Trident.....Colin Ross and the Ming Petition

I am glad to see that Colin Ross's petition about Trident is gathering pace.
I have already gone on ad nauseam about the issue, suffice to say I fear that appearing to sit on the fence will be the worst of all worlds for our party.This is clearly going to be a hugely important debate at conference. Lets get chatting about it now!

Trident........will there be consensus at conference?

I had this post ready to go last Friday but as a new kid on the FPC block I wasn't entirely clear what I am and am not allowed to say about the meeting, so to avoid being sent to the naughty corner I waited to get some advice. Although I have to say, I had thought I had been elected as a representative, which to my understanding means my accountability is to party members. Anyway, I am a bit clearer now so here it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What a day yesterday was.......starting with a trip to Holywood (that's Holywood Northern Ireland) stuck at the airport because of the wrong sort of wind at Heathrow and finishing with the FPC and Trident......
The majority view of the Trident working party, as expressed by Ming as potential party policy, is now to be the position debated at conference. Before going to the meeting I received an email from a pal expressing the view that what was vitally important was that as a party we found a consensus. I agree, but unfortunately the nuclear issue is not an easy one to compromise on. If you have deeply held beliefs, for example that murder is wrong, its difficult to see how you could reach a compromise or consensus position with someone who thinks it is right. And for me, even if I were able to consider a compromise, the compromise on offer is frankly wet. To make a decision not to make a decision, to argue that nuclear weapons are wrong and should never be used and then say but we'll keep half of them doesn't for me hold water as a coherent argument and plays into the hands of those who accuse us of sitting on the fence. The majority motion was sold as a motion which would enable conference to reach a consensus and was the "responsible" response. For me this was code for branding the minority report/motion as "irresponsible", although there was a lot of appreciation that it was soundly and intelligently argued. The debate was good natured and thoughtful, but the outcome was certainly for me a foregone conclusion. With our party leader having already stated our likely position it was unlikely that the minority report, however well argued, would win the day. So now we can have a debate in the pages of LDN, on the blogs and ultimately in Harrogate. What I hope will not happen is that the leadership will use emotional blackmail to bounce conference into a decision. It is vitally important for the credibility of the party and more importantly for the future of the planet, that we have an open and honest debate. And in my view, if we do decide not to decide we are failing the electorate who will be denied a real choice. Whilst around 25% in polls are against replacing Trident it was interesting to note on Any Questions last week that well over half the audience were against replacement, the tide is turning, lets catch it or face the consequences of being drowned in the undertow.For those of you who share my view please sign Colin Ross's petition to Ming.

Are Lib Dems joining Labour to vote for John McDonnell?

I broke my new "don't talk about politics" rule again last night - have to confess. Meeting up with an old trade union pal, who is also a member of the local Labour party, I guess it would have been a recipe for sitting there in silence had I stuck to my guns! Anyway, it is always interesting to hear about what is happening in the local Labour camp and last night was no exception. What really caught my ear was to learn that an ex local Lib Dem supporter had now joined Labour in order to vote for John McDonnell in the forthcoming leadership contest. It appears anti-war campaigners are being encouraged to join for that sole purpose. I wonder if anyone else has heard anything similar?

I have to say I was very impressed with John McDonnell's speech in the Iraq debate in March 2003 - I remember it well as my pal Sharon was carried out of the public gallery for shouting down into the chamber "I absolutely agree with everything that gentleman has said, the British people don't believe your lies..........." at which point she was carried out and arrested, and I was threatened with the same if I didn't stop clapping so loudly! But my concern now is as it was then, if the anti-war Labour MPs had had the courage to resign the whip they may well have had far more impact. And if we do end up embroiled in an Iranian adventure - what will they do then? I'm all for staying and fighting for the party you love, but surely there has to come a time when you can no longer morally continue........or am I missing something?

A good excuse to suspend the leadership selection in the Labour Party???

See the Arab Times. Makes interesting reading........

So will we have Chris Huhne as our next leader?

Having attended the North Beds annual dinner last night I am sorry to say Chris Huhne did not win me over. He spoke well and was certainly more engaging than when participating in the hustings...........but...........well..........he just doesn't do it for me. Like others I was interested in the debate about our future leader taking place on Mike Smithson's political betting yesterday. Mike seems to have been pretty impressed, no doubt his views will emerge in due course. And there seem to be a lot of fellow members who are "bigging him up" at the moment. Frankly anyone who sees themselves as a credible leadership contender next time round needs to be putting in the graft now for if and when there is another leadership contest. His speech could not be faulted, although his optimism about where we are at the moment for me was misplaced. If we are to really make progress as a party we have to begin to deal with the realities of being the impala squeezed between two elephants, especially when the two elephants make it very hard for the impala to be seen. But.......the reality is, we may be small (but beautiful!) but we can run a hell of a lot faster than the elephant and our horns are not to be messed with!!! And his speech was very careful to focus on the issues he could be pretty damn sure the audience, whoever they were, would agree with -environment, civil liberties etc. No mention of Orange Book economics, Trident or tax for example. Sadly we were also denied the chance to question him as he was running off to catch a train. One of my fellow diners, who shall remain nameless, took the opportunity to lambast him over the disgraceful way Charles had been treated, a fact which still sticks in the gullet of many members and the public more generally.

So, an enjoyable evening with good company, but totally put paid to any idea I may have had about not talking about politics! I then got persuaded to go and meet friends at the only night club in Bedford where I feel young! Shouting above the strains of "Put your hands up for Detroit.........." I couldn't stop the conversation turning to politics, with two pals who are totally uninterested, but were still talking about their disappointment that Charles went as he was someone they felt able to relate to.

Today I had a lovely lunch with my children in Ireland (that's Ireland, Bedfordshire!) but having told my daughter the story of being chided by Yas about talking about politics too much, I then inadvertently without realising it strayed into the topic again, she pulled me up by saying, Mum you're doing it again, Yas was right! So I guess talking politics is like any bad habit, you don't know you're doing it!

And I must pass on my many many thanks to Duncan Borrowman who is the first person who has been able to explain to me in language I understand how to do all the fancy bits and add links to my blog. I'm just about to go and take a look at his brother's extreme sports site.......watch this space!

What on earth do you talk about if you can't talk about politics........er......

.....just back from a night out with my pal Yasmin. Yas is a playwright so lots of her pals are luvvies, plus - or including - a few journalists. During a very pleasant meal at St John's in Archway, and having caught up with her exciting lovelife, I was in the middle of a detailed explanation of why we couldn't look at reforming the benefits system without considering whether the levels of benefit were adequate......when I noticed she was grinning broadly. No, it wasn't at something that was happening behind me....it was me! She explained that whilst listening to my fascinating exposition she had been reminded of something one of her journo pals had said last night. Namely that politicians were so boring since all they could talk about was......politics. I had one of those dreadful moments of self enlightenment - my heart sank...but but I talk about other things...don't I?er......handbags.....work......babies.....knitting....diets......football. Yas challenged me on the football - what did I know about football - well I know about Luton Town.....recently? Er......more Luton Town in the 70's I had to confess. I spent the rest of the evening frantically trying to think about the other things I could talk about. The financial sector? Yes but it would be hard to discuss the high levels of personal debt and financial exclusion without running into the nonsensical contradictory policies of the Labour government. The army? Yes but that would inevitably lead on to at least a cursory consideration of government policy on Iraq, the role of the MOD and.........Trident? What about my accidents, they were always good for a laugh..........no Linda, we don't want people to get the mistaken impression you are accident prone do we???

I found myself on the train home thinking about this, I do have other interests don't I? I don't view everything through some primose or nasturtium tinted political prism do I? But then I caught myself mentally bemoaning the fact that the train was cold and cramped and took far too long to get back to Bedford and that any notion of choice was totally facile because not only did I not have a choice of trains I didn't have a choice about having to pay a wacking £95 a week for the privilege of practising being a sardine for three hours a day! Oh and wasn't deregulation of the buses the biggest mistake ever?

Then the phone rang - it was my Toryboy pal Andrew McConnell. He was on a later train than me, he had only reached Mill Hill whilst I had made it all the way to Flitwick. He was the dirty stop out! Did we talk about politics............er, well his first question was, what are you doing at the weekend - out delivering leaflets? His second comment was to complain about me having signed a "yellow peril" - call in notice, over his appointment to a committee...........

Still, no worries, tomorrow night I am out for dinner, so that will give me plenty of interesting things to talk about. Oh, did I not mention, its our annual dinner, with none other than the incredible Mr Huhne speaking...........and on Sunday I will look into the possibility of taking up an extreme sport.....any suggestions???

Chris Huhne...............the one with hair!

Now.........anyone who has read my musings on Mr Huhne will know I am not exactly in the fan category. I remember, when canvassing on behalf of Simon Hughes, one woman calling to her husband "There's a woman here asking who you voted for"............I heard the reply "Oh I don't know dear.....the one with hair!" So, the one with hair is coming to Bedford on Saturday and I have been asked if I would like one ticket or two? Well, at the last count there was only one of me...........so unless there is a Chris Huhne fan out there desperate to boost the finances of the North Beds coffers............I will go on my own, and make the most of the opportunity, watch this space!

Mr Dale with his knickers in a twist.......again!

I was interested to hear of Iain Dale getting his knickers in a twist over the work our party is doing to ensure our parliamentary candidates are representative of the electorate they seek to serve. I have to agree, in an ideal world there would be no need to try to redress the balance, but the reality is that for years, in all parties, prejudice had often triumphed over selecting the "best" candidate. It is not that long ago (and may still be the case) that the Tories were asking their female married candidates, what their husbands would do if they were elected, poor menfolk, unable to manage without the little woman. The truth is, even with the most rigorous equal opps procedures, subconcious judgements are made. We tend to have a mental image of what "the good manager" "the chief exec" the "MP" and even the "Beefeater" should look like..........and that tends to be male, middle aged, white and wearing a sharp suit (except for the Beefeater of course!). We all know of highly qualified BME and women candidates whose cases fill the schedules of Employment Tribunals up and down the country, who have been passed over by people who are far less qualified, so to suggest that selection panels - which are not subject to employment law automatically pick the "best" candidate, is palpably stuff and nonsense!

Before I reverted to my maiden name my surname was Weerasirie - a fact that my local party were willing to accept may lose me votes. I can remember one man I canvassed, on being told that my then husband was Sri Lankan asking, well what's he doing here then? Sadly we don't have to scratch that deeply to find such attitudes within our society, and heavens, even in our parties.

What we see is what we expect and invariably what we get. My daughter as a small child started ballet lessons, I asked if she would like to be a ballet dancer, to which she replied "but brown people can't be ballet dancers" - as a white woman I hadn't noticed, but as a mixed race child, she had never seen a black dancer (she later asked - on John Major succeeding Maggie Thatcher - "but can a man be Prime Minister? - we are all still pondering that one!*).

So lets get real shall we? Perhaps as a white, middle class, privileged male, Mr Dale is perfectly happy with the status quo, but if not, I wonder what measures he would adopt to improve the situation? He appears to be equally unhappy with A Lists in his party but he nonetheless trumpets the fact his party have 38% women candidates. Can't have it both ways Iain dear!

As a footnote I would have to say my belief is that one of the most effective ways to begin to change not only the profile of our politicians, but also to engage more of the disengaged electorate would surely be proportional representation........but that would no doubt be a step too far for Mr Dale........

Do the BBC want Nick Clegg for leader?

For the second time this week I have heard a BBC presenter mentioning Nick Clegg as our potential new leader. There is no doubt he is more of a match for Cameron, but I do tend to agree with others that to dive into another leadership election at this point would smack of panic. Far better then for Ming to let our stars twinkle a little more, to demonstrate that we have the talent within our party to be able to take on all comers. As for the adorable Nick, I do rate him as a true liberal, but maybe a tad too liberal when it comes to economic liberalism! He is proving to be a very effective shadow to Mr "There's no such thing as Civil Liberties" Reid, but if and when we do have the next leadership election it must certainly not be a one horse race.......and wouldn't it good to have a woman candidate too?

Anyway, back to work tomorrow so that will put paid to my musings for a while!

Could we really be reduced to 6 seats?

Given my extended Christmas leave I am amusing myself by catching up with Mike Smithson's Political Betting site and Martin Baxter's Electoral Calculus suggesting that we could be reduced to six seats at the next election. Whilst I think that is highly unlikely, our continued poor showing in the polls should give us all pause for thought. All the more reason for ensuring our policies are fresh, alternative and radical...........how about starting with Trident???

Iain Dale.............who he?

Iain Dale........ah, now that name rings a bell.......wasn't he the Tory boy who got thoroughly trounced in the general by our Norman? Mmmm methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I have to say I was rather amused on Saturday's the Week in Westminster to hear him boldly stating that we Lib Dems didn't know what our policies were (that's fine m'dear, but if you are going to make such a sweeping statement do at least attempt to provide some evidence) and then almost in the same breath admitting that the Tories didn't have any policies at all! And now he is apparently rubbing his hands with glee at three defections. Actually, so am I. If these three who(?)bodies are really Tories at heart, frankly we are better off without them. Anyone else feel the need to jump the fence? At this time of year pruning is quite healthy. This isn't to say I don't share some of the concerns about where we are going, but actually I do think our party is bigger than any one person and worth fighting for. Having been regularly approached by my two own pet Tory boys to defect, my response is always the same. Number one, it may be fun for five minutes but I couldn't see me lasting more than that before being chucked out; number two, imagine not having a party newspaper in which to debate and challenge; number three, imagine being part of a party where you have no say in party policy and are basically cannon fodder, and number four..........I'm old enough to remember the misery of Tory rule the last time. Leopards rarely change their spots, even if their smiles have been whitened.

Kennedy.....Campbell, Hughes, Huhne..........wither 2006?

So, as the old year draws to a close - and what a year it was for us - who knows what the new one will bring..............another new leader?????? Or is that blasphemy?! I have to confess that the assassination of Charles still sticks in my gullet a bit, even as someone who was strongly of the view that we would need a new leader by the time of the next general election, but not then and not in that manner. There has been a fair bit of analysis on our performance this year on my beloved radio 4 (no not on the Archers) and it has to be said we are not coming out of it that well, even though Lembit, in his inimitable style seems to have done his bit to ensure we end the year in the headlines! It may be the conspiracy theorist gene in me, but how come Labour and Tory party chairs were interviewed for the World at One reviews but for us it was Vince Cable? Is it that our party President was unavailable……..or is it that he may have given a wee bit too honest an appraisal of our leader’s performance?

I have to admit that at the time of the election I shared the view that we didn't want to fall into the Blair/Cameron trap, going for packaging as opposed to substance. However, even though I hate to say it, packaging does have a role to play. It is what first attracts us to the product. Blair is like that old, rather insubstantial breakfast cereal which was so new season in 1997 (a la Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?) the packaging was bright and inviting in its day, but its day has now gone. Cameron is more the bright shiny hologram covered new packaging...........possibly more cocoa pops, tastes nice to start with, but you soon feel hungry again. And our Ming..........Quaker Porridge Oats? Much better for you, but the packaging needs a bit of attention. Not to compete with Cameron, certainly not, but to attract attention to the substance which is within.

I sincerely hope that this year Ming will find his feet and make the impact that is so necessary in what inevitably will continue to be portrayed as a two horse race. As a party it is imperative that we capture the imagination, that we are ahead of the game, that we anticipate the agenda, and that we offer radical alternative solutions.

So…………this year will be very interesting. The little matter of Trident…..a new Labour leader………..the possibility of a snap election……oh, and will orange be the new black?!

Two Cheers for Ming

Now......don't die of shock that I have posted two days on the trot...more a sign of a boring social life than commitment to the cause! But, it has to be said I have been inspired by our Ming today......I had been invited to his IPPR speech wearing another hat and he reminded me of why I was happy to give him second preference after Simon Hughes. He does have a genuine concern for tackling poverty and his promise to commit the party to ending child poverty by 2020 is to be welcomed. Poverty is a root cause for so many of society's ills and getting to grips with it has to be top of our agenda. His attention to the serious problem of a lack of social and affordable housing is also something to be applauded. I have always argued that whilst others talk about education education education, to imagine that children can realistically learn anything if they are living in squalid, crowded or temporary homes is to totally miss the point. So two cheers for Ming. What I was less happy about was the fact that their is still a lot of work to be done on the policies being put forward, and that he referred to a "marriage of social and economic liberalism" what's that all about??? I am sure it will end in divorce!

Civic Services.....Hypocritical Prime Ministers.....WMDs and Mad Hatters

Yesterday was our Bedford Christmas Civic Service.........organised by one of my Tory pals (yes I do have them!) current Speaker, Andrew McConnell. In his honour I broke with my tradition of refusing to be seen in something that looks like a washed out old dressing gown (why don't they do them in petite, so sizeist!) and a tricorn hat (so Dick Turpin.....). As we were "processing" into the church another pal, ex councillor Chris Whitehead came along and shocked me by revealing he read my blog..........heavens that's three of you now then!

It was a lovely service, reminding me of why I am so passionate about politics. Not only were we reminded of the reason for Christ's birth - to bring peace and justice - but singing the second verse of the national anthem (and I say this as a bit of a republican) which goes on about the Queen defending our laws, just made me think of how low we have sunk as a nation under Blair's leadership. For a man who declares his Christian faith I frankly wonder if we are reading the same bible?! "Blessed are the peacemakers...." yes that'll be killing off a few hundred thousand Iraqis and renewing our own weapons of mass destruction then.

Last week this government's cavalier attitude to truth and justice and utter contempt for the rule of law was yet again exposed. It reminded me of the time a few years ago when my boss was sacked for bullying. The local authority I worked for was so worried about her taking the case to employment tribunal they bought her off with early retirement.............so what message does that give? If you are over 50 and want early retirement......just go bully a few people! Similarly the BAE case just sends a clear message, don't worry about bribery and corruption if you are powerful enough, we'll drop the case in the middle and you'll have nothing to worry about. And now Blair has been questioned how long will it be before the police are bullied into dropping the cash for honours case? And all this only a few days after Blair's trumpeting of "British" values which all those wishing to come here should espouse. And now he's under the delusion that he is the right person to go and resolve the Israel Palestine situation........heaven help us! Sometimes I fear I am in an Alice in Wonderland world..........its just in my Alice in Wonderland world there seem to be far too many Mad Hatters!

HELLO........TRIDENT..........WITHER THE LIB DEMS?

Am I missing something here? Praise for our policy........a policy which has neither been ratified by the FPC nor, more importantly federal conference. I'm sorry, but I was of the belief that one of the things which distinguished us from the two tory parties was the fact that we were still a member lead organisation? Have I missed some important development? I am a Lib Dem because I am a Lib Dem.......I am proud of that, I am proud that I belong to a party which has solid values and is not in anybody's pocket. So why do I get the feeling I am being bounced into a policy? A policy which is at odds with my own beliefs (even as an ex servicewoman) and a policy which does not have the demonstrable support of my party. Clearly the party is aware that this issue is a hot potato with our membership, something that needs careful handling, so why throw petrol on the flames and ignite a conflict? We may not all agree, but we have a tried and tested procedure, one which gives us all an opportunity to express our opinions..........lets stick to that, shall we? Or am I being unreasonable???

Trident - Oh dear, has the fence just jumped up and bitten me in the bottom?

I just got my email from Ming telling me that

"It would be unwise at this time for Britain to abandon its nuclear weapons altogether. But a deterrent of approximately half the current size, and extending the life of the current submarine system, would be sufficient to provide for Britain’s ultimate security until we have more certainty about proliferation..."

Please tell me I am being a little naive here, but.......are we for 'em or agin 'em? Whilst I of course applaud the move towards disarmament outlined in this draft, why only half? If we believe nuclear weapons are wrong how can we support keeping the half we say we want to keep? If we believe they are right, why not keep the lot?

As I am such an incompetent blogger and don't know how to get a slick link up here, I have copied an article from my pal Mick Smith's blog (23.11.07 - Sunday Times) which in the light of our draft policy makes interesting reading:

The Travesty of a Trident Debate

The cabinet had its first sight of the White Paper produced to justify continuing with a submarine-based nuclear deterrent on Thursday ahead of its official unveiling in Parliament in all probability next week. Tony Blair has promised MPs a full debate on the issue sometime early next year and reportedly told last week’s cabinet meeting that he wants to launch the debate very quickly "because a decision needs to be made". It’s a good quote that isn’t it? You can actually hear him saying it, with that little bit of irritation that we just don't get it in his voice. The truth is that a decision doesn’t need to be made now at all. But whether it does or not is irrelevant, because the key decisions have already been made. So MPs from whatever side of the house can go whistle, what they say will not change a thing. Is this what passes for democracy under President Blair? I’m afraid it is and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

There are three parts to the Trident system, the 58 missiles themselves, American-owned and loaned to us each time we use them at exorbitant cost; the 192 warheads, which are at least British-made and owned; and the four British Vanguard-class submarines that fire the missile. According to the spin, it is the last part of the equation, the submarines, which make it essential to decide now.
The Prime Minister and his supporters say the procurement process is so slow and cumbersome that it is imperative that we order new submarines now. It is total codswallop. You, I and every gatepost across Britain know that the key issues here are that a) Blair sold his soul to the neo-cons and part of the deal was that Britain continued to have a nuclear deterrent, and b) he sees it as part of his legacy to leave Britain with a powerful nuclear deterrent – evidence that the old nuke-hating Labour is no more.
As for the submarines, well if you start from the prime minister’s position that we do need a nuclear deterrent – many won’t but let’s humour Blair for the moment and he did after all get voted in on that basis – the submarines are a relatively easy decision. He is right at least that a submarine-based system remains by far the best option simply because it is much more difficult for a potential target to take pre-emptive action. He hasn’t of course expressed this preference because the issue is “still to be debated”. But we and the gateposts know the decision has already been made.
The Submarines
We currently have four Vanguard nuclear missile submarines. We in fact need only three. They are due to go out of service between 2017 and 2024. The British submarine building yard at Barrow has plenty of work on its plate building the Astute-class attack submarine, at present the MoD is committed to three Astute-class submarines and negotiating heavily on the remaining four of what will be a seven-boat fleet.
The seven Astutes will take Barrow up to around 2017 before it can get down to actually building whatever replacement nuclear missile submarine we want to use to fire the missile. So the life of the Vanguards will need to be extended slightly but that is not a major issue. Once Barrow has finished building the seven Astutes, it will be able to fit in building the three new nuclear missile submarines before starting all over again on a new attack submarine to replace the Astute. That will give the Royal Navy a total of just ten submarines and building them will keep the British submarine industry ticking over nicely ad infinitum, doing no harm to the Labour cause in Cumbria of course.
The Missiles
If you take the view that we do need a deterrent, and many see that as essential for no other reason than that the French have one - yes the debate does get as silly as that - then the missiles are even less of a no-brainer than the submarines. The Trident D5 missiles were due to go out of service in 2019 but the Americans, who own the things anyway, are extending the life of their missiles so we can just earn some more browny points in Washington by piggy-backing on that project. This is ideal because Blair can say we haven’t changed a thing, we are continuing with Trident, so nothing we are doing contravenes the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Er, up to a point. But only because we haven’t come to the key issue yet.
The Warheads
The British warheads are critical to the debate. They’re the one issue where MPs – and come to that the rest of us - might just be able to have an input. I’m frankly not putting any money on it but it is the faintest of possibilities, which is more than can be said for the submarines and the missiles.
The British warhead is based on the US W76 warhead, which is known to have problems, with at least one failing to detonate properly. The reason is that it is a sophisticated two-stage warhead designed to hit specific targets like particular Soviet cities and that meant using lots of clever materials that get much less clever as time goes on. They deteriorate with age and we can’t test them to make sure they are still working because of the nuclear test ban.
The response in America has been the development of the reliable replacement warhead. This is a weapon that ignores the clever bits of the old Cold War warheads that deteriorate quickly and – based on the results of previous nuclear tests going right back to the 1940s – uses the old well-proven reliable components that never deteriorate, the bits we know will work. We don’t need sophisticated bombs that will do clever things, we just need bombs that will go bang when we want them to.Des Browne, defence secretary, has denied that we’re interested in the reliable replacement warhead. But senior defence officials let the cat out of the bag earlier this year by pointing out that we were further ahead in research into the new type of warhead than the Americans, who have been conducting an 18-month programme to design one.
That programme began in May 2005, shortly after Blair was re-elected on a mandate to continue with the nuclear deterrent, and is due to have finished this month, shortly before the British White Paper is published. Is the timing coincidental? I doubt it. The government has poured around £3.5bn into a top secret programme at Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Research Establishment to help Britain’s nuclear scientists either redesign the current warhead or design a new one.
The problem with the reliable replacement warhead is that, even if you take the current warhead apart and rebuild it using the reliable bits, it is a new warhead, and a new warhead will breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We are in a Catch-22 situation. We can’t be sure our old warhead will work without testing it and breaching the nuclear test ban and we can’t replace it with something reliable without breaching the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The warhead is the weak link. It is the one point at which Blair’s determination to spend around £14bn on a weapon we don’t actually need might falter. That’s where his opponents need to focus their fire. It’s the only place they have a chance of stopping him.

The View From Port of Spain - and why don't we have public holidays for Eid and Diwali?

Just had to get that in!!!! Sitting in my temporary office at the Central Bank, overlooking the harbour, sun shining brightly on the sea following a thunderstorm, just having found out we can't get a flight to Tobago on Saturday since everyone is taking a long weekend, the public holidays for Eid and Diwali falling over the next few days. In Trinidad they love an excuse for a party and being a very ethnically diverse country that means everyone celebrating each other's festivals. Last week was a public holiday for Chinese arrival day. At lunch today they had started on the Christmas carols and tomorrow there will be lunchtime Diwali celebrations in the bank. Whilst Trinidad has other issues (political parties being largely ethnically based) it is so refreshing to be somewhere where diversity is a cause for celebration rather than moral panic. So, it occurs to me that, given we seem to be behind most other countries when it comes to public holidays, maybe we should include this in our next manifesto - at least two extra public holidays???! It may also give the opportunity, clearly needed, for us to begin to invest more in understanding one another and celebrating what unites us rather than this constant British emphasis on what it is that divides us.

NHS - Thats Notting Hill Set to Mr Cameron

Just back from an extended council meeting. For those of us who are fortunate enough to languish under the delights of an elected mayor, some might say, a frequently frustrating and verging on pointless exercise (OK I'm in cynical mode!) tonight was brightened by an imaginative timely motion from the Tories against the closure of Bedford Hospital - swiftly matched by a ridiculously facile and disengenuous Labour amendment, countered of course by the ultimate Lib Dem piece d'resistance! Mr Speaker......aka Cllr Andrew McConnell........aka Toryboy to me and my pals.........broke with convention and offered his own views on the threat to the hospital......he is waiting to see if he is to be reprimanded.......but it is good to see the Tories sticking up for the NHS. tho it has to be said, whether that is the National Health Service or the Notting Hill Set remains to be seen. What totally stuck in my gullet was the constant concern of the so called "independents" some of them members of their own "Better Bedford Party" and many erstwhile members of other parties, banging on about this not being about politics and political point scoring...........sorry........how do you think we got in this mess in the first place???! Er...........so decisions made by this Labour government which ultimately will determine whether or not Bedford has its own hospital are NOT POLITICAL???? And to be frank, for those who dream about a world free from party politics, lets get real about the alternative.......a bunch of independents, all with different views, all there because they are wealthy enough (or have a wealthy enough patron) to fund their own election campaigns. Rant over.............

Lebanon remembered

Now the guns have fallen silent, the "disproportionate" bombs no longer drop indiscrimately, the katushas have stopped their deadly flights its easy to forget the madness of the summer weeks of conflict in Lebanon. But the unexploded cluster bombs remain, the lives of so many families on both sides of the border remain shattered. Paul Reynolds offers an enlightened and enlightening perspective.

The Lebanon conflict – Precursor to War or Peace ?

Prof Paul E M Reynolds


The recent escalation of the ‘Middle East conflict’ in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel may or may not provide an opportunity for a final settlement and peace. It depends on your interpretation of events. At the very least in order to save lives in the short term, it is worth considering how to make the ‘peace opportunity’ more likely to be pursued - and subsequently successful.

At one point on the compass you have the official Israel-USA version; a terrorist organization having usurped territory in Southern Lebanon, attacks an Israeli border post and captures two Israeli soldiers, and then fires hundreds of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Israel, using its right to defend itself, attacks Hizbullah assets, fighters and Lebanese-Hizbullah ‘re-supply’ infrastructure. To all intents & purposes, Israel defeats the terrorists and agrees a Lebanon-UN military force for Southern Lebanon to ensure the terrorists cannot operate in the same way again. Israeli attacks against Gaza and armed Hamas fighters, are similarly intended to prevent rocket attacks and defeat Hamas militarily.

Under this version of events, a negotiated peace is more likely if such terrorists are defeated and Israel feels more secure – and indeed if other security measures such as the wall between Israel and the Occupied Territories (OT), and continued partial Israeli withdrawal from the OT, are completed. An Israeli-supervised peace in the OT will enable implementation of the Two State Solution, whilst keeping Israel secure, and marginalize terrorist groups and their Syrian & Iranian backers, politically and militarily. In the background in this version is the implicit military threat from both Israel and the USA against Syria and especially Iran. Also implicit is that some political regimes in the region are implacably adversarial & undemocratic and reliant on the Palestinian conflict for their ‘popular legitimacy’, thus unwilling to be genuine partners in a peace process.

A second point on the compass has Israel and the USA as partners in a long military war against the Islamic world, with the USA funding aggression against Palestine and now Lebanon, as a way of keeping the Middle East cowed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of this process, as is the role of the USA against the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia, and US pressure on Iran over nuclear enrichment. The US ‘approved’ the Israeli attacks on Lebanon because any (planned) military attacks on Iran by the USA and Israel, would bring retaliatory action from Iranian-controlled Hizbullah against Israel. The Israeli attacks on Gaza - and both the Wall and lack of contiguous Palestinian territory in the West Bank – are part of a plan to encourage Palestinians to leave the OT altogether, prior to the expulsion of non-Jews from Israel. The only response for Moslem nations is a military one, and peace will come from a probable military stalemate arising from an asymmetric war, where, as with Hizbullah recently, the Israelis are in reality defeated.

At a further point on the compass is the version of events that describes Hizbullah as a local uprising formed only a year after the earlier Israeli invasion to resist and expel the Israeli military from Lebanon – which was eventually successful in 2000. Former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, a military man, having experienced the previous defeat in Lebanon, had been wary of a full-blown conflict with Hizbullah since 2000, and small-scale skirmishes and border raids were thus ‘tolerated’ and prisoners sometimes exchanged. However, in July 2006 Prime Minister Olmert, not being a military man, was unable to resist Israeli military demands for a ‘re-match’ against Hizbullah, triggered by the next border skirmish. Olmert’s position was weakened by the Israeli military being headed by an Air Force man, who proposed an air war which would avoid the pre-2000 problems on the ground, experienced by the Israeli army. When the latest border skirmish happened the Israeli Air Force’s plan was put into effect. However, in the intervening 6 years since 2000, Hizbullah’s political and military strength (and local popularity) increased, based on their success in defeating Israel. Seeing a ‘re-match’ as an inevitability, and able to collect funds and technical support from many countries, Hizbullah were well prepared against the ground invasion, that would inevitably follow a failure to defeat Hizbullah with air power alone. They were also able to add a key negotiating factor to parallel the might of the Israeli Air Force - a large stockpile of medium-range rockets fired into Israel, as well as at Israeli tanks.

In this version of events, two defeats for Israel has fatally dented their military credibility, and given the panic re-supply of munitions from the USA to Israel (via the UK) dented the credibility of the USA too – to add to the defeat of the USA in Iraq. Thus peace will come from a humbled Israel - more willing to negotiate over Palestine and to help create a viable Palestinian state, ending the current ‘strangulation’ approach to the Two State Solution. This version also describes a strengthened Iran and Mid East Shia community, following events in Iraq, since Hizbullah is largely Shia.

In order to achieve peace in the region however, somehow these different versions of events, and other versions like them, must be reconciled. There is a small time window over the coming months to remake the path to peace.

Following the recent conflict, reconciling these different versions of the truth is difficult but not impossible. The obstacles are deep-rooted and enormously complex – but understanding them is uncomfortably necessary.

First there is the ‘victory mentality’ which has evolved over years of attrition. Any ‘peace settlement’ must now be seen in Israel as a ‘victory’. The current US Presidency has fuelled this with its amorphous political device ‘the War on Terror’. This mentality in effect ‘created’ the recent disastrous Lebanon debacle. Syria, Iran and popular street culture in Iran and many Arab states, yearn for a ‘victory’ against Israel, reflected in the absurd ‘celebrations’ of a perceived Hizbullah military victory in Southern Lebanon. Overcoming the ‘victory mentality’ requires enormous political courage amongst world and regional leaders, the US, Iran and Syria included.

Second, there is the way in which long conflicts create a life of their own. Kosovo, Southern Sudan, Chechnya, and DRC are all examples. Israel receives billions of dollars in fund flows from the USA for civilian projects, many of them unhelpful to peace efforts. In addition, the sheer size of US military support and hardware shipments has a major effect on Israeli politics and real political power in Israeli civilian life. This can be seen in the legal position of the Israeli military with respect to Arab house demolitions in the Naqav Desert. Similarly, many conduits for munitions and social projects in and around the Occupied Palestinian Territories create a major ‘industry’ which make many Arab nationals particularly affluent. Those that benefit from peace in the Mid East – the mass of the population – have weak voices relative to the politically influential and economically power conflict-fed elites that have emerged. Political Arab nationalism is a useful tool for creating ‘legitimacy’, especially in Syria and Iran. Regimes from Iraq to the Western Maghreb play the Palestine card when they need to extract themselves from political hot water.

Third, a major obstacle to the achievement of peace is the dependence on fallible ‘world leaders’ in roles both as intermediaries between competing domestic political factions and in their role as ‘communicators’ to their populations and the world at large. World leaders involved in the conflict have not toured South Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Territories or understood local realities. They are dependent on competing military and foreign policy experts for information, most of which do not know the realities on the ground either. This gives opportunities for kleptocratic elites in the region to promote their self-serving versions of events and history. Achieving peace however requires acceptance by political leaders on all sides of some very uncomfortable truths.

The role of the USA in achieving peace has undoubtedly been weakened by their unquestioning support for Israel over the last 6 weeks. From the absence of a call for ceasefire or even restraint, to the branding of Hizbullsah as terrorists, and the statement that Hizbullah has been ‘defeated’, the US has given the impression that the USA’s current regime is now following Israeli policy rather than using its clout to ensure peace. Its role as a potential ‘honest broker’ has potentially been fatally wounded. The question hangs in the air – who will ‘achieve’ peace ? It is now likely to be the EU and the new group of countries that will comprise the UN force in Lebanon.

But still there are uncomfortable realities, which require recognition as part of the equation if a new path to peace is to be established.

One is that it is likely that a key driver of the recent conflict in Lebanon and Israel was the rapid emergence of the prospects of a new path to peace during May and June this year. The conciliatory Hamas ‘Prisoner Statement’, finally accepted by the Hamas government only days before the attack on Lebanon, implied Hamas’ acceptance of the right of Israel to exist, highly worrisome for Syria and to an extent the Syrian wing of Hamas. This was also alarming for the Iranian regime who had gained a measure of mass support in the Arab world for their call for the dissolution of a ‘Jewish State’, inter alia. It would have been peace without a ‘victory’.

In parallel, parts of the Israeli military were horrified and somewhat wrong-footed by the Prisoner Statement. Worse for them were the discussions in Beirut in April, May & June this year for the implementation of UN resolutions in Lebanon, by the integration of Hizbullah into the regular armed forces, following the exit of most of the Syrian military earlier this year. A strong Lebanese army with Hizbullah included, but Syria excluded, was a perceived political and military threat for Israel, and indeed very discomforting for Syria too.

A further uncomfortable truth is the reality of progress toward the Two State Solution in the Occupied Territories, on the ground. A Hamas/Olmert-led peace would have forced this out in the open. Heavily influenced by a politically powerful Israeli military and security sector, the Israeli wall/barrier inside the Occupied Territories has created prison-like enclaves around places like Bethlehem and parts of Jerusalem, and has effectively annexed parts of the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, where local houses have been summarily demolished. The problems have been compounded by an Israeli motorway and road tunnel network in the West Bank, (on which Palestinian access is restricted), which have enclave effects and severely reduce ‘Two State’ viability. It is very unlikely that Western political leaders have sufficient awareness of these uncomfortable outcomes, and undoubtedly progress towards a peaceful ‘Two State’ settlement would create the need to reveal and address these physical viability obstacles for a Palestinian state - obstacles created by Israel with US dollars.

It is also uncomfortable for Iran and for political Islam more generally that Palestinian politics is a three-way fight between Islamisists, secular-socialists mirroring undemocratic regimes in the region (often Moscow-educated ex-Tunis old school Palestinians – the ‘kleptocrats’ as some say), and the more liberal ‘European’ Palestinians. The more ‘European’ liberal Palestinian leaders broadly are those who remained in Palestine over the last 25 years and have much in common with the current Lebanese Government. There is much that is European about Palestinian society, and it is a fact that extreme Islam is not universally popular. The reality is that Palestinians did not vote for Hamas because of their religious fervour. They voted for Hamas because they were focused on direct benefits and communal services for their populations.

They also voted for Hamas because of perceptions that Fatah was a kleptocratic elite interested in using the mechanisms of state for self-enrichment and ‘party enrichment’, more than benefits for the populace - in the old model of Syria, Egypt, Iran and other states in the region.

The 3-way battle in Palestinian politics cuts across religious lines, and as uncomfortable as it is for both the US and for Political Islam, large numbers of Palestinian Christians voted for Hamas too, as the less kleptocratic option.

What’s more the current regime in the USA is influenced by the extreme Christian right – and now by ‘Pro-Zionist’ Christian groups. This has created another absurdity – US Christian groups supporting lawful discrimination in Israel against Christian towns and villages in the ‘Holy Land’. Peace will threaten the religious contortions which underpin the Christian Right’s political stances in the USA towards Israel, and weaken key, carefully cultivated, sources of support for the US Republican Party.

The potential net effect of recent US policy is that the current Washington regime can no longer sit at the head of the negotiating table, flanked by the Europeans. The negotiating dynamics have changed. The US in effect now sits on one side of the table with Israel as a joint party to be negotiated with. Actions of the US administration are now increasingly seen as ratcheting up the strength or their side’s negotiating position, rather than steps towards peace. It may well be true that key parts of the US administration see peace efforts as naïve – the game being all about restricting Iran’s regional ambitions. However current US policy has not been successful in this respect. Uncomfortable for some, a peace agreement over Palestine, and the economic boom in the region that will follow, (and the dramatic drop in oil prices) would clearly narrow the excesses of Iranian and Syrian leaderships.

It will now, therefore, fall to the Europeans and the new ‘Lebanon Group’ to drive a broader settlement forward. The main features are already known. UN resolutions in Lebanon are being implemented by the integration of Hizbullah into the formal Lebanese military. This is already de facto underway. Israel will implement UN resolutions and agree to a phased return to its original borders, a process with wide implications for negotiations with Syria, for Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and for the wall or ‘security barrier’. Perhaps more importantly, free trade and labour movement will soften siege mentality and enclave concerns. Palestinians would be given free access to the est Bank motorway an tunnel system, and access would be extended to Palestinian towns in the West Bank.

In practice a peace settlement would consist of an overall regional economic settlement including labour movement, resource access and external/internal transport communications – which would increase economic interdependence, (not unlike the Bosnia process). It would also include several issue-specific agreements covering Golan, Israeli West Bank settlements, an refugees inside and outside the region. Some innovations may emerge such as the conditional offer of Palestinian citizenship to Israeli settlers, and the repeal of Israeli legislation that discriminates against non-Jewish citizens; Christians, Moslems and others.

The current US administration and its successor, has a choice to make too. They could take this window of opportunity to throw their weight behind an overall internal and regional settlement, an end to violence, and several problem-solving processes. This would certainly help with the problem of the sheer extent of groups with an interest in the conflict continuing. It would also save the US from the continuing fallout from the recent Lebanon debacle, which is damaging to US interests. The beneficiaries of a settlement however will be Israeli citizens, more secure and prosperous, a viable and increasingly ‘European’ Palestinan state, and a rapid reduction in regional poverty as the economic boom gains strength.

Notsolazyloosmuze.....what's Campbell got that Cameron hasn't?

That David Cameron is a sweetheart - could eat him for breakfast.............but certainly wouldn't keep me going until lunch! A bit like a glass of champagne which is all bubbles tickling your nose and making you giggle, but get to the bottom and there is nothing there.

The criticism that Dave is all spin and no substance at last seems to be getting through to the electorate. Where's the beef? No policies just fluffy cuddly words and a nice smile.........to quote a pal.........he's not all that and a bag of chips! The recent YouGov poll found that 54% of those polled think it is " hard to know what the Conservative Party stands for at the moment." Maybe we'll get a bit of an idea later this week????

So, with a discredited Labour Party, a Tory Party with little to say for itself except when it's stealing our clothes, what has our Ming got that their Dave hasn't? Returning to the food metaphor - it seems to me Dave has the Turkey Twizzler whilst Ming has not only the steak but the five portions of fruit and veg as well! The challenge for him and for us is to communicate that in a way that connects with the electorate. Whether we like it or not in our instant gratification, passive consumerist age, our messages must be communicated in bite size pieces. And it must be communicated in a way which engages and inspires. Here frankly is our biggest problem at the moment. We all know our party has sound well crafted policies, now we need our leader to communicate them effectively. I say this with a heavy heart, Ming was such a credit to our party on Foreign Affairs, he was a giant on Iraq, he was a great deputy, but that has not as yet translated into his leadership.

We may despise the shallow packaging of Cameron - but its colour and sparkle are what attract the attention. At a time when the British people are as cynical as they have ever been about politics and politicians we must at least get them to look at our product.