As secretary of Hackney Lib Dems, I have to organise the AGM. In fact I organise a lot of what we do in Hackney.
Last year I started too late, so this year I am determined not to repeat the error.
I wanted a speaker who would get a lot of our members to come along. I wanted a venue that could hold a lot of people. And it all came together. Charles Kennedy agreed to come. And thanks to Meral, we secured the Alevi Centre, a superb venue for our event.
As organiser I did feel anxious, but it was a great success. Charles was delayed by a vote in the commons, but Brian got things started, and when Charles did arrive he gave an excellent speech.
I asked him to speak on civil liberties, and he particularly emphasised the shocking statistics on Stop and Search, and how ethnic and religious minorities are unfairly targetted by the police.
This is the second big event I organised this year. Earlier I invited Chris Huhne over for our garden party, and now I have to think about next year ...
I have some ideas, I hope they come off.
Monday 26 November 2007
Monday 12 November 2007
US power is in decline - but where does that leave liberalism?
Prior to the war in Iraq, there were many happy outcomes expected by the US administration from the war.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
--
The (US) administration continues to insist that the president must be free to determine what counts as torture. Vice president Dick Cheney, asked on a radio program whether he was in favour of a "dunk in the water" for terrorist detainees replied that he was, declaring that the question was a "no brainer for me". Techniques of "water-boarding" - a form of torture used by the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia, and whose use against Americans in the second world war resulted in a Japanese officer being sentenced to fifteen years hard labour - are not prohibited and can be practised routinely by the US. The same is true for sleep deprivation, a method of torture used in Guantanamo that was employed by the NKVD in Stalinist Soviet Union to generate "confessions" in the show trials of the 1930s. Torture techniques involving sensory deprivation which were used by the Chinese on American POWs in the Korean war have also been used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested as an enermy combatant and arrested without charge on a naval brig in South Carolina from mid 2002 until January 2006. By any internationally accepted standard of what constitutes torture, the world's pre-eminant liberal regime has committed itself to the practice as a matter of national policy. Along with this there has been a shift away from the consitutional traditions that curbed American government in the past. The vote by the Senate on 28th September 2006 that allowed the president the authority to determine what counts as torture also suspended habeas corpus for people detained as terrorist suspects, denying them their right to know the offense with which they have been charged and to challenge their detention in court. Henceforth anyone charged with involvement in terrorism - not only foreign nationals but US citizens - can be detained without charge and held indefinitely. In effect this put the executive above the law while placing citizenry outside it. Taken together with the Patriot Acts, which permit surveillence of the entire American population, the US has suffered a loss of freedom that has no parallel in any mature democracy.
--
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
--
The (US) administration continues to insist that the president must be free to determine what counts as torture. Vice president Dick Cheney, asked on a radio program whether he was in favour of a "dunk in the water" for terrorist detainees replied that he was, declaring that the question was a "no brainer for me". Techniques of "water-boarding" - a form of torture used by the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia, and whose use against Americans in the second world war resulted in a Japanese officer being sentenced to fifteen years hard labour - are not prohibited and can be practised routinely by the US. The same is true for sleep deprivation, a method of torture used in Guantanamo that was employed by the NKVD in Stalinist Soviet Union to generate "confessions" in the show trials of the 1930s. Torture techniques involving sensory deprivation which were used by the Chinese on American POWs in the Korean war have also been used on Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested as an enermy combatant and arrested without charge on a naval brig in South Carolina from mid 2002 until January 2006. By any internationally accepted standard of what constitutes torture, the world's pre-eminant liberal regime has committed itself to the practice as a matter of national policy. Along with this there has been a shift away from the consitutional traditions that curbed American government in the past. The vote by the Senate on 28th September 2006 that allowed the president the authority to determine what counts as torture also suspended habeas corpus for people detained as terrorist suspects, denying them their right to know the offense with which they have been charged and to challenge their detention in court. Henceforth anyone charged with involvement in terrorism - not only foreign nationals but US citizens - can be detained without charge and held indefinitely. In effect this put the executive above the law while placing citizenry outside it. Taken together with the Patriot Acts, which permit surveillence of the entire American population, the US has suffered a loss of freedom that has no parallel in any mature democracy.
--
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
US power is in decline - but where does that leave liberalism?
Prior to the war in Iraq, there were many happy outcomes expected by the US administration from the war.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
<<>>
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
A democratic Iraq would be grateful to the US and would elect a friendly government. Isreal would be safer. Iraq's prosperity from it's considerable oil reserves would refund the US for the war, and would help bring prosperity to the country. In fact oil would be cheaper, and the world less dependent on Saudi Arabia, an unreliable ally after the 911 bombings by Saudi terrorists. Surronding countries would start to notice that liberal democracy brings stability and prosperity. Public opinion in the Middle East would shift. Most of those who previously admired Osama Bin Ladan would give up on that, and idolise George Bush instead.
Liberals who opposed the war, and who banged on about international law would look pathetic. Who cares about the lies about WMD? The people of Iraq would be free.
Instead the nature of the defeat has even taken liberals by surprise. At various times there appear to be moments of victory. The initial invasion was swift. Saddam's henchmen get caught or killed, including his sons. People voted in democratic elections. Saddam Hussein gets caught. Then he is executed. And now the surge is "working".
Yet these are all false dawns.
The national government can barely hold together. It doesn't have much power anyway. The police and the army are infiltrated. The Kurdish region is a de facto independent state, and may draw Turkey into a bloody conflict. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are exploiting the opportunities to spread their influence (Iran being the big winner of course). Even if the fortunes of Al Qaeda are up and down, the religious extremists and criminal gangs are terrorising the population, many of whom are leaving as refugees.
Iraq today must be one of the worst countries in the world to live.
All this has little to do with international law. It was striking at the Lib Dem conference that even Paddy Ashdown was arguing that in Liberal interventions, the first thing you do not do is introduce democracy. In a democracy in a divided country, the people vote for the extremes in order to get the best deal in any settlement.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Sunnis who previously had control under Saddam Hussein. As a minority, they stood to lose everything within a democracy. Majority rule is unacceptable to them, and they will fight the Shia to the bitter end.
The battle is not as unequal as it may seem. Under Saddam Hussein, the army was run by the Sunnis, and they know about military tactics. This makes them superior as a fighting force, despite the bravery of the Mehdi army.
Democracy more often divides rather than unites.
This has been noticed of course.
The EU is not such a wonderful club to join anymore. Previously it looked like an opportunity to become prosperous. Instead the anxiety is that the new countries will level down the prosperity of the EU, and introduce ethnic and religious minorities that do not "fit in". East Europe and the Islamic world are starting to take offence. Maybe they are not so keen to join.
The new emerging powers in the world sho no sign of adopting liberal values, notably Russia and China.
Some of us may want to rely on the US for upholding Liberal values. But as John Gray has pointed out, the paradox of their Liberal Imperialism in Iraq has acheived the opposite.
<<>>
Democracy is far from defeated of course. The US, western Europe, Australia remain prosperous, and India is marching ahead. Even in Africa, democratic regimes appear to be more prosperous for now.
The US budget deficit is funded largely by the Chinese, who is a strong ally of Iran who feels they can resist the US come what may. US oil comes largely from Venezuala, the profits of which undermine US foreign policy in South America.
Some will see the decline of US power as a good thing. That the US had so much power pre-Iraq war, much of it illusionary as we now know was not a good thing in itself, but neither is the emergence of China and Russia, who do not even pretend to believe in the same values. And their is little sign that the EU is growing in influence.
One major flashpoint for the future is Taiwain. China is in all liklelihood calculating when to invade. No need to rush, events are taking their course. The US is still very powerful in having a very powerful military with no equal in the world. No much use was it in Iraq, but still a concern for China no doubt.
So we simply do not know when the confrontation will take place, or what the consequences will be. I suspect this will be a defining moment in world history, when it arrives.
Why no debate about the leadership candidates cars?
Funny isn't it how during the last leadership election, the media made a big thing about the candidates cars.
But this time ... nothing!
No doubt Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg have appropriate cars this time, so nothing to write about.
Last time it was Ming who was caught out. The Liberal Democrats consider global warming the most important issue of all, so how can Ming drive a Jag?
Well the logic took over, and he got rid of it ... carefully.
But it is worth considering how this impacts on another Lib Dem theme, one pushed by the very powerful Centre Forum. What about aspiration?
If you are amitious and successful, then of course you want a Jag - assuming you fit the stereotype.
So where does selling your Jag fit in to aspiration?
All this talk of aspiration leaves behind others who also contribute to society.
Carers of the disabled can do a valuble job, and maybe do it for the love of it. But when politicians talk of aspiration, where to they fit in?
I believe that those who are public spirited, and often working in the public services are natural liberals. They may not want a flash car or the latest designer clothes. But ofthen they contribute more to society than those who do.
Now that the scope for enrichez-vous is diminishing as we have to learn to live within the environmental limits of the planet, and as the global balance of power shifts from west to east, we need to think carefully about how liberalism is going to appeal in our changing society.
But this time ... nothing!
No doubt Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg have appropriate cars this time, so nothing to write about.
Last time it was Ming who was caught out. The Liberal Democrats consider global warming the most important issue of all, so how can Ming drive a Jag?
Well the logic took over, and he got rid of it ... carefully.
But it is worth considering how this impacts on another Lib Dem theme, one pushed by the very powerful Centre Forum. What about aspiration?
If you are amitious and successful, then of course you want a Jag - assuming you fit the stereotype.
So where does selling your Jag fit in to aspiration?
All this talk of aspiration leaves behind others who also contribute to society.
Carers of the disabled can do a valuble job, and maybe do it for the love of it. But when politicians talk of aspiration, where to they fit in?
I believe that those who are public spirited, and often working in the public services are natural liberals. They may not want a flash car or the latest designer clothes. But ofthen they contribute more to society than those who do.
Now that the scope for enrichez-vous is diminishing as we have to learn to live within the environmental limits of the planet, and as the global balance of power shifts from west to east, we need to think carefully about how liberalism is going to appeal in our changing society.
Saturday 3 November 2007
A question of terrorism
It is not a pleasent experience, but it is useful to find out what the other side think. So sometimes I read the Sun. And sometimes I visit the Fox News website and listen to Bill O'Reilly.
For a while Bill O'Reilly has been (sadly) getting the better of Liberals by asking them; "Do you want us to win in Iraq?"
It seems like a yes or no answer. Say yes, and you support George Bush. Say no, and you want US troops to get killed and defeated.
The correct answer of course, is whether you like it or not, the US is already defeated in Iraq, and should pull out and stop wasting the lives of their troops.
And now there is a film with Meryl Streep, and the question "Do you want us to win the war against terrorism?" is described as "quintessential" and "unanswerable". I am sure Bill O'Reilly is loving this, as it is his question.
But predictably in his latest broadcast he decides to sound angry - he is good at that. What he argues is common sense as far as it goes. "If you do not want us to win the war against terrorism, you are a Moron".
In one sense he is right. If we can do away with terrorism, life would be so much better. The point however is that the question misses the point. The "war against terrorism", like the "war against drugs" cannot be won. There is no endpoint to this war, whether we like it or not.
We can do things to lessen it. We can invest more in police work, we can improve relations with those communities that mights otherwise habour terrorists, support the moderates to marginalise the extremists. Or we can aggravate it, clamp down on civil liberties, persue an aggressive foreign policy.
The myth that "evil can be destroyed" is an attempt to create Utopia. Evil has always existed, it is Utopian to imagine that it can ever be destroyed. An attempt to "Destroy Evil" was made in Iraq, and all it did was create even more evil than existed before, remarkably.
So why the difficulty in answering the question? Partly it is the penchant for Bill O'Reilly to target the weakest Liberals, often celebrities, or the tiny number of people who make up the far left, like Rosie O'Donnell.
And partly I think because the US has a culture of optimism. You cannot say that something cannot be done, that something is insoluble.
Such optimism is disasterous. The US invaded Iraq, and no siginificant US politician would dare say that regardless of international law, you simply cannot get away with doing this, it cannot be done.
Optimism or pessimism in themselves are neither good or bad. They are appropriate when connected to realism, to be realistic is more important than anything else.
And currently the US political establishment could do with some more pessimism before they bomb Iran.
For a while Bill O'Reilly has been (sadly) getting the better of Liberals by asking them; "Do you want us to win in Iraq?"
It seems like a yes or no answer. Say yes, and you support George Bush. Say no, and you want US troops to get killed and defeated.
The correct answer of course, is whether you like it or not, the US is already defeated in Iraq, and should pull out and stop wasting the lives of their troops.
And now there is a film with Meryl Streep, and the question "Do you want us to win the war against terrorism?" is described as "quintessential" and "unanswerable". I am sure Bill O'Reilly is loving this, as it is his question.
But predictably in his latest broadcast he decides to sound angry - he is good at that. What he argues is common sense as far as it goes. "If you do not want us to win the war against terrorism, you are a Moron".
In one sense he is right. If we can do away with terrorism, life would be so much better. The point however is that the question misses the point. The "war against terrorism", like the "war against drugs" cannot be won. There is no endpoint to this war, whether we like it or not.
We can do things to lessen it. We can invest more in police work, we can improve relations with those communities that mights otherwise habour terrorists, support the moderates to marginalise the extremists. Or we can aggravate it, clamp down on civil liberties, persue an aggressive foreign policy.
The myth that "evil can be destroyed" is an attempt to create Utopia. Evil has always existed, it is Utopian to imagine that it can ever be destroyed. An attempt to "Destroy Evil" was made in Iraq, and all it did was create even more evil than existed before, remarkably.
So why the difficulty in answering the question? Partly it is the penchant for Bill O'Reilly to target the weakest Liberals, often celebrities, or the tiny number of people who make up the far left, like Rosie O'Donnell.
And partly I think because the US has a culture of optimism. You cannot say that something cannot be done, that something is insoluble.
Such optimism is disasterous. The US invaded Iraq, and no siginificant US politician would dare say that regardless of international law, you simply cannot get away with doing this, it cannot be done.
Optimism or pessimism in themselves are neither good or bad. They are appropriate when connected to realism, to be realistic is more important than anything else.
And currently the US political establishment could do with some more pessimism before they bomb Iran.
Will the US attack Iran?
Well the economic sanctions are now in place.
But what next?
It amazes me that the US Republicans are a party that knows what it wants, but not in Iran. The US administration is now caught. I suspect the dithering about whether to attack Iran is because they are having difficulty in working out how they can get a good outcome from doing this.
And yet if they sensibly calculate that nothing good can come from this, then how can they justify the way they encouraged public opinion to expect an attack in the first place?
Surely "chickening out" is what the Democrats do?
So in making a choice, they are dammed either way. But for how long can they go on without making a choice?
We still have a year of Bush rule, is he going to dither for that long? And what will they say about it on the campaign trail?
And what is Labour going to say? They supported the Isreali invasion of Lebonan, but things have changed since then. Will they support bombing Iran, or do they agree with Jack Straw that bombing Iran is "Nuts"?
Jack Staw lost his job soon after he said that of course.
But what next?
It amazes me that the US Republicans are a party that knows what it wants, but not in Iran. The US administration is now caught. I suspect the dithering about whether to attack Iran is because they are having difficulty in working out how they can get a good outcome from doing this.
And yet if they sensibly calculate that nothing good can come from this, then how can they justify the way they encouraged public opinion to expect an attack in the first place?
Surely "chickening out" is what the Democrats do?
So in making a choice, they are dammed either way. But for how long can they go on without making a choice?
We still have a year of Bush rule, is he going to dither for that long? And what will they say about it on the campaign trail?
And what is Labour going to say? They supported the Isreali invasion of Lebonan, but things have changed since then. Will they support bombing Iran, or do they agree with Jack Straw that bombing Iran is "Nuts"?
Jack Staw lost his job soon after he said that of course.
The Liberal Democrats and the Greens
The Lib Dems say that the Greens are Marxists. The Greens say that the Lib Dems are neo-Liberals.
Both are mostly wrong, but have an element of truth all the same. The Lib Dems need to sharpen up their critique of capitalism, even though fundamentally we are a capitalist party and rightly so. As Chris Huhne points out, the private sector is often seriously deficient in running the public services. We need to be clear about that, and we also object to the absurd distortions in wealth allocation and the damaging impact of the “externalities” of businesses that damage the environment and exploit the consumer and the workforce.
Even Green Marxists have a point that the advertising industry encourages us to consume more than we otherwise would, but from a Green point of view we should (generally speaking) consume less.
That said, John Stuart Mill made a similar point when he wrote in favour of the “stationary state”.
There are some Marxists in the Green party. However they did NOT go into coalition with Respect, and culturally they do not fit in with that kind of Old Left politics. The truth is that many Greens are Liberals, and it is because of our electoral system that we have to be competitive with them. And we better watch out. Becuase no doubt it is tempting to dismiss them as Marxists (and imply they are the same kind of Marxists as Stalin and Lenin). But of Lib Dem supporters, 30% say their second preference is the Green party. If we attack the Green party vociferously along these lines, it may imply that we are ourselves not just anti-Green, but also anti-green.
Historically the Greens did take our vote away in the 1990 (I think) Euro-Elections, finishing with 15% to our 6%. This was at the time of the merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
Personally I was worried that with our opinion poll ratings drifting down to 11% history could repeat.
Now that we are about to replace our leader with someone more popular, and with our ratings already drifting up to 18%, I think there is less danger of that now.
However the Greens threaten us more than anyone else, and we need to handle them with care. Not just in national opinion polls, but we also need highly motivated activists to help in our community politics. We need their Liberals to join us.
It is a shame we are in competition with them, but until we have a fair voting system, then the Greens should really join with us.
Both are mostly wrong, but have an element of truth all the same. The Lib Dems need to sharpen up their critique of capitalism, even though fundamentally we are a capitalist party and rightly so. As Chris Huhne points out, the private sector is often seriously deficient in running the public services. We need to be clear about that, and we also object to the absurd distortions in wealth allocation and the damaging impact of the “externalities” of businesses that damage the environment and exploit the consumer and the workforce.
Even Green Marxists have a point that the advertising industry encourages us to consume more than we otherwise would, but from a Green point of view we should (generally speaking) consume less.
That said, John Stuart Mill made a similar point when he wrote in favour of the “stationary state”.
There are some Marxists in the Green party. However they did NOT go into coalition with Respect, and culturally they do not fit in with that kind of Old Left politics. The truth is that many Greens are Liberals, and it is because of our electoral system that we have to be competitive with them. And we better watch out. Becuase no doubt it is tempting to dismiss them as Marxists (and imply they are the same kind of Marxists as Stalin and Lenin). But of Lib Dem supporters, 30% say their second preference is the Green party. If we attack the Green party vociferously along these lines, it may imply that we are ourselves not just anti-Green, but also anti-green.
Historically the Greens did take our vote away in the 1990 (I think) Euro-Elections, finishing with 15% to our 6%. This was at the time of the merger between the Liberals and the SDP.
Personally I was worried that with our opinion poll ratings drifting down to 11% history could repeat.
Now that we are about to replace our leader with someone more popular, and with our ratings already drifting up to 18%, I think there is less danger of that now.
However the Greens threaten us more than anyone else, and we need to handle them with care. Not just in national opinion polls, but we also need highly motivated activists to help in our community politics. We need their Liberals to join us.
It is a shame we are in competition with them, but until we have a fair voting system, then the Greens should really join with us.
Rememberance Day
The political and religious establishment gather together for Rememberance day. It is tempting as a radical, seeing such dignatories to switch off, but it would be wrong to do so.
It is not really about them. I am personally lucky to live at a time and in a place where I have not had to even contemplate going to war.
Yet in WW2, there was no choice. And as history shows, Naziism had to be defeated, it was the most poisoness ideology ever witnessed.
So when I forget about the rather conservative nature of the event, I find myself in awe of what my previous generation managed to do.
And lets be clear, it is right that the political and religious establish take part in this. It would be intolerable if they did not. And it is right the event is conservative in nature. Conservative means reluctant to change. And this is an event that honour people who died many years ago, it should not change.
Also we remember those who died in other wars, and some more recent ones. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But I do not blame our armed forces for that. I sympathise for the intolerable circumstances they were put in, brought about by the real villians; the politicians who sent them there.
And then of course there are wars that do not involve the British. We do not have a day to remember them. No doubt it is not practical to do this, but minimising the amount of war in the world does not seem to be a high enough priority for the kind of establishment politicians we will be seeing on Rememberance day.
It is not really about them. I am personally lucky to live at a time and in a place where I have not had to even contemplate going to war.
Yet in WW2, there was no choice. And as history shows, Naziism had to be defeated, it was the most poisoness ideology ever witnessed.
So when I forget about the rather conservative nature of the event, I find myself in awe of what my previous generation managed to do.
And lets be clear, it is right that the political and religious establish take part in this. It would be intolerable if they did not. And it is right the event is conservative in nature. Conservative means reluctant to change. And this is an event that honour people who died many years ago, it should not change.
Also we remember those who died in other wars, and some more recent ones. I was opposed to the war in Iraq. But I do not blame our armed forces for that. I sympathise for the intolerable circumstances they were put in, brought about by the real villians; the politicians who sent them there.
And then of course there are wars that do not involve the British. We do not have a day to remember them. No doubt it is not practical to do this, but minimising the amount of war in the world does not seem to be a high enough priority for the kind of establishment politicians we will be seeing on Rememberance day.
Friday 2 November 2007
Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds
Historically Liberals have been sympathetic to the Kurds. They are a people without a nation, and how been oppressed by the governments of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
They have fought back, but the power of these states has always kept them at bay.
If you are denied constitutional protection as minority, and denied democratic rights, it seems reasonable that you have a right to fight back.
Recently there has been a breakthrough for the Kurds. Turkey wants to join the EU. Democracy and human rights have improved for the Kurds living in Turkey. Progress has been made.
Then the setback. Turkey is an ally of the US, but when the US invaded Iraq, Turkey was put in an impossible position. They do not want an independent Kurdish state in the region, because that may mean the Kurds in Turkey will want one too.
So relations with the US took a turn for the worse, and Turkish politicians once again stepped up the anti-Kurdish rhetoric.
Now of course Turkey is attacking the Kurdish part of Iraq and the PKK.
The PKK are a resistance organisation of the Kurdish people. In many parts of the world, including the UK, they are considered terrorists.
The PKK did not do well in the recent elections in Turkey, which could be taken as a good sign; that Kurds are moderating their views after the recent improvements they have experienced.
But the signs in Hackney (and maybe Turkey as well?) is that Kurds are rallying round the PKK again.
So how should Liberals propose intervening? Should we take sides as we have done in the past, or should we be impartial and try to aim for a political solution?
Tough call. I suspect there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, unfortunately...
They have fought back, but the power of these states has always kept them at bay.
If you are denied constitutional protection as minority, and denied democratic rights, it seems reasonable that you have a right to fight back.
Recently there has been a breakthrough for the Kurds. Turkey wants to join the EU. Democracy and human rights have improved for the Kurds living in Turkey. Progress has been made.
Then the setback. Turkey is an ally of the US, but when the US invaded Iraq, Turkey was put in an impossible position. They do not want an independent Kurdish state in the region, because that may mean the Kurds in Turkey will want one too.
So relations with the US took a turn for the worse, and Turkish politicians once again stepped up the anti-Kurdish rhetoric.
Now of course Turkey is attacking the Kurdish part of Iraq and the PKK.
The PKK are a resistance organisation of the Kurdish people. In many parts of the world, including the UK, they are considered terrorists.
The PKK did not do well in the recent elections in Turkey, which could be taken as a good sign; that Kurds are moderating their views after the recent improvements they have experienced.
But the signs in Hackney (and maybe Turkey as well?) is that Kurds are rallying round the PKK again.
So how should Liberals propose intervening? Should we take sides as we have done in the past, or should we be impartial and try to aim for a political solution?
Tough call. I suspect there is a lot more to this than meets the eye, unfortunately...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)