost certainly have been longer, possibly producing an overall majority and a more settled European policy had Dave kept to his "cast iron" commitment on the Lisbon referendum and thereby secured the UKIP vote

In Dave's own words:-

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty."

Look at the URLs in detail. In neither case is there any qualification about retreating from this commitment in the event that the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified.

The LibDems also have form. Their 2005 manifesto stated:-
"We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people."

Any Tory-LibDem concordat should therefore include commitments to referenda on (inter alia) Europe as well as electoral reform.

Following the shambles we witnessed last week this should also allow the introduction of a voting system more appropriate to the 21st century - rather than the 19th.

The "Special Relationship"

2010-03-11T12:32:00.000-08:00

"US President Barack Obama and myself know that the U.S. has no better friend in the community of nations than Israel."
- Thursday 11th March 2010: U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden at Tel Aviv University

Quantitative Easing (financial laxative): QE not QED - revisited

2010-03-08T06:23:00.000-08:00

Comment on Roger Bootle article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7393470/A-year-on-and-quantitative-easing-is-paused-but-when-will-it-return.html

So 'My Uncle'* Mervyn at the Bank of England pawnshop has been buying £200Bn of gilts.

Now that selfsame BoE has cut interest rates to an historical low; this has caused a corresponding rise in the price of gilts. So, the BoE is buying at high prices and the financial institutions which were holding the stock have made a tidy profit with which to pay bonuses.
Alternatively, the opportunity has been created for the institutions to make arbitrage deals between the Treasury's Debt Management Office and the BoE.

Roll on a couple of months and we see that the inflation number is not a “blip”.
The BoE raises interest rate; gilt prices fall correspondingly.
The BoE now starts to sell its holding and incurs losses.

Who is paying for this capital loss?
Presumably the cash has gone to “money heaven” as in the Iceland debacle.

* The English term of ‘my uncle’ as a euphemism for the pawnbroker dates back to the middle of the seventeenth century.

According to Tim Congdon of Lombard Street Research, the whole process "is quite idiotic, frankly". He believes that the Bank, if it ran the DMO, would simply issue fewer gilts in the first place and "quantitative easing" would be achieved by buying bank debt.
- Daily Telegraph 26/3/09

Q&A: Quantitative easing "Q&A: Quantitative easing Are there any risks?
QE is a high-risk strategy. If it is not done aggressively enough, banks will remain unwilling to lend and the crisis could drag on. To some extent that is what happened in Japan when this was tried 10 years ago. Like old-fashioned money printing, QE also runs the risk of going too far: pumping too much money into the economy and causing high inflation - even hyperinflation - as seen in 1920s Weimar Germany and modern-day Zimbabwe.
Why are the UK's actions different from 1920s Germany and Zimbabwe?
Printing money can be defined as the central bank financing of government debts. This is what happened in both 1920s Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe and what the British government will insist it is not doing, although the short-term effect is similar. According to the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits by printing money. That is one reason why the Bank of England will buy government bonds from financial institutions, not directly from the government. The Bank believes this form of QE is different because it is "printing money" as part of monetary policy - to prevent deflation. It is not printing money to help the government finance its deficit. Also, unlike Zimbabwe, this is a temporary policy: the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm 6/8/09

"an elaborate game of pass the parcel sees cash effectively shifted from one arm of government to another via third parties" - Rodney Hobson 6/8/09

So the story so far: the BoE has cuts interest rates; gilt prices have risen.
Next "the Bank expects to sell the government bonds back into the market when the economy recovers. " i.e. when interest rates will have increased; gilt prices fallen.
The BoE sustains a loss; paid for by?

Good government costs less with Conservatives

2010-03-06T05:36:00.000-08:00

Dave has just posted:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/tag/taxpayers/

My submission:
Public sector pensions are a huge problem as is amply illustrated in the report from the Taxpayers' Alliance this week.
Reform must start from the top.
How about a manifesto commitment on this topic?
You should start with the MPs' scheme.

They Just Don't Get It

2010-03-04T22:41:00.000-08:00

A continuing record of political incorrectness

2009: MPs' and Lords' expenses

February 2010: Lord Ashcroft/William Hague -

5th February 2010: Members of Parliament will get a 1.5% pay rise of nearly £1,000 from 1 April, taking their basic salary to £65,737 a year.

Whither/Wither Heathrow?

2010-02-25T09:32:00.000-08:00

The Conservatives' position is clear
The LibDems' position is clear
The position of many in the Labour party is clear

Whatever the outcome of the impending General Election, Heathrow runway 3 will not be built.

This does, however, beg the question of how the demand for extra capacity (the estimated 222,000 extra flights which would have come with the third runway) will be met.

It is generally accepted that Heathrow “just growed”; starting from scratch it would not be there.

The problems with pollution, traffic congestion and noise with the current volume of flights at Heathrow
are apparent. These problems will be exacerbated by the more intensive use of the existing runways by improved air traffic control which will enable overlapped landing/take-off.
CO2 emissions may be reduced by new engine (open rotor) technology; however, this is noisier - it is highly probable that new generation planes with these engines could not operate from Heathrow

There is another elephant in the room: the issue of security/terrorism issue.
Consider: the ease with which the entry tunnels could be sabotaged, the appalling possibility of another 9/11 style attack on central London or Windsor – targets which could be hit only a few minutes after takeoff.

Let's call the whole thing off; close Heathrow entirely.

The Manifesto should advocate, if not enunciate, an holistic approach to the entire transport infrastructure of SE England.
The estuary airport as proposed by Boris could also encompass:
- TGV-style rail connections to UK & the continent
- the new Thames Barrier (needed in any case in consequence of climate change)
- tidal (therefore green) power generation
- wind power
- container port linked to rail for freight

This phased development would facilitate the re-development of the Heathrow area as:
- London's major rail centre linking Great Western, SouthWest Trains, Chiltern Rail, Chunnel
- rail freight interchange
- an exhibition & entertainment centre to rival to NEC
(this would also allow the redevelopment of the out-dated sites at Olympia and Earls Court)
- associated property/leisure development

AAAS San Diego #1: Improvised Asymmetry

2010-02-23T21:43:00.000-08:00

IED versus IBD versus ICD

- to be expanded

Comment on The Times web site

2010-02-23T21:23:00.000-08:00

A view from San Diego: more to come on: SD, Tijuana, AAAS - Climate Change, Geoengineering

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article7038528.ece

Time to crank up the Bank’s printer

If the economy relapses, jobs may be cut, reducing spare capacity, so the Bank should start easing as soon as possible

Richard Tebboth wrote:
MK's Quantitative Easing policy (sounds like a laxative) seems to have served principally to have boosted banks' profits and the bankers' bonuses.
If he just sent every taxpayer a cheque for £1000 (if not £10,000) it would provide a much greater boost to the economy and cut out the middlemen.
February 24, 2010 5:07 AM GMT

Canaan Contemplation - Gazan Gaze - Palestine Perspective: Part 1

2010-01-28T13:10:00.000-08:00

As a child in the 1950s, at Church, School, and Sunday School I was brought up on the stories of the Old Testament.

As a teenager, as part of the O Level history syllabus I learned of the Dreyfus Affair, the decline of the Ottoman Empire (as one of the causes of WW1) and the Balfour Declaration and associated treaties and concordats. (1)

In the 60s and 70s I first watched the movie epics:-
Exodus, Cast a Giant Shadow, Fiddler on the Roof, Lawrence of Arabia.

In 1967 I visited the Dachau concentration camp near Munich.

In September 1970 we witnessed the hijacking of four passenger jets by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

In September 1972 we witnessed the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich by the Palestinian “Black September Organization”.

In February 1973 I visited Anglo-Jewish friends in Tel Aviv and went to the Wailing/Western Wall, Temple Mount and the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. (2)

Since 1982 I have been regularly reminded of the history of King Solomon's Temple and (since 1992) of the construction of the second temple.

In 1984 we visited the remains of the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz.

1993: Schindler's List - the movie

In 1994 we (in the company of Jewish friends) visited the Forêt de Compiègne: site of the formal German surrender in 1918; also the point of departure of the last deportation train of Jews from France to Auschwitz in 1944.

In 1996 on a visit to Prague we saw the remains of its ghetto and learned of the Golem; we also visited the Theresienstadt concentration camp. (3)

In 2001 I visited the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum.

In 2007 I visited the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles with another Jewish friend.

27th January 2010 was Holocaust Memorial Day: the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

On 31st January 2010 we revisited the IWM Holocaust exhibition: the stories of the Lodz and Warsaw ghettos were amply illustrated; camp survivors provided their testimonies with accounts of racial and religious prejudice and pleas that this history wouldlead to tolerance and understanding.

All of the above dispose me to a natural sympathy with the Jewish people.

However...

In early December 2008 we visited Jordan and Petra; in the distance we heard an occasional distant rumble. On enquiry, our guide told me that this was a sonic boom caused by Israeli fighter jets breaking the sound barrier over the Gaza strip.

Three weeks later Israel initiated Operation Cast Lead with air-strikes on the Gaza Strip followed by a ground invasion beginning on 3 January 2009. The war ended on January 18 with Israel completed its withdrawal on January 21. Between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. For more detailed reports and analysis see below (4).

However... there was clear evidence of the use of phosphorus munitions; the “settler” movement has continued unabated.

[1st February 2010: "Israel has revealed it has disciplined two top army officers for using white phosphorus shells during an attack on a UN compound in Gaza last year."]

In January 2009 I had the pleasure of meeting Commander David Hawksley (RN retired) who was present at the end of the British Mandate of Palestine. His view from 1948:-
“Despite the efforts of Britain to provide balance, the world was trying to correct the great wrong done to the Jews in Europe by committing another great wrong, the dispossession of the Arabs of Palestine. Despite the subsequent admirable courage of the Israelis and the unattractive behaviour of Palestinian extremists, I still feel the same. This is simply a sense of practical justice.
The injustice will continue to be the cause of Middle East instability and a volatile fuel for terrorism until it is understood both by Israel and the US. In practical terms it requires the maximum effort by Israel to put it right as far as possible within the bounds of its own prosperity, which would probably improve as a result.”
I was therefore sensitised to the “Palestinian Issue” and have subsequently monitored events via the Internet getting daily reports from both Israel and Arab sources.
Most recently my interest culminated in my participation in the Viva Palestinia 3 convoy which took medical and educational materials to Gaza via the Rafah crossing point from Egypt.

Questions:-
1. Is Gaza a ghetto?
2. Who is now exhibiting racial and religious prejudice?

-to be continued

(1) References

1)The Sykes-Picot Agreement: 1916
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp

2)Balfour Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917#Text_of_the_declaration
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

3)Churchill:summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper,_1922

4)Churchill:detail http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

5)League of Nations Mandate http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

(2) Less than 12 hours before my flight home Israeli jets shot down Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 over the [then Israeli-occupied] Sinai peninsula.
http://world.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Forgotten-History-The-Case-of-Libyan-Arab-Airlines-Flight-114

(3) Theresienstadt was also the place of imprisonment of Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914 – the act which precipitated WW1; being only 19 at the time of the assassination he was sentenced to 20 years, held in solitary confinement in a dank cell, and died there of tuberculosis exacerbated by malnutrition and blood loss from an amputated arm in April 1918.

(4) URLs:
Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group
http://www.richardburden.com/uploads/1bb85b99-db9e-6124-3da0-ca8ee2120c27.pdf
Goldstone Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
Oxfam
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/emergencies/gaza_crisis.html
Amnesty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/israel039s-gaza-blockade-continues-suffocate-daily-life-20100118
Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org.uk/news.asp?id=89867

Climate Change: the View from IMechE in Woking

2009-11-18T23:53:00.001-08:00

Woking uniquely features a large statue of a Martian.

The logic for this is implicit below.

On 17th November the IMechE hosted a meeting: Question Time: Global Challenges.
This was held in the HG Wells Conference Centre
The agenda and participants are given below.

The premise was that climate change is happening, is anthropogenic, and local actions such as those already underway in Woking provide an,if not the, answer.

However - my question:-
The latest statistics published by the International Energy Agency show that from 1990 to 2007 worldwide CO2 emissions increased by 38%.
They further forecast that worldwide burning of fossil fuels will continue to increase and by 2050 will be double that of 1990.
How can whatever Woking (and by extension the UK) have any real impact?

The IMechE has recently published a report pointing out the improbabilty of the UK achieving the "legally binding" CO2 reductions targetted for 2020 and 2050 by the current (past sell-by-date) government.
http://www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/77CDE5E4-CE41-4F2C-A706-A630569EE486/0/IMechE_MAG_Report.PDF
This offers an excellent practical approach to the (perceived?) threat.
The UK government's reaction has been unenthusiastic.

Whilst some consider it heretical to raise the question...
Extract from letter in The Economist October 31st 2009 from Horst-Joachim Luedecke, Retired physics professor:-
"The IPCC .. 2001 report concluded that there was no discernable increase in storms, hurricanes, floods or droughts."
"sea levels .. a natural increase of 1-2mm a year has been occuring for many centuries. However, over the past few decades no anthropogenic signal in sea-level changes has been detected. This is firmly backed up by precise satellite altrimetry."

A "War of the Words" if not a "War of the Worlds"

Agenda as published by IMEchE

Binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions for the UK have now been set by the Government following the advice of the Committee on Climate Change. The IMechE believes these targets to be very challenging and that achieving them cannot help but strike a balance between mitigation (reducing emissions) and geo-engineering (artificially intervening to try and reduce the Earth’s temperature). Even allowing for success, there will also be a need for Woking to adapt to a warmer world and the drier, yet more stormy climate that will come from the emissions already in the atmosphere.

This QT intends to highlight a number of issues for Woking in the next forty years. It will focus on the extent to which solutions lie within Woking itself and to what extent Woking will continue to rely on outsiders for the essentials of life and treatment of its wastes. How much will it become a "sustainable community"? It will aim to bring the issues down to the individual family level and hence start to drive the personal behavioural changes at the heart of any delivery of any low carbon agenda.

The debate will be chaired by the President of the Institution, Keith H Millard FIMechE.

Panellists

John Thorp - Chief Operating Officer of Woking Borough Council
Woking has a population approaching 100,000 which is expanding by around 3% per year. Its industry is only 10% manufacturing and 8% transport. It has a public Climate Change Strategy but how can it contribute to 80% reductions in emissions when it has such a residential profile?

Miriam Kennet – CEO of the Green Economics Institute
The Green Economics Institute exists to promote "social and environmental justice". It aims to find solutions that "will bring long term and real prosperity to people, nature and the planet and its systems". How can it create this "everyone wins" solution and how does it balance the needs of people in Woking with those in Warsaw or Walajabad?

Jim Skea – Member of the Committee on Climate Change
The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body set up to advise Government on carbon budgets and then report to Parliament on the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As a central body, removed from implementation, how does it interact with others who are expected to follow its plans?

Andy Deacon (not Richard Hurford) - Energy Saving
The Energy Savings Trust is funded by UK Government, devolved Governments and the private sector to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by advising people on how to use energy more efficiently, conserve water, reduce waste and make renewable energy sources more accessible. How does it turn advice into action when money often gets in the way?

Derek Parkin - Managing Director of Business Services at E.ON UK
Although reducing energy demand is bad business for generation companies, they still need to sell something. What is the future business model for an energy supplier?

My other questions under the heading of AGW/CC/GGE:

What is the observed correlation between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
What is the forecast correlation between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature?
What probability factors are associated with the forecast?

What is the observed correlation between global temperature and sealevel?
What is the forecast correlation between global temperature and sealevel?
What probability factors are associated with the forecast?

Fixing our broken Economy V Fixing our relationship with the EU

2009-11-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

Dear Dave,

I hope I have misunderstood something but.........

It seems that as the incoming government you:

1) cannot fix the economy without changing EU rules;:

2) will put EU issues aside to concentrate on fixing the economy.

Chicken versus Egg

"It's only words..."

On Tuesday 6 October William Hague spoke at the Daily Telegraph forum at the Manchester conference.

Much of the debate centred on the day's principal topic: “Rebuilding our broken economy”.

Given the urgency of addressing these matters, I asked the question on constraints faced by the incoming government by EU directives and the impending ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

His answer: that it would be necessary to opt out of the social chapter and the Working Time Directive.

What was clearly foreseeable on 6 October has now come to pass; the Treaty has been ratified.

You have now said:-

“First, if we win the next election, we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum. Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the British people’s consent.

“Second, we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

“And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU. We will negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services. We also want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. And we would negotiate for a return of powers in criminal justice to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system.”

With the power now vested in the EU following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty aka the European Constitution, it is surely disingenuous (at the very least) to suggest that you will be allowed to pass the legislation you now plan?

Considering them in turn

- …”we will prohibit, by law, the transfer of further power to the EU without a referendum…”.

The treaty already gives the EU the power to take such powers as they wish (the escalator clause). So you don’t promise that such powers will NOT be transferred – you simply promise a referendum.

So you hold a referendum on a proposed transfer, we vote NO, and the power transfers anyway – as EU law overrides local law under the treaty..

“…we will introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament. “.

You don’t promise to pass such a law – and any such law is meaningless anyway as the treaty states that EU law overrides local law – so again pointless…

“…And third, we want to negotiate three specific guarantees with our European partners over powers …”.

You can guarantee to fail on this. Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic; have all stated that you would fail to achieve your demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain as this would need to the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because it would require amendment of EU treaties.

UK legislation of this kind would require our prior withdrawal from the Union to have any purpose.

Climate Compensation

2009-10-29T00:07:00.000-07:00

From The Times October 29, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6894604.ece
"Gordon Brown has suggested that the EU should pay €10 billion a year from 2020 to help poorer countries to go green and has said that Britain would pay €1 billion."

RT Comment

More hot air: fossil fuel consumption is going to keep rising regardless - driven by increasing global population and living standards.
Atmospheric CO2 levels will increase; if this is indeed the driver of climate change(= temperature increase)it is inevitable. Forget mitigation, concentrate on adaptation.

So, "Gordon Brown has said ... that Britain would pay €1 billion a year from 2020 .. to help poorer countries to go green.
Of course. We Brits are guilty of starting the industrial revolution and emitting lots of CO2. Just like we are guilty of inventing the slave trade etc. etc.
To which leaders in the "poorer countries" should we make out the cheques?
It would be as well to take advice from the Mo Ibrahim Foundation.
(The £3m annual prize for good governance in Africa will not be awarded this year.)

Royal Mail & Tory Policy

2009-10-25T13:12:00.000-07:00

Dave has written:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/10/24/its-a-good-job-i-dont-write-a-weekly-letter

His principal issue is the Royal Mail strike although comments have largely shifted to the BBC/BNP spectacular - enough!

Now, the US postal services must be facing similar challenges with technology change yet operate at a profit.

Google shows that privitis/zation of the US Mail has been discussed but does not seem to be a high priority.

There is an EU dimension to our problems.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/index_en.htm
"The objective of the EU postal policy is to accomplish the Single Market for postal services and ensure a high quality universal postal service as part of the Lisbon Agenda."
"Postal Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC) and as amended by Directive 2008/06/EC)."

So we can see yet another benefit of continued EU membership!

Another Quango: Infrastructure Planning Commission

2009-10-01T00:00:00.000-07:00

From The Times October 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6856130.ece

Infrastructure change ‘will fast-track planning’

"More than 50 of Britain’s biggest energy projects, including wind farms, power stations, gas storage sites and high-voltage transmission lines, could be fast-tracked through the planning system under powers handed to the Government today.
In the biggest shake-up to Britain’s planning regime in 60 years, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), formally came into existence this month. Its goal will be to slash the time needed to secure planning consent for projects considered to be of national importance from as long as seven years to less than a year."

100 staff: say total employment costs £100K p.a. per head = £10m p.a. - spend in 2010.

50 projects by 2011 means approximately 50 in 2010.

Therefore £200K per project.

Well, I suppose it can provide jobs in Bristol for people liable to be laid off in local manufacturing industry (think SFO) where "value added" is easier to calculate.

Bank says QE is making a difference

2009-09-30T21:40:00.000-07:00

"Well, they would, wouldn't they?" - Mandy Rice-Davies

From The Times October 1, 2009
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6856131.ece

"Gordon Brown isn’t the only one launching a fightback. The Bank of England has started a campaign to win round public opinion. In its case, the Bank is trying to combat scepticism about its quantitative easing policy that injects new money into the financial system."

The BoE is creating money (£175Bn so far via Quantitative Easing - a term apparently invented in Japan in 2001 for economic policies which produced questioned benefit) by buying Gilt-Edged stock at prices which have been pushed up by the Bank's own policy of low interest rates.

Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 1: The Treasury through the Debt Management Office - DMO - (which formerly reported to the BoE) is busily selling Gilts to fund immediate government current expenditure.

The banks which held Gilts have made capital gains which they have prudently applied to rebuilding their capital reserves which were devastated by their bonus-driven imprudent lending to fund the housing bubble at home and away.

Government schizophrenia/doublethink Part 2: rebuilding balance sheets versus lending.

History

In the US banking system the reserve ratio is fixed a 10% (or 10 times) capital. In the UK the Bank of England now holds to a "voluntary reserve ratio" system having abandoned a compulsory limit. In 1998 the average cash reserve ratio across the entire United Kingdom banking system was 3.1% (approximately 33 times); it has probably been significantly lower since.

UK Reserve Ratios
1968 1978 1988 1998
20.5% 15.9% 5.0% 3.1%

It appears that, the BoE having relaxed its controls, the Financial Services Authority had responsibility for monitoring this situation. No-one is to blame.

Now: the BoE holds Gilts on which it has spent £175Bn of new money a la Weimar/Zimbabwe school of economics.

Sometime not too far away:-
1) the DMO will have difficulty selling x £100Bn and will have to offer higher interest rates.
2) the BoE will become concerned about inflation and will increase the bank rate.

The prices of Gilts will then fall.
“It is unclear quite how the Bank will unwind QE. But it has every reason to take its time.”

As it will be the taxpayer who sustains the loss, I guess this time will be when all those involved (no-one is responsible) have retired on their risk-free inflation-proofed taxpayer-funded public sector pensions.

I shall be delighted if someone can prove my cynicism unfounded and that QE is really the best of all possible worlds - or even all possible multiverses.

“This is, of course, completely impossible.” - Douglas Adams.

“The truth is out there”, doubtless with “42” as a significant factor.

Afghanistan: Letter to Lord Avebury

2009-09-25T03:27:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday 23rd September there was a "fringe meeting at the LibDem conference which was addressed by Lord Avebury and attended by inter alia the Afghan ambassador.

Dear Lord Avebury,

I was at the Muslim/Afhanistan meeting in Bournemouth on Wednesday and raised the question about the identity of the "insurgents"

To reiterate and expand the question:

"Insurgent implies outsider. Who are the insurgents?

Why do the Afghan population harbour them?

Are we not seen as the insurgents?

You argued the necessity for the continued presence of our armed forces but with the imperative that they only be applied military targets.

If we cannot identify the insurgents this is impossible.
Indeed, given the inevitable (and horribly euphemistic) "collateral damage" to the civilian population, our actions exacerbate matters.

Lessons of history: this is our 4th Afghan adventure; what makes it different this time?

Surely, our only rational and achieveable objective should be to empower the local communities to resist insurgency whether labelled "Taleban" or "al Queda" or even "another ethnic group" by training the Afghan National Army and police force.

Bright idea?
To assist this process: there are significant numbers of Afghan young men seeking to get to the UK as refugees. We could allow them in on condition that they undergo military training and then return to Afghanistan to directly contribute to the establishment of the Rule of Law thereby removing their need to be refugees.

I would remind you of your own words from 4th December 2008:-
"My Lords, a few hours ago the Minister said that we invaded Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a haven for international terrorism. She did not remind your Lordships that that was also one of the excuses given for the invasion of Iraq, which, as President Mubarak said at the time, was likely to create 100 bin Ladens. He was probably out by a factor of 10, but that has happened. It has also involved us, as the noble Baroness said, in a £700 million contribution so far towards reconstruction, has placed huge burdens on our Armed Forces, and is an ingredient in the motivation of terrorists across the world."

I would also remind you of the words of another (then) Liberal:-
"The inhabitants of these wild but wealthy valleys are of many tribes, but of similar character and condition. The abundant crops which a warm sun and copious rains raise from a fertile soil, support a numerous population in a state of warlike leisure. Except at the times of sowing and of harvest, a continual state of feud and strife prevails throughout the land. Tribe wars with tribe. The people of one valley fight with those of the next. To the quarrels of communities are added the combats of individuals. Khan assails khan, each supported by his retainers. Every tribesman has a blood feud with his neighbour. Every man's hand is against the other, and all against the stranger."
- Winston Churchill 1897

Yours sincerely,

Candidate Selection Criteria

2009-09-25T00:35:00.001-07:00

No further comment needed

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6848320.ece

From The Times September 25, 2009
Hired guns take aim at target Tory seats

Today's disclosure challenges David Cameron?s promise to usher in a 'new politics'

Dozens of Conservative parliamentary candidates are working in the lobbying industry that seeks to influence their party’s leadership.

An investigation by The Times has found that 28 prospective candidates who have a good chance of becoming Tory MPs are working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests. More than a quarter got their jobs after being selected to fight seats.

Several acknowledged that they had set up meetings for clients with Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. More said that they had been asked to provide advice on the party’s direction. A few admitted to having pressed clients’ cases to Tory frontbenchers.

The disclosure challenges David Cameron’s promise to usher in a “new politics”. More than a fifth of his 150 candidates most likely to win seats for the first time will have done public affairs work, although a handful have since left the industry. By contrast, only seven Labour and three Liberal Democrat prospective candidates with realistic hopes of victory have jobs in public affairs or communications.

The influence of paid consultants was thrown into sharp relief this year when President Obama announced that he would block the revolving door through which lobbyists moved in and out of US administrations. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have issued any such edict.

Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, said last week that lobbyists could face statutory regulation if they did not volunteer more information on clients and consultants. “Greater openness and transparency is needed to help ensure high standards in public life,” he said.

Last night the party declined to comment on the disclosure that so many candidates were working in the industry or the evidence that lobbying firms were keen to build bridges with a party on the cusp of power.

Senior Conservative sources have told The Times of their unease over how former party advisers have moved into lobbying before the election. Several firms now advertise their Tory credentials; others have been hired to change policies on gambling and home improvement packs.

The British Horseracing Authority said that it chose a lobbying firm partly because it employed a prospective parliamentary candidate. “It’s certainly helpful,” said Will Lambe, the organisation’s head of public affairs.

The Lisbon Treaty Referendum: William Ress-Mogg

2009-09-25T00:06:00.000-07:00

From The Times September 21, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article6841737.ece

Rule Britannia? Not if the EU gets its way
We should have the referendum we were promised, whatever the result of the Irish vote on Lisbon

Early in the election campaign of 2001, I was asked to write a couple of regional reports for The Times. I visited seats in the West Midlands, and another group in Scotland. In the West Midlands, one of the Labour women candidates was outstanding. Gisela Stuart was already a junior minister in the Department of Health. When I interviewed her I was impressed by her intellectual approach, perhaps derived from her German upbringing and early education.

At the election, she held Edgbaston, her Birmingham seat, quite comfortably, but had the misfortune to be present when Tony Blair, campaigning in a local hospital, was upset by an angry woman complaining about the poor treatment her partner was receiving for cancer.

Mr Blair seems somehow to have blamed Miss Stuart for this hitch. In his post-election reshuffle she was dropped, a loss to the Government.

She was subsequently appointed to an important role in European politics, becoming the British representative on the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe, with the ex-President of France, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in the chair. The Presidium produced its draft for the European Constitutional treaty. That treaty was rejected in referendums held in France and the Netherlands.

Miss Stuart and her Conservative colleague on the Convention, David Heathcoat-Amory, had fought to introduce a modicum of democratic liberalism, but were overruled. President Giscard was not interested in cranky English notions of habeas corpus or electoral accountability.

After its rejection, the treaty was rewritten in a bureaucratic dialect, and resurfaced as the Lisbon treaty. Britain had been promised a referendum on the Constitutional treaty by all three parties in the 2005 general election. The Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats did not honour these commitments when it came to ratification by Parliament.

One could reasonably describe this change of policy as dishonest and shameful.

Britain is now waiting for the result of the repeated Irish referendum on October 2. In their first referendum, the Irish voted “no” to Lisbon, but now they are being asked to overrule themselves, and may do so. If this happens, there do not seem to be any further obstacles to the monstrous fraud of Lisbon being trundled past the winning post by its dubious acolytes.

Last week Miss Stuart warned of the potential constitutional consequences. She said that the Lisbon treaty puts the future of democracy in Britain at stake, that it would allow the European Union to launch power grabs unchecked, that it would leave a “democratic deficit”, in which the EU’s leaders would be accountable to no one, and that it would breach the democratic principle that voters can get rid of those in power. All of these criticisms are true and important. They would have been true of the original Constitutional treaty, which Miss Stuart and Mr Heathcoat-Amory fought to amend, and they remain true of the Lisbon treaty.

Lisbon would in effect repeal all the main legal safeguards of British liberties. The European Arrest Warrant has already repealed habeas corpus; Lisbon would repeal Magna Carta and the sovereignty of Parliament. The EU might as well have inserted a clause repealing “Rule Britannia”, and particularly the assurance that “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves”. We are already much less free than we once were.

There is also an immediate threat. The Lisbon treaty contains a proposal to create a European president, who might well be Mr Blair. Like the Mayor of London, the president of Europe will be tempted to interpret his powers so as to expand his jurisdiction. How can those who object to Mr Blair becoming president of Europe give any expression to their opposition? The Europhiles always rush to explain that the fears of Eurosceptics are mere bogies.

I would put a question to them.

How can I vote against Mr Blair as my president? Who will provide me with a ballot paper on which I could vote for some other candidate, preferably one who has not helped to trick Britain into the Lisbon treaty, without a referendum? To that question there is no answer. Mr Blair cheated the British out of a referendum; if he becomes president, there will be no referendum on that.

This faces David Cameron with a dilemma. If the Irish vote “no”, the Conservatives would undoubtedly call a referendum, but if they vote “yes”, as they probably will, the Lisbon treaty could become law before the next British election.

The constitutional issues are so serious that the Conservatives should promise to hold a referendum even if the treaty has already become law. The EU countries have known throughout that the British electorate was promised a referendum by all three parties. They were co-conspirators in the deception. They can scarcely complain if a referendum is in fact held.

If Britain were to withdraw from the Lisbon treaty because the British electorate had voted against it, that would be a healthy challenge to Europe. It is possible that the EU would then break up, but it is unlikely. The trading Europe is too valuable for Britain and the other EU countries to wish to lose it.

The Commission and Mr Blair himself might be annoyed by a British declaration of independence but Lisbon is deeply flawed, as Miss Stuart has shown. Europe, as well as Britain, would benefit from a new and more democratic approach.
******************************************

RT Comment

David Cameron appears to have already committed to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; unless he changes his mind we are guaranteed the opportunity to vote on the matter - hopefully once and for all.
There remains the not insignificant matter of how The Question is worded.
I suggest that this must form part of the Conservative Manifesto.

"The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything"?
42 will be there somewhere.

From http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx

David Cameron: Fixing Broken Politics Tuesday, May 26 2009

"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."

Foreign Policy: Blair's Principles for Intervention

2009-09-24T13:22:00.000-07:00

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1297

Doctrine of the International Community [24/4/1999]

Extract from TB's speech

Looking around the world there are many regimes that are undemocratic and engaged in barbarous acts. If we wanted to right every wrong that we see in the modern world then we would do little else than intervene in the affairs of other countries. We would not be able to cope.

So how do we decide when and whether to intervene. I think we need to bear in mind five major considerations

First, are we sure of our case?
War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian distress; but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators.

Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options?
We should always give peace every chance, as we have in the case of Kosovo.

Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake?

Fourth, are we prepared for the long term?
In the past we talked too much of exit strategies. But having made a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over; better to stay with moderate numbers of troops than return for repeat performances with large numbers.

And finally, do we have national interests involved?

*****************************************************

So Tony (& Gordon): How have you applied these principles in the last 10 years?

Foreign Policy: Idealism versus Pragmatism

2009-09-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6846763.ece
The Times September 24, 2009

Britain is appeasing Iran, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi says

The only Iranian to win the Nobel Peace Prize accused Britain of ignoring the regime’s savage suppression of opposition in order to safeguard talks on its nuclear programme.

*********************************************************
In May 1997 the late Robin Cook as Foreign Secretary in the incoming New Labour government enunciated:-
".. the fourth goal of our foreign policy is to secure the respect of other nations for Britain's contribution to keeping the peace of the world and promoting democracy around the world. The Labour Government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves. The Labour Government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy and will publish an annual report on our work in promoting human rights abroad."

Searching the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website does provide an update from the current incumbent David Miliband in interview with David Frost:-
DF: ".. Robin Cook used to say those words that he probably regretted saying but he said that there should be a more ethical foreign policy, do you agree with him on that?"
DM: "Well a foreign policy without values is not a foreign policy that’s worth having."

NuLab's record hardly positions UK as an exemplified leader in this area; one can only work to encourage the next government to be more principled.

"A Conservative Government's approach to foreign affairs will be based on liberal Conservative principles.
Liberal, because Britain must be open and engaged with the world, supporting human rights and championing the cause of democracy and the rule of law at every opportunity. But Conservative, because our policy must be hard-headed and practical, dealing with the world as it is and not as we wish it were."

Lovely new aircraft carrier, sir, but we’re fighting in the desert

2009-09-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3423663.ece

From The Sunday Times February 24, 2008

Lovely new aircraft carrier, sir, but we’re fighting in the desert

Money is squandered on equipment that is useless in either Iraq or Afghanistan - or in any foreseeable theatre

19 months on nothing has changed

David Cameron: Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

2009-09-18T03:43:00.000-07:00

From http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/05/David_Cameron_Fixing_Broken_Politics.aspx

David Cameron: Fixing Broken Politics Tuesday, May 26 2009

"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."

No mention of Irish vote.
Whither (wither) UKIP?

Afghanistan Adventure 216/830

2009-09-17T22:54:00.000-07:00

From The Times September 18, 2009
General David Petraeus: allied failure ‘would intoxicate terrorists’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6839321.ece

The Generals say;-
“no quick fixes” = a 40 year commitment?
"Nato had yet to find the right formula for success" - what constitutes success?
Lessons of history.

This is Britain's 4th Afghan adventure.
The Russians failed despite huge amounts men and materiel.
Why will it be different this time?

Of course, we have yet to deploy the most valuable (costly) weapons in our armoury: Eurofighters, nuclear submarines, Trident missiles...
Think of the difference their use would make.

Meanwhile...
"Italy wants to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible, Silvio Berlusconi said yesterday after a suicide bomber killed six Italian soldiers in one of the worst attacks suffered by a Nato contingent in Kabul."

Less law. More employment

2009-09-17T04:02:00.000-07:00

Interesting thoughts from Tony Light, Publisher, Totally Media Ltd.
www.totallymedia.net

Does EU membership limit such innovation?

Less law. More employment

We have all read the headlines. Unemployment is expected to continue to grow. Small businesses are still struggling in the face of recession. So me thinks it’s time for another cunning plan.

Anyone in business cannot fail to have noticed the impact of employment law over the past couple of decades. It makes a mockery the cut and thrust of TV dramas and soap operas. Of course it’s much more exciting for Tony to march into Coronation Street’s ‘Underworld’ and yell “You’re fired” to Janice Battersby, his latest victim. It doesn’t have the same dashing impact if he follows correct practice and politely asks Janice to step into his office where he will start the process with a discussion that outlines his cause for concern. The next episode will see him delivering a carefully worded letter of warning, followed by another meeting with another senior officer of ‘Underworld’ on hand as an in dependent witness to the discussion. Maybe by the time the Christmas episode arrives the final warning letter will have been delivered only for Janice to reveal – shockingly – that she was never issued with a proper contract of employment in the first place and therefore has a strong case to defend her position and maybe seek compensation.

Just not good television is it? But it is a closer resemblance to real life.

The fact is that in 2009 most small businessmen – I refer not to those with the stature of Ronnie Corbett, but those who have to be all things to all men, including a handful of staff and without the benefit of a safety net called a personnel department – will at some stage have vowed that they will never employ another person as long as they live.

There are many examples that have passed into employment folk-law to demonstrate the threat of getting it wrong. The case of the employee that was caught stealing money from the handbag of a colleague during his first week on the job – was dismissed on the spot – and ultimately won a compensation claim for unfair dismissal because his hapless employer had not followed the correct procedure when firing him (probably thought he was running an underwear factory).

Even those businesses that do want to recruit live in fear of not following the correct selection and interview processes. One false move and you could be paying ‘employment compensation’ claims to an army of people that you have never even met!

I have even heard a rumour that the law in Spain states that – as was allegedly the fact in one case – an employee that crashed her car on the way home, under the influence of substances that can only be described as illegal – was entitled to be financially maintained by her employer for life, because the accident was on the way home from the office. And when the employer is a hardworking self-employed individual (not a faceless corporation) it begs logic.

Maybe we should not be surprised that unemployment is rising.

So here is my cunning plan.

Time for radical thinking Mr Brown – or Mr Cameron – and to make a change of logic and direction. This is how it works.

Allow small businesses – defined by number of employees, for example less than 50 people – to ‘opt-out’ of employment law. “How unfair!” you shriek “surely that’s a mandate for a return to the dark ages of employee abuse by selfish, evil, money-grabbing, slave-trading business monsters”.

No. There would have to be a few conditions that allow potential employees to make informed common-sense judgements for themselves.

If a business ‘opts out’ it is legally obliged to do a few things. Firstly it has to have the ‘I have opted out of employment law’ logo on it’s letterhead and business cards (I envisage a highly productive little character with a relieved look on his face). It also has to show this logo on all of its staff recruitment programmes.

Additionally it would be legally obliged to register on the Government’s ‘I have opted out of employment law’ website. And this is the interesting bit. Here any prospective employee can view details of how many staff each business is currently employing, how many it has had in the past, and how long the average staff member stays for.

If the business is a dry-cleaning business that was established in 1973, and has employed the same five ladies for the past 36 years, there is a reasonable likelihood that the boss is a person of pleasant disposition that delivers nicely cleaned garments to his customers, has no nasty habits such as bullying or sexual harassment, and is a thoroughly good egg. The alternative potential example of a café that has had thirty-eight staff on its books in the four months that is has been open and current only retains two of them raises a few alarm bells. Might have a bit of trouble in the recruitment process. And quite right too – ‘cos treating good staff well is the route to good business.

If someone looking for a job can’t be bothered to do a bit of simple on-line research before taking a job then I would say they deserve what they get. OK, there would probably need to be a TV and newspaper advertising campaign to remind people to ‘look out for the opt-out logo’ and ‘check-out your future employer’ just to be sure.

And other nice little features could emerge. For example there may a degree of negotiation created by this initiative. Opt-out businesses may end up having to pay a little more than ‘normal’ employers. That gives some extra comfort to new staff – but is probably more than acceptable (and affordable) to the employer compared to the cost of a personnel department, employment consultants and a few years’ worth of sleepless nights.

Initial Application to Conservative HQ - 3rd August 2009

2009-09-17T03:23:00.000-07:00

1c Weston Park Close
Thames Ditton
Surrey KT7 0HJ

3rd August 2009

Gareth Fox
Deputy Director – Campaigning; Head of Candidates
Conservative Campaign Headquarters
30 Millbank
London SW1P 4DP

Dear Gareth Fox

Candidature Application
“If you are interested in becoming a Conservative candidate and believe you would make a good Member of Parliament, please write to Gareth Fox at Conservative Campaign Headquarters .. setting out why you would like to be a candidate, and enclose a copy of your CV. Please set out any work you have done in your local community and achievements in your work or your personal life which you think would make you an effective MP.”
- David Cameron 24/5/09 on the Blue Blog
“I'm going to reopen the candidates list and invite new people to come forward. They don't necessarily need to have been involved in the Conservative Party in the past – more important than that is a belief in public service, and a desire to clean up our political system. Of course, I want them to be conservatives too. The values we share – a belief in the family, thrift, enterprise and a strong society – are needed now more than ever.”
- David Cameron 25/5/09 in The Daily Telegraph

Why would I want to be an MP?
My CV demonstrates that I fully meet the above criteria.
Following a very full working life in industry, I had not seriously considered this possibility until two combined events: DC’s invitation and the announcement of the intended retirement from Parliament of my MP - Ian Taylor.
As part of his announcement Ian wrote: “I still feel youngish and active but perhaps need another challenge in the next phase of my life”.
I feel the same.
My ambition is to be a “good constituency MP” and bring my experience to bear in parliamentary committees. I have no ministerial aspirations. I would not anticipate standing for more than two parliamentary sessions. During this time I would work actively with my constituency party to refine the process of selecting my successor.
(This application is written primarily, although not exclusively, in the context of the Esher & Walton constituency.)

What I offer
Experience of over 40 years working in the real world of industry with its clearly defined needs for rational decision making, adding value, making profits and meeting deadlines.
During this time I have developed a wide range of contacts in science, technology, public sector, industry. I can therefore act as an “aggregator” drawing on the wisdom of this wide and diverse range of these people as and when required.
We currently face tremendous challenges in areas such as: Climate Change; Energy; Transport – with Education as a fundamental enabler. It is therefore essential that we, as a nation, make prompt, rational decisions.
I can therefore, to some considerable degree, assume Ian Taylor’s mantle on Science & Technology issues - and trust, as I have said elsewhere, that his expertise would still be available to the incoming Conservative government.
Phil Willis, chairman of the House of Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills Select Committee quotes Sir Nicholas Stern, the former Head of the Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government as follows:-
“Most of the high profile policy issues that face our nation and the world are critically dependent on the input of scientists.
• Securing economic prosperity through the knowledge economy;
• Protecting the population of the country against an .. influenza pandemic;
• Mitigating and adapting to climate change;
• Safeguarding the UK's energy supply;
• Detecting and averting potential terrorist threats”
It is therefore salutary and depressing to read the overall conclusion of the report “Putting Science and Engineering at the Heart of Government Policy” which was published only last week by this committee that “the Government has reduced science to a political bargaining chip and must raise its game to produce an ambitious science and engineering strategy for the future”.
By bringing a wealth of practical experience to the party I would endeavour to change this appalling situation.

Leadership by example.
Recent revelations have brought the many aspects of parliamentary processes into disrepute and reinforced the impression of a distinct “political class” decoupled from the realities of life faced by their constituents.
In all other employments it is legally required to have a “contract of employment” *; I would expect to define my relationship with my constituents and the Party similarly. This would include a process for handling expenses identical to that required of employees in the Civil Service. Were I to represent a constituency remote from London, I would stay in a reasonably priced hotel on the nights when it was necessary for me to stay near Westminster.
I would not join the MPs’ defined benefits pension scheme: I believe this should be abolished as exampled leadership in a total overhaul of the current highly unaffordable system of public sector pensions.
The Seven Principles of Public Life enunciated in Nolan Committee's First Report on Standards in Public Life dating from October 1996 should be emphasised again.
* (A significant contrast is Patricia Hewitt’s “earnings” as non-executive director of BT: £75,000 for attending 15 meetings, versus her MP’s salary of £64,766.)

Adherence to the “Party Line” etc
Many senior MPs have announced their retirement. An influx of youthful enthusiasm will require balance. I well remember the 1989 Conference when the ill-fated “community charge” was enthusiastically welcomed by an overwhelming majority.
To quote again from Ian Taylor's standing down letter:- “the influence of MPs in general has declined and this needs to be addressed. This is strikingly evident in the loss of real impact of backbenchers. In the Chamber, speeches have become best-kept secrets. The Executive have control - I do not see this as changing under a Conservative Government despite recent talk of encouraging 'independent-minded' MPs. As someone who has shown an independent streak, I know it is not career enhancing!”
“I can already see the whips licking their lips at the enhanced power of patronage at their disposal over MPs who either do not have the qualifications for outside interests or increasingly are denied the opportunities by new rules.”
“I fear that the rise of the professional MP will further undermine the quality of parliamentary debate and certainly be counterproductive if we are looking for more free-thinking candidates.”
This is highly reminiscent of the words of W S Gilbert in Iolanthe:-
“When in that House M.P.’s divide, If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.”
Is there any evidence that the Party is “looking for more free-thinking candidates”?
Following the “triumph” in Norwich North there is already considerable press speculation over the composition of a new Conservative government; will “Bliar's (sic) Babes” be replaced with a coterie of “Dave's Debutantes”?
However to quote David Cameron:-
“There are far too many laws being pushed through, with far too little genuine scrutiny from MPs. And excessive "whipping" of MPs by party hierarchies further limits genuine scrutiny. This too has to change.
“We need standing committees that genuinely examine bills as they go through Parliament. And we need select committees – the committees that look at each of the government departments – that are more independent.”

Lack of diversity
As a mature, male, white, heterosexual, un-handicapped, Anglican etc. I can contribute nothing to any “politically correct” diversity agenda.
Clearly my immediate focus is on Esher & Walton; should the party require that I offer myself elsewhere, I would still aspire to reflect strongly the characteristics of my prospective constituents.

If nothing else, I hope that this application provides some stimulus to consideration of the qualities the Party and constituency should require of their candidates.
I look forward to progressing matters in due course.

Yours sincerely,
Richard Tebboth

cc Esher & Walton Conservative Association, Ian Taylor MP

Summary Curriculum Vitae: RICHARD TEBBOTH

1c Weston Park Close, Thames Ditton, Surrey, KT7 0HJ
020 8398 3951 07816 853259 richard.tebboth@gmail.com

Objective:
Since graduating from Imperial College (Physics), I have spent over 40 years working in the IT industry dealing predominantly with technical and scientific applications across major industrial companies (e.g. Ford, BAe, Rover Group [deceased]) and the science research community. I have retained many contacts in these areas and continue to develop new ones via such institutions as Imperial College, IET and the Royal Academy of Engineering.
My immediate top interests/concerns are the inter-related issues of energy security, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

Political Background:
Former ward chairman, Kingston on Thames – Norman Lamont
Contributor to speeches in House of Lords on industrial policy
– the late Earl of Kimberley
Past member of Bow Group, CTU.
Spoke on industrial policy at CTU conference 1981.
Active in Esher & Walton constituency party – Ian Taylor,
Conservative Policy Forum, Conservative Technology Forum
Contributor to the “Blue Blog”
and other on-line postings: see http://richard-tebboth.blogspot.com/

Career Background:
Graduate of Imperial College: Physics
Over 40 years with IT industry including:-
ICL: Manager Competitive Marketing for Group
Vice President Marketing – Canada
Thinking Machines Corporation (US) – Sales & General Manager - UK & N Europe
Sales/Marketing roles with IBM, Computervision, Intergraph.
Consultancy, regular voluntary work at Brooklands Museum, Science Museum.

Domestic Context: Married, 3 children, 5.3 grandchildren

International Perspective:
Periods of residence: Johannesburg, South Africa (1969/76);
Toronto, Canada (1981/82); Boston, Mass. (1990/91)
Family: Australia, Morocco (son & family working in rural development),
Uganda (daughter & family working in health & education), USA.
Friends & acquaintance: above plus Canada, Iran, Israel, Jordan, S Africa, Europe.
Recent travel: Morocco, Jordan, West Indies, Australia, South Africa, East Africa,
China, Tibet.

Conservative Candidature Chronology

2009-09-17T03:18:00.000-07:00

24/5/09 David Cameron on the Blue Blog
“If you are interested in becoming a Conservative candidate and believe you would make a good Member of Parliament, please write to Gareth Fox at Conservative Campaign Headquarters .. setting out why you would like to be a candidate, and enclose a copy of your CV. Please set out any work you have done in your local community and achievements in your work or your personal life which you think would make you an effective MP.”

25/5/09 David Cameron in The Daily Telegraph
“I'm going to reopen the candidates list and invite new people to come forward. They don't necessarily need to have been involved in the Conservative Party in the past – more important than that is a belief in public service, and a desire to clean up our political system. Of course, I want them to be conservatives too. The values we share – a belief in the family, thrift, enterprise and a strong society – are needed now more than ever.”

15/6/09 Ian Taylor announces that he is standing down.

7/7/09 email to Gareth Fox: Is there a closing date for submissions?
Response from GF: Not at the present time but please submit as soon as possible.

17/7/09 Constituency social: “Many of you have ambitions on my seat” - Ian Taylor

3/8/09 Initial application to Conservative HQ with summary CV.

7/8/09 Receipt of application form and form for referees.

24/8/09 Electronic and postal submission of application.
Postal input from 3 referees: RD, MR, IS.

25/8/09 email from Candidateenquiries@conservatives.com
Thank you very much for your application to join the Conservative Party’s Candidates List.
We have received a great many applications and are currently assessing them to decide who should proceed to one of our Parliamentary Assessment Boards (PABs). PABs are a formal assessment process which takes most of a day, where we look for the qualities we believe are necessary in a successful candidate and MP. Passing a PAB is how potential candidates join the List.
We have received so many applications, that it will not be possible to invite all applicants to a PAB, but I can assure you that every application is being looked at in detail by at least two senior members of our Candidates Team. It may be a few weeks before we can get back to you to tell you whether or not you will be invited to a PAB and we would appreciate your patience.
Also because of the large number of applications, it will not be possible for us to enter into individual correspondence with you about your application, but you will hear from us, probably by the end of September.

9/9/09 email to gareth.fox@conservatives.com
I have received an acknowledgment of my application & await further developments.
You should have separately received my 3 referees statements; please confirm as they have heard nothing more.

14/9/09 Postal submission of 4th referee statement - JG

16/9/09 email from Candidateenquiries@conservatives.com
Thank you for your email to Gareth Fox of 9 September. We are still reviewing the applications.
We will contact you should you be progressed to the next stage.
You will, however, be advised either way.
We can confirm that we have received all 3 references.

Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget'

2009-09-15T06:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6835280.ece

"George Osborne said today that a Conservative government would deliver a Budget within weeks of an election victory and appeared to hint that three major defence projects could be an early casualty."

It is interesting that these comments come from prospective Chancellor Osborne rather than prospective Defence Secretary Fox.
Some questions for The Times erudite readership:-
Were we to give up our "independent" deterrent, would this lead to the loss of our permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
Would that matter?
Can we retain a nuclear deterrent capability more cheaply with cruise missiles?
Given the devestation which can be delivered very accurately (GPS) with cruise missiles and conventional explosives, why is the "bomb" necessary at all?

BTW

There is an under-reported political party whose policy to increase defence spending.

"To stop trying to buy defence on the cheap. UKIP will spend an extra 1% GDP
year on defence – an increase of 40% on current budgets. UKIP believes in
establishing a defence budget which will properly sustain Britain’s defence
commitments. To keep defence costs down by smarter defence procurement,
and with more involvement of British industry wherever possible."

al-Megrahi: Part 3 - SAS training Libyan security forces

2009-09-11T23:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6831972.ece

SAS training soldiers from Libyan regime that provided explosives to IRA terrorists

On 28th August I sent emails to the Strawman as follows:-
"It is widely reported that, some two years ago, in your capacity of Justice Secretary, you wrote to Kenny MacAskill, your Scottish counterpart, that it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make al-Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.
"As this was done despite assurances to the Americans that he would serve out his sentence in a Scottish jail you must have had compelling reasons.
"It would be informative were you now to publish them and, with the benefit of hindsight, comment on the consequences – both foreseeable and unforeseeable."
No answer from JS: perhaps the pieces of silver the MOD are getting for this training is part of the "overwhelming interests".

Waving the flag is never the best defence

2009-09-02T00:09:00.000-07:00

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6817803.ece

Also
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article6817766.ece
Defence companies unite to fight budget cuts

RT's Input
A quick search shows that the Defence Industries Council research reports* comprise some 60 pages; these comments are made pending forensic analysis from Times' correspondents and readers. However, from other recent reports it is clear that MOD's procurement process takes too long: by the time equipment and systems deliveries take place both the threat and technology has changed. The threat has become one of dealing with terrorism (predominantly home-grown) and guerilla warfare. At Dunsfold last Sunday we were given a dazzling display from the Eurofighter. This was designed to provide air superiority in the context of the cold war; its role in countering the current threats is negligible. Ditto for the new aircraft carriers, Trident maintenance and renewal. The West can clearly can deliver any required amount of shock and awe using missiles with conventional explosives. The question is not one of whether we need a defence industry, it is rather the nature of the products MOD is specifying and purchasing.

*
www.defencematters.co.uk/getdoc/09acd4c9-b2a9-4d15-8989-0c8b12d5f632/Securing-Britain-s-Future-and-Prosperity.aspx
www.defencematters.co.uk/getdoc/937eb883-56a8-49cf-bc37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx

My Blue Blog submission 25th March 2009

2009-08-31T23:44:00.000-07:00

Enough is enough: the anger is building – but this does not seem to be reflected in the level of aggression displayed by the Conservative front bench.
As Kinnock did not quite say “Things can only get worse with Labour” – even Bliar's (sic) washes whiter, sleaze-free New Labour.
The sooner the electorate is allowed to replace the Brown/Daring/Mandelson troika with the Cameron/Osborne/Clarke triumvirate the better for us all.
In 1963 I heard Dennis Healey say of the (Tory) Douglas-Home government: "A condemned man does not hasten towards the scaffold". The current lot are equally reluctant to face the drop.
The Party should be actively opposing the dysfunctional Brown regime on all and every reasonable opportunity (P.O. 'privatisation'?).
Dave should adopt the attitude, if not repeat the words of Oliver Cromwell:- "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go"?
After the election - clearing up the mess: “I've got a little list”
Reduced public expenditure
1. Starting at the top – leading by example.
Reduce the number of MPs; link their salaries to a multiple of the national minimum wage; apply the same rules to their expenses/allowances as for ordinary civil servants; move them to money purchase pension system; place a cap on the maximum pension payable an individual can receive from all public sector employment in current schemes.
2. Apply similar conditions to MEPs, County Councillors, Local Councillors.
3. Ditto for senior civil servants, public sector appointments.
4. Ditto (in time) for all public sector employees.
5. Cut red tape (what happened to Michael Heseltine's bonfire?)
6. Zero base budget, cost-benefit analysis
There must be no sacred cows:- Europe, the nuclear “deterrent” - missiles, warheads, submarines; aircraft carriers; outstanding order for Typhoon fighters; large-scale computer systems.

al-Megrahi: Part 2

2009-08-31T02:34:00.000-07:00

Sent to JS (Justice Secretary aka Jack Straw) via 4 email routes

Dear Mr Straw,

It is widely reported that, some two years ago, in your capacity of Justice Secretary, you wrote to Kenny MacAskill, your Scottish counterpart, that it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make al-Megrahi eligible for return to Libya.

As this was done despite assurances to the Americans that he would serve out his sentence in a Scottish jail you must have had compelling reasons.

It would be informative were you now to publish them and, with the benefit of hindsight, comment on the consequences – both foreseeable and unforeseeable.

al Megrahi

2009-08-28T02:28:00.000-07:00

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/Browns_lack_of_leadership_over_Lockerbie_release.aspx
Brown's lack of leadership over Lockerbie release
David Cameron, Thursday, August 27 2009

My submisson:-
We also read "the most recent medical consensus was Megrahi would live eight months, too long to be eligible for compassionate release".
There are other instances of miraculous recovery after release.
BTW The headline is too verbose: "Brown's lack of leadership" says it all. How long before NuLab's backbenchers lose their nerve and we see a contest?

Public Sector Pensions

2009-08-25T17:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/pensions/article6810021.ece
From The Times August 26, 2009

Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

Leadership by Example? Not!

"John Denham, the Communities Secretary, is drawing up a series of proposals to overhaul the pensions of two million council workers, covering short, medium and longer terms."

We should see the MPs' scheme "overhauled" first. Then MEPs', then the top public sector jobs.

How about a cap on public sector pensions calculated as a multiple of the Basic State Pension?

MPs' Emoluments

2009-08-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6807128.ece

MPs hijack expenses inquiry with complaints and demands for pay rise

RT wrote: "Every other paid occupation legally requires a Contract of Employment. Why should MPs be different?"
August 25, 2009 8:13 PM BST

Partial Pensions

2009-08-17T23:21:00.000-07:00

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6799800.ece?&EMC-Bltn=B9IF8B

One million more workers face poorer retirements

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6799810.ece?&EMC-Bltn=B9IF8B

End of final-salary pension is no bad thing

In the real world of industry and commerce it has been clear for over 30 years that final salary schemes only provide significant benefit to those (directors apart) who are in a "job for life".
It is now clear that, real world, value-adding, profit-making, dividend-paying companies cannot afford them.
The 500 gorilla lb in the room: how does the economy pay for all the defined benefit pensions in the public sector? And which particular group has the best scheme as part of its "rations"?

Carbon Capture and Sequestration CCS

2009-08-16T14:34:00.000-07:00

From The Sunday Times August 16, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6797704.ece

North Sea’s new bonanza Jonathan Leake
"Britain could be in line for a new North Sea bonanza following research which reveals its suitability to store billions of tons of waste carbon dioxide."

CCS sounds wonderful but there are two significant issues.
1. The CO2 capture process is energy intensive. It consumes 25% of the power output equating to burning 33% more coal. There are consequent increased transport costs with their own CO2 overheads.
2. Once captured the the liquid CO2 is nasty stuff. For heath and safety reasons a CO2 pipeline should not run through populated areas. This present a serious problem for the Kingsnorth expansion proposals.
Whilst some may tilt at windmills, nuclear power is the only viable route to meeting our CO2 reduction aspirations and commitments.

Alan Duncan's 'rations'

2009-08-13T08:21:00.000-07:00

Submitted as comment to The Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6794619.ece
From Times Online August 13, 2009
Alan Duncan keeps his job but Cameron criticises 'big mistake' over comments

"my remarks, although meant in jest": it does not sound that way in the recording Mr Duncan.

How are MPs different?
Well, they are currently only liable to dismissal at general election time.
They are free to take up other paid employment.
(A former Labour minister received £70,000 last year for attending 14 meetings as an non-executive director of a FTSE100 company. Its share price declined some 70% over the same period and the dividend has been slashed.)
Their salary of £64,766 is in the top 10% of UK incomes.
Their holidays compare well with any other job.
Their pension scheme is generous - even when compared with other public sector provision.
Their restaurants and bars in the Palace of Westmister are subsidised. This cost taxpayers £6.1 million last year; food and drink at around half the cost ordinary consumers would pay.
They do have a new expenses regime, however...

In every other work context it is a legal requirement to have a contact of employment. Similarly expenses are only reimbursed on the basis that they are incurred "wholly, necessary and exclusively" as part of the job.
Mr & Mrs Taxpayer have to purchase & maintain their home and pay their living expenses from their taxed income. MPs should do the same.
Mr & Mrs Taxpayer mostly have to fund their retirement income through money purchase (defined contribution) schemes. MPs (leading the way for other public sector employees) should do the same.
Those MPs who need to stay in London on parliamentary business (200 nights p.a.?) should be accommodated in adequate hotel rooms - perhaps to MOD standards.
"Rations" Mr Duncan?
"But his views are shared by many MPs" - roll on the election and the constituency selection process!

Dave's policy on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. European constitution) should the Irish vote "Yes"

2009-08-12T15:04:00.000-07:00

???

Simon Heffer: The trouble with Labour is that they never grasp the consequences

2009-08-12T14:34:00.002-07:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6011932/The-trouble-with-Labour-is-that-they-never-grasp-the-consequences.html

The trouble with Labour is that they never grasp the consequences
The Government's failure to think ahead will leave a disastrous legacy, says Simon Heffer.

From RT
Simon
Amen. So moet it be.
An excellent analysis.
However, analysis is much easier than synthesis.
I hope you have the conviction to work within Dave's incoming government to help sort it out.

The view from Cliveden: "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"/MiniTruth

2009-08-12T14:34:00.000-07:00

Routine denials/retractions/redactions
While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and Rice-Davies, the latter made a quip for which she is now best remembered. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, she replied, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?".

MiniTruth: Stating the bleedin' obvious
If the negative version of any statement is clearly content-free; the original statement is equally useless.

The Iraq Enquiry

2009-08-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/uk_conservative/2009/06/william-hague-attacks-browns-terms-of-reference-for-iraq-inquiry.html
June 15, 2009 William Hague attacks Brown's terms of reference for Iraq inquiry

email to David Cameron
date 16 June 2009 06:41
subject Iraq Enquiry

Dave

Iraq Enquiry

I would have put this comment on the Blue blog but...
"David Cameron today called on the Prime Minister to take steps to ensure the Iraq war inquiry is not seen as "an establishment stitch-up".
With no public sessions planned, and with the Inquiry itself not due to report back until after the next General Election, David said people may conclude that the Government want to ensure that they do not have to "face up to any inconvenient conclusions"."
Surely the answer is in your own hand: why not commit publicly to, post the election when you are in charge (inshallah), change the terms of reference & hold the hearing in public (perhaps with anonymous witnesses for evidence which has security sensitivities)
Posted by: Richard Tebboth | June 16, 2009 at 06:35 PM

Wind Power: the view from Frinton

2009-08-06T23:00:00.000-07:00

As at the end of July 2009
There are 16 windmills visible in the Naze estuary. They have been there for some months.
The wind blows steadily to the delight of the kite fliers.
But the mills have yet to turn.

Government 'suppressed' report showing massive military waste

2009-08-06T02:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6740695.ece

Nothing new here: it's all in "Yes (Prime) Minister.
No one is to blame; if the stress becomes too much there is always early retirement on that meagre Civil Service or parliamentary pension.

Iran, UN, the Bomb & all that

2009-08-04T00:49:00.000-07:00

Comment posted on
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6736641.ece

Nuclear progress in Iran has dire consequences if diplomacy fails

So: diplomatic progress with Iran is dependent on "Russia and China, who hold the right of veto at the UN Security Council".
Meanwhile, a common argument in the debate over the future of Trident is that this is the essential criterion for Britain's membership of that Council.
Meanwhile, the resolutions of the UN General Assembly are ignored.
Not entirely unlike the situation with resolutions passed by (or the lack of resolution of) the League of Nations.

Britain needs a General Election David Cameron, Monday, May 18 2009

2009-08-03T11:28:00.000-07:00

From
http://www.conservatives.com/News/Blogs/Britain_needs_a_General_Election.aspx

Comment by Richard Tebboth on May 18 2009, 21:48

Dave, as I have already urged you:
It is surely time for you to deliver the same explicit message to Mr Brown as that of Oliver Cromwell to the rump Parliament in April 1653:
“You have sat for too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Furthermore: "Mr & Mrs Taxpayer have to purchase & maintain their home and pay their living expenses from their taxed income.
Parliamentarians should do the same.
Mr & Mrs Taxpayer mostly have to fund their retirement income through money purchase (defined contribution) schemes.
Parliamentarians (and other public sector employees) should do the same.
Those MPs who need to stay in London on parliamentary business (200 nights p.a.?) should be accommodated in adequate hotel rooms.
End of story."

Luke 16:10: "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much."

Leadership by example, leadership by example,
leadership by example.

"What I tell you three times is true"

Finally an email:-

From: Richard Tebboth
To Darling Alistair, Peter Mandelson

Dear Alistair & Peter

I was intending to order a car under the scheme which you announced in the budget speech over three weeks ago.
Presumably a little preparation went into your announcement particularly as it was widely anticipated and imitative of other policies in France, Germany...
It is therefore somewhat annoying to discover that my selected supplier informs me that they await input from the government before they can proceed.
My supplier is not unique:-

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8054679.stm

"Under the scheme, the government will subsidise £1,000 while the motor industry will provide at least a similar discount.

However, Honda says it is seeking clarity on the contribution from industry, as well as on a couple of other "administrative points".

A Honda spokesman said: "Relating to the £1,000 contribution - the original request was for a contribution of £1,000 from the industry.

"We were looking at splitting that between the manufacturer and our dealers but we're being told that we can't do that."

He added that they were being told that manufacturers alone would have to make up the payment, and Honda was challenging that.

A spokesman for Ford said: "Based on details which have only become apparent late in these negotiations [between the government and manufacturers], Ford is working to resolve some outstanding administrative issues."

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said it was seeking to clarify the exact tax position."
A well known phrase including the words "piss-up" and "brewery" springs to mind.

Of course, Alistair's immediate neighbour could call an immediate general election and pass on this and less pressing economic issues to a government of whatever complexion the British electorate deems capable of managing them.

Yours very sincerely,

Richard Tebboth

The British Mandate in Palestine

2009-08-02T11:27:00.000-07:00

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5484686.ece

"Sir, I may have been the last British serviceman to leave Palestine on May 14, 1948. The governor, General Cunningham, intending to be the last to leave, had already boarded HMS Euryalus at the oiling jetty at Haifa and, to my embarrassment, they were waiting for me, a junior engineer officer, to finish refuelling the ship before we left. Firing had already broken out on Mount Carmel to the south. The feeling on board as we sailed west was of disappointment. Despite the efforts of Britain to provide balance, the world was trying to correct the great wrong done to the Jews in Europe by committing another great wrong, the dispossession of the Arabs of Palestine. Despite the subsequent admirable courage of the Israelis and the unattractive behaviour of Palestinian extremists, I still feel the same. This is simply a sense of practical justice.

The injustice will continue to be the cause of Middle East instability and a volatile fuel for terrorism until it is understood both by Israel and the US. In practical terms it requires the maximum effort by Israel to put it right as far as possible within the bounds of its own prosperity, which would probably improve as a result.

Israel needs to renounce all religious claims to territory, to clear the West Bank of settlements other than those maintained by negotiation, and to facilitate communications between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by some kind of Palestinian-controlled road. The real possibility of peace would make it clear to the Palestinian people which of their political parties truly represents them and their Government would become more reliable. The rest of the world could then help by providing aid and trade to the new nation, cramped and oddly shaped, as is Israel, but at last viable."

That Was The Week That Was: week to 1st August 2009

2009-08-01T14:19:00.000-07:00

Maybe the editor of the DailyTelegraph is trying to wind me up.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/5942306/Motorists-to-pay-250-tax-for-parking-at-work.html

"Motorists to pay £250 tax for parking at work.

Motorists who drive to work face having to pay a £250 “parking tax” under a scheme to be announced by ministers on Friday.

The country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.

Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years."

My comment
Can this be really true?
If it is, surely the public sector should be "leading by example".
There are many parking spaces allocated to parliamentarians and civil servants in Westminster and Whitehall.
No doubt councillors and Officials in Nottingham enjoy similar facilities.
But then, were they to be charged, it would probably be "within the rules" as an expense.

More to follow....