US Power

Imagine an armed American soldier wandering off from the US Airforce base at Fairford in Gloucestershire. He drives into nearby Cirencester and shoots dead 16 civilians including 9 children. He also wounds several others. He then returns to his base and tells his colleagues what he has done. 

What would happen next?

If the appalling incident in Afghanistan is any guide, he would be detained and flown out of the country very quickly. This happened despite the Afghan Parliament stating that the offender should be tried in Afghanistan. This demeans the Afghan people as being of less worth than a US soldier and denies them justice.

So what would happen here? Despite all the bullshit about ‘Special Relationships’ and the current love-in taking place between Dave ‘n Barrack, it is highly likely that the US would follow the same course of action and remove the offender from the UK. 

At the height of the Cold War the US had more troops on UK soil than we had. Rather like an Embassy, the land holding a US base is regarded as US territory. Once the offender returned to base he would be regarded as being back on US soil. 

Those of you who think this unlikely should consider our craven cringeworthy treatment of the Chagos Islanders who lived on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They were booted off what is still British territory, to make way for a vast US Airbase. The location helped the US strategic aims.  

It is to the Labour Party’s eternal shame that it was they who struck the deal back in the 1960’s. It was also NewLabour who compounded the cringe by maintaining the deal in their last term with the egregious Jack Straw circumventing Parliamentary process to keep the issue hidden. The equally appalling David Miliband supported the wheeze of creating a marine reserve around the base which would keep the islanders away for ever.  “Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling” Wikileaks

As the PR spin rolls out from Washington, consider the one-sided nature of the ‘special relationship.’ Hundreds and hundreds of our troops have died supporting the Bush regime’s illegal Iraq War. Hundreds more have died in Afghanistan - another fiasco. The extradition treaty is a one-way street. It is much easier to get a British citizen to the States than vice-versa. US secret services monitor business conversations to help US corporations. Wikileaks exposed the way Washington regards the whole world as its fiefdom. 

And what do we get in return? 

Our PM’s get to hang out with the big boys every now and then and strut their stuff on the world stage. 

Er.....that’s it. 

Wouldn’t it be great if the next time the US come knocking asking for support in yet another military adventure e.g. Iran, we told them to piss off?

Horsegate

Initial reactions to the coverage of this story were that the substance was a lot less than the treatment. A niggling suspicion persisted however that there was more to this than met the eye because of the way certain papers - particularly the Torygraph -  kept picking away at the story. Later, watching clips of Cameron defending his involvement was revealing. Normally the smoothest of operators, he actually looked and sounded uncomfortable and ill at ease. Again, this raised the question why.

Yesterday's arrests may go some way to explain this discomfort and unease. Charlie Brooks is a contemporary of Cameron from Eton and is described as one of his best friends. He was arrested and later released on bail on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice. A serious offence carrying the possibility of a life sentence. Hmm.

No wonder ‘Call me Dave’ is looking uneasy. He has not had a good Hackgate. He was far too close to the Murdoch mafia (following in the footsteps of his mentor Mr Blair) and his appointment of Andy Coulson, despite him being under a cloud, reflected this. 

The riding of a retired Met police horse - apparently not supposed to be ridden - exposed to the great unwashed just how cosy and close the Camerons are with the Brooks. As the police inquiries rumble on, the drip drip drip effect of allegation after allegation is extremely damaging to Cameron’s reputation. Many citizens have already sussed out that he is a smooth/slippery/smarmy/arrogant PR operator from a privileged background with a right wing agenda dressed up as a centrist. 

There are many voters still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

The corrosive nature of this story on his reputation chips away at that benefit. No wonder he is uneasy - he will know what else lies in wait.

Gay Marriage, the Catholic Church and abuse

There has been a glaring omission from media coverage of the gay marriage issue. It has been left to comedians to point it out. A bulletin with recent history as its context would sound very different.

‘The Roman Catholic Church, an organisation notorious for its widespread and systematic child abuse practices and cover up, tried to draw attention away from its problems by launching an attack on gay marriage. A Bishop, who asked not to be identified, admitted attending a meeting at which this strategy had been devised. He said the church had lost  credibility over its handling and promotion of abuse. Gay marriage was seen as an issue which most people were not too exercised about. It had the advantage of making the church sound like it was an authority again. He thought it was vital to reassure the dwindling band of followers and arrest the rapid decline in membership. He maintained the very existence of the church was at stake.

A victim of abuse, who had to campaign for twenty years to get his case heard, described the move as a last-ditch attempt to continue their denial of responsibility for decades of abuse. He said that Cardinal Keith O’Brian, among other senior figures in the organisation, were desperate to continue the cover up, and not face up to just how evil they were. Abuse had been widespread and the cover up had gone right to the top of the organisation. “If the Roman Catholic Church ceased to exist that would be fine by me,” he added.’

What would be the impact of such coverage on the status and credibility of the serial abusers masquerading as a church? 

One welcome consequence would be a lot less airtime devoted to pontificating men in frocks. 

Another could be the church finally taking responsibility for its actions .......

Are those pigs flying past the window? 

Baroness Williams ‘Upset’

Aw! Diddums. The poor love has gone all wibbly wobbly over the stick she has had for abandoning her principles. She has attacked journalists for telling lies and having an agenda.... 

Has she not got a mirror in her Baronial Mansion? 

As for anger? She ain’t seen anything yet.

And neither have her stupid, supine, R Slikkan cronies.

Baroness Williams aka Shirl the Sheep

It is a critical time for the LibDems. They have their conference beginning today and have the chance to salvage some political credibility. The portents are not good if Polly Toynbee has it right.

“On Thursday Shirley Williams led her erstwhile rebels into the government lobby to vote for hospitals' right to use 49% of beds for private patients. Baroness Jenkin, PR consultant and wife of Bernard Jenkin MP, gloated on Twitter, "Just walking through the lobby with Shirley Williams." Ha ha! Baroness Williams complained of the Twitter storm that greeted her buckling on the NHS bill. What did she expect when she marched her people out to rebel – and then turned tail? "Sheep in sheep's clothing," said Labour as they watched the Lib Dems troop through the lobby this week, abruptly abandoning close co-operation. Serial displays of sheepdom have led to the bizarre spectacle of Lib Dem peers voting in several cases against amendments they themselves tabled, obediently herded into the opposite lobby by their whips.

Shirley Williams and Vince Cable are two of the most likable politicians, warm, humane social democrats, good speakers and empathic listeners – it's no accident they are known as Shirley and Vince. So it's especially sad and surprising to watch these two humiliate themselves. What for? What is the mission so important that they will vote for extreme Tory policies more shockingly damaging to the weak and powerless than anything Margaret Thatcher tried? Their party grasps at crumbs Cameron and Osborne let fall from the Tory table, while Lib Dems give them respectable cover for things that two years ago they would have thought abominable.

Watch the party nod through a trio of terrible bills – one commercialising the NHS beyond repair, another removing access to the law from the vulnerable, while the welfare bill condemns more children to poverty and evicts families from homes, jobs and schools.

Here's what Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem children's minister, once warned about the welfare bill: "It is vital we understand how many children with disabilities will have their care interrupted, how many will have to move school and how many may lose their homes." In the Commons, she stayed away for one vote despite a three-line whip, but after a dressing-down returned to vote for what she knew would damage the children she should defend. Is the pupil premium fair recompense? (I can't ask her, since I get no reply to repeated interview requests.)” Polly Toynbee, Guardian 8/3/12

The anger and outrage the LibDems met over their Tuition Fee U-Turn will be as nothing compared to the vitriol and opprobrium heading their way for shoring up this disgraceful Bill. They will be seen as the morons who allowed the Tories to be really really nasty to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. The likes of Clegg and Alexander will be fine after the next election. Having secreted themselves so far up the Tories backside they will walk into well-paid positions within finance houses and banks with barely a backwards glance to the millions they betrayed. 

As for their erstwhile party colleagues and activists? They are going to find the depth of anger on the doorstep, in the local press, and on the streets difficult to handle. 

They need to be prepared.

Welcome to the wilderness

This is the fate awaiting the Liberal Democrats. They are on the cusp of disappearing up their own fundament. The current crop of bubble-dwellers masquerading as a political party are in the middle of jeopardising years and years of what was known as ‘dog shit politics.’ This was the way the party built its core support - tackling local issues within local councils. Thousands and thousands of hours spent leafletting, canvassing and building their strength and it is all being thrown away. And for what? To support the Tories. Fair enough if the policy had been in the Tory manifesto or even in the Coalition Agreement. But the so called NHS reform bill was not in either. 

So why are they doing this? Do they not realise they will be blamed more than the Tories? Their U-Turn on tuition fees established a reputation for electoral dishonesty. Supporting a dishonest policy that is not one of their own is crass in the extreme. We expect the Tories to be self-serving bastards on the NHS - we do not expect the Liberal Democrats to join them. If the LibDems withdraw their support the Bill dies. Continue to support it and they will be despised by all those who care for the concept of treatment dependent upon need and not money. And that is an awful lot of people. 

Nationally they had as few as 6 MPs in the 1950’s. They are heading back to that position. As they meet for their Spring Conference this weekend they should look around the hall and marvel at the numbers. Any conference they feel like holding after the next election will be held in a phone box. 

They cannot say they have not been warned. Many, many letters, emails and phone messages have been sent to MPs and local councillors. 

Their silent response has been deafening. 

“Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

Dylan Thomas  

Six troops die in ‘cowardly’ attack.

Four hundred and four soldiers have now lost their lives fighting this unwinnable war. A further 5000 have been left badly wounded or maimed. And for what? 

“They are fighting to reduce terrorism on our streets.”

What irrational bullshit this is. Throwing our weight about has made us more likely to be attacked. The Iraq fiasco created even more terrorists and helped Al Quaida gain a foothold where it previously had none. The images from Iraq and Afghanistan have helped radicalise British citizens so the terror comes mainly from within. Any successes in Afghanistan have rebounded onto ungovernable Pakistan which is now a basket case....with nuclear weapons.

“We are helping build democracy” 

This is laughable when one considers the role of women...of corruption...of warlords....or the irreconcilable differences between the tribes in Afghanistan...and election fixing.

“We are training Afghan security services to take over.”

At a cost of nearly $12bn per year funded by the US one third of the nation are being trained. The others are having nothing to do with it. The US are walking away in a couple of years and then what? Without that vast amount of money the structure will collapse. In the meantime, several of these ‘trained’ Afghan troops have taken the opportunity to murder US and other troops.

“Our strategic objectives are all being met.”

We hear this inane meaningless bullshit from so many senior military bods and politicians. The interesting comments come from those who have worked in Afghanistan and have since returned. They sing a very different tune of how ‘objectives’ are reinvented to suit the situation. Of failure compounded by failure. Of clearing areas during the daytime knowing the Taliban will return at night. Of being bailed out by US troops. Of turning blind eyes to Afghan corruption. Of going through the motions.

We have told the Taliban that we plan to leave in 2014. Imagine if we had said to Hitler, “We are going to give it our best shot ‘till 1942?” As a ‘strategy’ it is not worth a bucketful of warm spit.

The latest catastrophe has been labelled ‘a cowardly attack’ by Defence Minister Hammond. Bombers and bomb attacks are frequently so labelled by incredibly brave Ministers from the safety of their offices. Anyone who has seen ‘The Attack on Algiers’ will have a different view. Anyone with a brain will look at the increasing use of unmanned drone attacks to blow hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians to smithereens (plus the odd Taliban) and think “Now that is what I call cowardly.”

Let’s surprise them and leave now. And save some lives. 

Theirs and ours.