Labourhome - Back to the roots...

[Blogs] The Ealing Ghost Bus

2009-01-07T11:35:35-05:00

I suspect we can all think of better uses for £500 per day - even if it is just burning it to stay warm in the current cold snap.

[Blogs] Prof. Avi Shlaim condemns Israel over Gaza

2009-01-07T07:41:24-05:00

There are some writings that are able to crystalise an issue with devastating clarity. Professor Avi Shlaim, Oxford Professor of International Relations, has written such an article in today's Guardian.

I have not read a better, clearer analysis of the 40-year background to, as he says, 'Israel's insane offensive against Gaza' which 'seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash.'

Professor Shlaim's analysis and condemnation of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian territories will not be easily dismissed, coming from a distinguised academic who 'served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders.'

Nor does Professor Shlaim exempt Hamas from criticism for 'resorting to the weapon of the weak - terror.' But the bulk of the article is a devastating critique of Israeli policy towards Palestine over four decades, with Gaza being 'not simply a case of economic under-development, but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development.'

He outlines Israel's cynical undermining of the peace process - 'Land grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.' He describes Israel's divide and rule policies, intially supporting the nascent Hamas in the late 1980s 'in order to weaken Fatah.' Professor Shlaim refers to the 'brutality of Israel's soldiers' which is 'fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen.' In essence, he says 'their propaganda is a pack of lies.'

Finally he concludes:

'This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.'

[Blogs] Blogging sensation !! Guido Fawkes fearlessly attacks Tory "Nanny-Gate" State.

2009-01-07T04:40:42-05:00

At last Fido Barks up both trees with equal fearless ferocity. Whatever you do, make sure you do not miss this historic post. At the last count it generated 226 comments.Visit Guido Fawkes

[Blogs] The boy George, Ken Clarke and a Jimmy Hill moment

2009-01-06T18:47:43-05:00

The rumours are true. Ken Clarke is coming back to shadow Peter Mandelson. And, would you believe it, it was all the brilliant idea of that strategic genius George Osborne himself! So let's not be childish about this ...

Many years ago, at school, the smart sarcastic thing was to scratch your chin and make references to Jimmy Hill "itchy chin" and "chinny reckon" if somebody was being just a little implausible.

Now that is a little bit 'playground' for such an esteemed public figure as the Shadow Chancellor, to say nothing of an ancient serious think-tank, but for some unfathomable reason, that image just flashed into my mind when I saw this this Telegraph news report, which effectively confirms that Ken Clarke is coming back.

And what do you know, but it was the Boy George's idea all along ... What an Osborne pushes for Ken Clarke's return fantabulous surprise.

Some believed that Mr Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, would be against Mr Clarke's return as it would undermine him.

However, The Daily Telegraph has learnt that contrary to those reports, Mr Osborne has been actively lobbying for his return. He has told friends that he works well with Mr Clarke and values his advice.

One friend of Mr Osborne's said: "George has been talking to Ken about his return and Ken has been very supportive of George. The two get on very well and George would not have a problem with him coming back - in fact is pushing for it."

Ooh. Itchy, itchy chin.

That's better.

Cross-posted from http://www.nextleft.org/

[Blogs] Iceland considers taking Britain to European Court of Human Rights

2009-01-06T18:00:18-05:00

The problem with some laws is not what is said on the statute book but how they are applied. Over recent years, we have seen many occasions where the police and the CPS, by their practice, have stretched the laws far beyond that which Parliament had intended. I wonder when Parliamentarians were debating the anti-terrorism legislation they ever foresaw the possibility of being taken to court by Iceland!

[Blogs] Nannygate MP to be cleared but what does she actually do Mr. Cameron?

2009-01-06T15:43:52-05:00

Value for money Tories are delighted that according to the Evening Standard today Caroline Spelman will be exonerated. However as Cameron gleefully retains her place in the Shadow Cabinet could he please let the tax payer know what she does that would warrant a Nanny or a p.a.? According to They Work for You .com not a lot.
Caroline Spelman MP has..
Spoken in 3 debates in the last year — well below average amongst MPs.

Has received answers to 14 questions in the last year — average amongst MPs.

Is a member of 0 select committee (0 as chair).

Has voted in 51% of votes in parliament — well below average amongst MPs. (From Public Whip)

They Work for You 5/1/09

[Blogs] Couldn't you just shake David Cameron!

2009-01-06T15:16:08-05:00

So we now know that David Cameron sometimes feels like shaking Gordon Brown. The great ‘clunking fist’ should not be too worried though, we all know that it is actually ‘Dave’ who shakes all the time, in fact he has not stopped ‘wobbling’ for months. Yesterday we witnessed Mr Cameron’s latest wobble as, once again, he moved (or was he pushed?) further to the right or as Polly Toynbee put it ‘deeper into the recesses of her (Thatcher’s) handbag.’

In fairness the task before Cameron is a monumental one. He leads a party that is desperate for power and since his election as leader in 2005 (yes it has been that long) he has set out to show that he is a winner, that he can change his party and restore it to its position as the natural party of government. What Cameron is now grasping, however, is that leading change is a long, slow and often bloody process. The events of the past few weeks would suggest that rather than the "heir to Blair", Cameron is in danger of going down as the Tories' Neil Kinnock. Yet in many ways this is a grossly unfair comparison. In the end, Kinnock ended up helping make Labour electable. He was willing to take some really tough decisions and he showed real leadership in the face of huge and often hostile opposition. It is easy to forget that the enormous task of ditching some of the most unpopular Labour policies of the 1980s was carried out, not by Blair and Brown, but by Kinnock. It was Kinnock who first challenged the party to dump policies and commitments that had helped to create an image of a Labour party that was soft on crime and addicted to the imposition of punitive taxes.

Cameron views himself as the politician of the digital age, a bold and fearless leader who is unafraid to take risks but most of the changes he has made to his party have been primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and shortlived (the party's "A" list of candidates). Mr Cameron's Conservatives are made up of the "right kind of people", his people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. In 2007, Cameron told his party's spring conference that it needed to change and that the changes needed to be "faster, wider and deeper". Nearly two years later and change in the Tory party looks to be slow, narrow and shallow.
Today, the words of former Tory (now Labour) MP Quentin Davies take on a new resonance. In his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Conservative party and join Labour, he wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

As the Tory "big beasts" and rightwing press begin to turn on him, how long will it be before Cameron is forced to retreat towards having to peddle past Tory agendas? How long before he is told that he needs to embrace more "traditional" core Tory issues such as Europe, crime and the family? How long before the Tory leader who started out saying his aim was to recapture the centre ground of British politics, is yet again forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote?
Is this what Cameron means by progressive politics? Is ‘do nothing Conservatism’ the replacement for ‘compassionate Conservatism?

The one person who has really been shaken by recent global economic events is not Gordon Brown, it is David Cameron.