Martin's View

Why the Army is Wrong for London.

2011-08-08T23:44:00.000+01:00

I tweeted the following tonight:

Disappointed by how many of my fellow Liberal Democrats are calling for the Army and water cannon. Property can be replaced: lives cannot.

It got a fair amount of reaction(!). So here are my reasons in a fuller form:

The army is not the police. They are trained to kill and not to use non-fatal force with due restraint.

The vast majority of the rioting is criminal and not political but there are political elements who would delight to see blood flowing in the streets of London due to the over-reaction of the State. They should not be given another Peterloo or Bloody Sunday.

The army on the streets of Northern
Ireland did not deter rioting nor succeed in keeping the peace.

The deployment of the army would increase the the chance of deaths and not decrease it.

Mobilise the police on a national basis to ensure that the Met has the manpower and resources necessary to regain control of the capital.

Straighten Up and Fly Right

2011-05-09T03:45:00.002+01:00

That did not go to plan did it. The devastating results of the Scottish elections for we Liberal Democrats were partially expected but perhaps not to that full extent. In Edinburgh Eastern, I polled twelve percent down and a casual cast around showed this to be about average. Even in seats that were strongly contested with everything thrown into the fight, we were lucky to avoid a double-digit drop. What went wrong?

Let’s give due credit. The SNP ran a good campaign. Labour on the other hand ran a shockingly bad one. Liberal Democrats worked hard, as usual, and Tavish Scott actually came across well to the public. I know this because that was the feedback I was getting on the doorstep.

During the general election of 2010, we Liberal Democrats campaigned on the grounds of “we’re different.” Tories and Labour were the “same two old tired parties.” Nick Clegg was simply brilliant in the televised debates. The media was in a frenzy; not just with our performance but with the possibility of a hung parliament. Lo! It duly arrived but not how the public thought it would be. Instead of a Labour / Libdem pact, the current Coalition emerged.

Labour, never shy when it comes to negative campaigning, turned their guns upon us. The press, both left and right-wing followed because hate sells. And their combined campaign has obviously succeeded. We have become hate figures, even among some of our own supporters.

Not only that, we were not shy in self-inflicted injuries. The tuition fees increase is a policy that we introduced, piloted by the trusted Vince Cable and championed by Nick Clegg. The two most high profile people we have therefore led it. As critics at the time pointed out, the headline was a tripling of tuition fees in England. As I pointed out at the time, if we went with this we would lose all credibility: it was a policy that we diametrically opposed during the election. Pretty well all of our Westminster candidates signed the National Union of Students pledge of no increase to student fees. It does not matter one jot that the majority of our backbenchers in the House of Commons voted against it. Nick and Vince backed it therefore we, as a party were seen to back it. In the most public and obvious fashion we Liberal Democrats broke our word.

From Thursday night’s results it is clear that the SNP, although not shy at breaking promises themselves, are the beneficiaries of the combination of the negative campaign against us and our own mistakes in government. Next time somebody says that Westminster politics has no bearing upon the Scottish parliamentary elections, kick them. Then kick them again on my behalf. The SNP succeeded at our expense (and at Labour's) because they are simply not tainted with the “same old politics” of Westminster. That is how we were in April 2010.
Okay, so here we are. Rock bottom. What can we do to turn this around?

We have to look at technical details. Perhaps our excellent campaigning techniques are designed for opposition politics and not for government? Just a thought to throw out there. The main thing we have to do is from now on, match words to deeds.

To this end I have come up with The Liberal Test for any policy. In my view, government is there to serve the people and allow them to make real, effective decisions as close to the issue as possible. In addition, we are here to enable people to better themselves, their families and their own communities.

Therefore there are four questions we have to ask of any policy:

Will it encourage a person to advance in life?

Does it reduce the burden of the state upon that person?

Will more power be devolved from central government?

In bringing forward this policy, are we keeping our word?

Failure of a positive answer for any of these questions does not necessarily mean that the policy falls. But alarm bells should ring if two or more results in negative answers. For instance, the tuition fees increase fails on at least three counts.

Why is this important? There is more at play here than the future of the Liberal Democrat party. In Scotland especially but in the UK in general, liberalism itself is under threat. Both the SNP and Labour are authoritarian in nature and wish to centralise power, whether in Edinburgh or Westminster. The Conservatives, while talking about being liberal, seldom are able to walk-the-walk. Witness David Cameron’s speech on immigration and freedom of association he made in Germany a few months ago. He thinks he is a liberal but he is not. To a Conservative, the only good liberal is a classical liberal economist.

I have mentioned honouring our word several times now. What does that mean for the Coalition? Simple: it means sticking with it. As a party, we backed this in a special conference. We enter it in good faith and we continue to act so because we gave our word and commitment to this. That does not mean however that we are not being able to seen to disagree with our partners. We have to not only to be liberal, we have to be seen to be liberal. And that means public disagreement; not for show but because it is sincerely meant. We should not be afraid to stand up for what we believe in.
I used to joke that we had to hard: “It’s going to be liberal whether they like it or not.” Now I am not joking. Politically we live or die by our beliefs and how our words match our actions. Both voice and deed have to be liberal, democratic and true to our word. Anything else will simply not do.

And So The Tragedy Continues...

2011-03-20T16:23:00.001Z

It has been a sad couple of weeks.

The events that unfolded in Japan following their 9.0 earthquake have been truly horrifying. Many terrible images were presented and repeated on global television screens. The death toll, in main due to the tsunami, continues to rise as hope evaporate for finding those missing. I have not yet been to Japan but my father was a frequent visitor who loved the country, so it is with deep emotion I view the horrors that have come to pass. This horror have only been compounded by the effects of the disaster on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. I am not an expert on power stations but have received training on handling radioactive material and the effects of radioactive particles on the human body. Any enhancement above natural levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs in particular is not a joke: people will die through cancer because of it but since the effects will only be evident in statistics, they can usually be ignored by those who continue to support the use of nuclear energy. I always viewed nuclear power as the source of last resort; now I have to come out totally against it’s usage for large-scale energy generation. We will always have nuclear reactors; for instance their products are often have medical applications but we should not design facilities that if they fail, the potential for catastrophe is simply too great.

This morning we awoke to the news of air-strikes against Libya. Yes Gaddafi has proved himself to be a killer and now must fall but I have to be critical of the way that Foreign Secretary William Hague has handled the situation. The purpose of the no-fly zone should have been to allow violence to stop and not to escalate further thus allowing politics to re-establish itself. Since Hague came out for full regime-change this was simply no longer an option. Europe might as well as declared war on Libya from that point onwards.

Let me explain why.

Some of you might recall a blog I wrote in September 2009, Lockerbie: Business as Usual. http://tinyurl.com/6bk6ore . That blog put the decision of the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into context as I outlined the strategic nature of British and European links with Libya and why the Al Megrahi case wouldn’t, couldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of Europe’s quest for natural gas that does not originate in Russia.. That is still the case so how could Britain maintain relations once regime-change has been called for? It would also explain why France has been so quick of the mark on this occasion. Germany on the other hand has stood back. I wonder if this has anything to do with renewed exploration for small-scale gas-fields in Poland?

Gaddafi has proved himself to be a terrible ruler and in doing so encouraged those who wish to see him overthrown bring full military weight to bear. He had nothing to loose when turning to the Chinese and Russians as potential energy partners, as he did this week. My guess was any such offer would have been also an attempt to gain a veto from either or both in the UN Security Council.

As for the people of Libya, let me quote a friend of mine who was evacuated from there a few weeks back. To put it in context, he was responding to John Kerry’s call for sanctions against the Gaddafi regime.

“I am an American trying to get out of Tripoli. Your suggestion of sanctions against Libya will only create hardship for the good people of Libya. History has already shown sanctions of such only creates hardship for the wrong people. Please refrain from such suggestions until the crisis days are over and the dust settles. Such suggestions at a critical time is blowing smoke in the wrong direction.”

Owing of the trade implications for Europe and investment already made by BP, trade sanctions were never an option. The situation has to end now in the overthrow of Gaddafi.

The smoke is now blowing for real. My guess that the five nations involved in the attacks will be satisfied with an Egyptian-style military take-over. As long as the investments are protected.
I hope that it will be soon over and that the people of Libya will be in control of their own destiny and be free in their own country with minimum of casualties.

"Well, what would you do?" Vince Cable's question on Tuition Fees

2010-12-11T10:44:00.001Z

There has indeed been much heart-wrung anguish among us Liberal Democrats on the issue of student tuition fees and plenty of opportunity for opponents to join in giving us a kicking. Hard for us, fun for them but I don’t hear many alternatives being put forward by either friend or foe.
Instead of flailing out in anger against party colleagues who support the rise in fees, truly I understand and salute the bravery of those being seen to be able to take a hard decision in the face of terrible abuse and opposition. I could not share that decision though.
It is still the policy of the Liberal Democrat party to abolish student tuition fees, not that many will believe that now. Now is it not my intention to keep this particular wound open but we need a mechanism to bring this about and what follows is my outline suggestion.

The current argument is that students should pay because they are the ones that benefit from the education. My point is that they are not the only ones. The businesses that hire graduates also benefit from their abilities and (tend to) pay graduates extra in recognition of this.
What if instead of taxing the graduates, the employers are taxed, say, one percent of the gross amount paid to their graduate employees?

This levy would be payable against all graduate employees and not just new graduates, therefore taking away the argument that those before are taking up the ladder behind them.

Because it is levied on all graduate employees, it doesn't matter where the person graduated from. So foreign graduates working in the UK would be contributing to our university system.

The levy would have to be a percentile of earnings because if it was a fixed amount, a librarian would end up paying the same as a hedge-fund manager.

Some would say that this is a hidden graduate tax and in a way it is as over time business would doubtless reduce graduate pay to cover the charge of the levy. But it is very rare that people emigrate for the sake of one percent and owing to the fact that the levy would not appear on pay slips, most people would know that it is there but it would not be strongly emotive about it.

Arguments against would be increased costs on business but over time pay would be adjusted to reflect this cost - as discussed above.

Another case would be those students who already are repaying their student tuition fees. Obviously upon introduction the repayments on student tuition would be frozen and probably the outstanding debt cancelled.

Because it is a percentile levy, some will undoubtedly end up paying more for their tuition than others owing to the predicted depression in wages. These will be the highest paid though so there is an element of wealth redistribution in the policy.

Some jobs would have to be exempt and these would be jobs which are not usually performed by graduates but in which individuals are employed. For instance, factory workers in non-graduate posts, catering and some agricultural work. This is perhaps the trickiest element as it provides loopholes for employers but it is necessary because not all graduates do end up in high-flying careers and they should be able to compete on an equal basis for non-graduate jobs.

The self-employed would have to pay the levy as there would be otherwise a loophole which would allow employers to contract work to the self-employed who are in reality employees in all but name.

So, to my mind a fair system that delivers on our promise of no student tuition fees and guarantees finance for a top-draw tertiary education and research system.

I would welcome discussion on this issue and have published the kernel of this argument on the relevent page of Lib Dem Act - just press on the title for the link.

UNA NATO's New Strategic Concept and Global Zero.

2010-11-10T13:42:00.000Z

The United Nations Association – Edinburgh , One Day Conference on NATO’s New Strategic Concept and Global Zero was held on 1st of November 2010 at the Scottish Parliament. It was a very enlightening day in many regards, sometimes not in the way that the speakers meant however.

After the introduction by Dr. Gari Donn, first speaker of the day was Lord David Hannay; chair of the United Nations Association and former ambassador to the UN. His broad scope were the challenges, past and present facing NATO. In terms of current nuclear threats, Hannay focused upon North Korea and Iran. It was clear from a paper provided with the conference papers that Iran has been doing their best to derail the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference held this year so there is something in what he says. In response to my later suggestion, that when it comes to nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, should not the regional aspects be considered and their own and their rivals security concerns be taken into account? Lord Hannay decided to talk exclusively about Iran and North Korea in this context. He would not even mention the state of Israel by name and assured the meeting that the only nuclear security concern that Iran had was the USA. A quite remarkable statement.

Lord Hannay did offer a nine step programme to forward multi-lateral disarmament however. In brief they were:

1. Ratification of the test-ban treaty by the US Senate
2. Negotiation of further reductions of strategic nuclear capacity between the USA and Russia, with the involvement of France, Britain and China (the P5 nations)
3. Start of talks over Russian sub-strategic nuclear missile capacity in Europe
4. Progression of de-alert doctrines. This refers to the state of readiness that nuclear weapons are held in.
5. Fissile cut-off treaty. This would the cutting back on nations’ capability to enrich uranium in exchange for non-enriched uranium to be readily available for the promotion of national civilian nuclear power projects. Hannay indicates that in recent years Pakistan has been the major stumbling block on this project.
6. The Fissile cut-off treaty is a necessary precursor to a global test ban treaty
7. Middle East nuclear-free zone, with the first conference taking place in 2012
8. Strengthening the monitoring of global production by the IAEA
9. Acceleration of Norway’s VERTIC verification project.

One would expect many of these points to be raised at NATO’s 10 year review conference of nuclear strategy to be held in Lisbon later this month.

Going back to Iran for a moment, it is my view that when it comes to the Middle East, Israel’s nuclear capacity is the elephant in the room. Naturally I do not in any way support the proliferation of nuclear weapons or Iranian attempts to further their capacity in this area. If one applies the logic of the Cold War though, it could be said that Israel and Iran are regional superpowers and rivals. If one side has nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable for the other to attempt to gain a similar capacity in order to bring about a status of MAD – mutually assured destruction. The fact that one side has nuclear weapons will only drive other nations to attempt to develop their own.

Now I am not going to provide a précis of every speaker as that really is the role of the UNA reportage. Another highlight for me though was the Russian delegation led by Vadim Mitrofanov, head of Foreign Policy at the Embassy of the Russian Federation. He expressed Russian disappointment that NATO was not disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact but, perhaps more pertinently, Russia’s commitment to further disarmament talks with the USA and working in partnership with NATO. On the matter of the sub-strategic nuclear capacity, Mr Mitrofanov said that talks had not started yet but they simply could not decide this matter bilaterally with the USA. The reason for this is clear. In Europe the US has stationed 200 B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs, deployed by US and other NATO (German, Dutch, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Turkish) air forces under burden-sharing agreements. (In military terms nuclear gravity weapons are obsolete although fair to say the use of a single bomb would spoil a lot of peoples’ day.) There were various numbers given for Russian capability but the minimum cited was 2000 short and medium-range nuclear weapons. I took the liberty of following up this Russian position in a round-table session and the Russian Consul General Sergey Krutikov was pleased to clarify the position. Russia desires to see a nuclear-free Europe. Therefore in order to achieve that, not only would the Russian and American weapons would have to go but also those of Britain and France.

On Russia in broader terms, it certainly felt like it is NATO 28 + 1. It is clear that a lot of effort is being put into bringing Russia into the fold, if not as full members but certainly as “super-partners” as the new American terminology has it. This concept was unfurled to us by Dana (pronounced “Daina”) M. Linnet of the US Consulate. She did have a lot of good things to say; on how the USA is working to increase transparency in nuclear issues, are working hard to broaden the concepts of deterrents away from being just nuclear-based and enlarging shared risks and commitments. Along with former defence secretary Lord Des Browne, other nations were berated for not working harder with President Obama in order to further these and other worthy ends. One has to say the effect was rather spoiled by one impertinent fellow sticking up his hand at question time and asking of Dana “What would President Palin do?” It led to some back-tracking and statements such as (from Browne) “even those Republicans who think would back this issue” but the point was well made. After Bush’s dismantling of international agreements in 2005 and the Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the test-ban treaty in front of them, the general intransigent nature of US politics is an international problem. In that respect both Linnet and Browne are correct: Obama does offer a window of opportunity.

The day was very useful in terms of answering the question raised on these pages as who actually controls Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Rebekah Grenowski reported she was summarily put down by Rebecca Johnson of ACRONYM when the former raised this issue. Johnson assured Rebekah that the ownership of Trident was the subject of a bilateral UK-US agreement. This statement is backed up by the response to our letter to Nick Harvey. However, the issue of NATO strategic control was not contradicted by others in round-table meetings. It seems to me therefore that it is not a question of which is right or wrong, rather there is a double-lock on nuclear deployment. Bilateral agreements with the USA backed up with NATO unanimity – which also involves the USA. I feel this matter requires further clarification. It is probably the case though that in reality UK defence spending is bound totally to NATO commitments, thus casting light upon Hillary Clinton's recent intervention on the UK's Strategic Defence and Security review.

I only touched upon some of the matters raised on the day. When the UNA put up their full report I will post the link. It was a very worthwhile day and I am grateful for the chance to attend but sometimes the truth of any matter is deliberately obscure and the more I learn about nuclear weapons, the greater I have that feeling.

Murder

2010-10-29T10:32:00.002+01:00

It was such a sad little affair that I couldn’t even find it on Google this morning.

I got to know Bob Day at Aberystwyth University. In fact it was at the Cwrt Mawr bar we first met. Bob was in his forties, an ex-butcher who was studying International Affairs. Both being mature students and somewhat outsiders, we became friends. It wasn’t until a couple of years later, when Bob graduated that I got to meet his family. It is so long ago now that I can’t even remember everybody’s name but there was Jenny his wife, and their teenage children Jasclene (pronounced Jacqueline) and her slightly older brother, whose face I can still see. I spent weekends down in Cardigan with them and it was a great time. Jenny helped improved my cooking techniques; we all played badminton and board games together and shot pool when down the pub.   As I recall, Jasclene was a little sweet on me but all was innocent.

As is usual with any Arcadia though, there was darkness beneath. I had noticed that over the past year Bob was becoming increasingly pedantic. He would take the time to explain in detail the most prosaic functions of daily life. Once Jenny got to know me, she started to express worries about him.   Bob had a large vertical indent right in the middle of his forehead which Jenny told me had been put there in a car accident six years previously.   Since that time, Jenny said, she had been married to a different man.

It was the autumn of 1995 when the cracks started to open. I usually called the family once a week but this time Bob called me. Jenny had started to have an affair with a neighbour. Although I was in my late twenties in many ways I was still pretty immature. Relationship management was certainly outside my remit at that point. I didn’t know what to say.
Two weeks went by. I called but no answer on their telephone. I tried again and again with the same result.   It was my final year, I had no clue what was happening so it was with some surprise and upset that in December I received a letter from Jasclene that told of a road accident involving both Bob and Jenny. He was still in hospital but Jenny had died after six days in a coma. Naturally I wrote back; which hospital? Where can I visit Bob? How is everybody else? No reply.

It wasn’t until April 1996, just before my finals, that Bob himself got in contact. He was still in hospital in Haverfordwest. I added the cost of a hire car to my overdraft and hit the road south. Incidentally I think that was the drive I also started my hate-affair with GM cars. It was a green 1.7 diesel Astra with all the reactions of a startled sloth.

Bob was in hospital, either in bed or a wheelchair for in the accident his back had been broken, losing the ability to use his legs. He was also in police custody, charged with the murder of Jenny. To my face Bob said he simply could not believe it; it was such a vast misunderstanding. He had taken Jenny out for a drive and on a dangerous mountain bend above Cardigan had lost control, plunging them both over. A tragic accident. He asked me to help and the following week I gave a statement to his solicitor. That was the last time I saw him.

After graduation, I passed through Cardigan en route to Aberystwyth in order to say farewell to friends. I was starting my current career in Aberdeen that October. Between buses, I went into a pub in Cardigan. Naturally Bob and his family were high in my thoughts.

“Tragic about that accident last year.”
“What accident?” asked the young barman.
“The one where Jenny Day was killed.”
“That was no accident,” he stated with some anger.
“What?”
“If it was an accident, why did the bastard leave a note for her boss telling him what he meant to do?”

Bob, what have you done?

I was in training in Texas when the trial came up. The defence wanted me to testify. I agreed to have my statement read out in court. Robert Day was found guilty of murder and sentenced to three years on the grounds of diminished responsibility.   Naturally the wheel-chair is a life sentence.

                                                            *            *        *

The murder of Jenny Day was the closest I have been involved in the killing of another person but I have known other victims. A colleague and friend lost his entire family at about the same time. A guest at my wedding subsequently lost his life and my mother-in-law lost other friends to violence. So it was with some interest I pricked up my ears this morning when changes where suggested to murder sentencing.    In the brief debate I tended to support Lord Faulkner’s view that there should be one charge of murder and then it is up to the judge to decide the sentence. However, I would support a greater degree of flexibility on how the judge lays out the sentence. Perhaps there should be a grading at this point; from whole life term, down to first and second degree through to man-slaughter, each with its own minimum term before parole can be applied for.   The jury could perhaps issue a private recommendation to the judge but the judge would have the final decision.   Naturally the licence system, the power of the courts to recall any murderer to prison, would stay in place.

This structure would help those involved to understand that the current “life” sentence doesn’t mean life but the crime of murder always is held in the highest seriousness.

Liberal Democrats and the Browne Report

2010-10-14T10:42:00.001+01:00

We knew that things would not be easy being in coalition with the Conservatives but I really do not recall supporting American-style funding for universities. In fact, as I remember things the Liberal Democrats plan is as follows:

Year Action
1      Scrap fees for final year full-time students
2      Begin regulating part-time fees
3      Part time fees become regulated and fee loans become available to part time students
4      Expand free tuition to all full-time students apart from first year undergraduates
5      Expand free tuition to all part-time students apart from first year undergraduates
6      Scrap tuition fees for all first degree students
http://www.nickclegg.org.uk/education.aspx

Now I know what you are going to say. We don’t have a Liberal Democrat government, the financial crisis is a lot worse than we realised etc; all good and valid points. But where does it say that we have to support a policy that is diametrically opposite in philosophy and aim to our own? Dear Vince Cable has already softened the effect of the Browne Report on university funding and doubtless behind the scenes more work will continue to make university access as broad and as affordable as possible. On this point I expect such fudging to be ineffective. While speaking on PM (Radio 4, 12th of October), Higher Education Funding Council for England representative Mark Calder noted that since the introduction of tuition fees in England, university attendance for those coming from the poorest twenty percent of society has increased by thirty percent. So far so good but when asked whether this trend was reflected in the best universities in the country the answer is an emphatic “no”.   There has been absolutely no change in the social profile of those going to the top one-third universities. The increase in the poor getting a degree has been restricted to those attending average and below average institutions.

My interpretation of this is that since market forces have been introduced into tertiary education more customers have been drawn in but standards have failed to improve. They may have even declined in order to attract new students who are being drawn in to generate cash for the institutions and for few other reasons. If we continue down this path we will indeed recreate the American system where a core of excellent and well-financed colleges are surround by a hinterland of the mediocre or frankly rubbish offering near worthless degrees. I thought we Liberal Democrats were good Europeans.

Does this mean that the state has to fund university study? No, it does not. When I lived in Norway during the late 1990s for example, in was usual for students to leave college with debts in the order of £30,000. But part of the Browne report expressly does away with subsidies on interest payments on student loans. Meanwhile in Norway it wasn’t just interest payments on student loans that was subsidised but all interest payments on personal debt. In fact if one was debt-free, a person was expected to pay a higher income tax rate because they obviously had more disposable income.   The central point being is that debt, including student debt, is fully integrated into the social structure.   In the current economic climate, I cannot see England making such provision.   The belt is being tightened across all areas.

There is only one logical conclusion; we must accept that for the next decade ahead at least, fewer people can attend university. Other provisions, such as a return to apprenticeships, have to be given consideration. This is very painful as since the 1990s the one way that a young person really can get ahead in life is by getting that degree. If we were to cut back the number of places in order to maintain excellence, this does not necessarily mean we are depriving the current generation forever. I myself was a mature student.

What of we Liberal Democrats?   Dear M.P.s, you signed a pledge, all of you. In public. There are photographs. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? I assure you it does to the British people. If you go ahead and support the Browne Report we will not be forgiven. Nothing that we will say subsequently will be believed. Support this report and wave goodbye not just to your own but to our entire party’s credibility.

It’s not all bad; there is a solution. We are part of a coalition government so one cannot expect ministers and PPCs to go into open rebellion. So my advice would be to abstain. This is allowed for under the coalition agreement. Back-benchers, you are free to oppose this or at the very least also choose to abstain.

Last night I discussed this issue with Mrs Veart. Having lived for a time in the USA, she was frankly appalled with the Browne Report. This isn’t the way forward for Britain but nor is the way that she suggested for me. This is very painful but she suggested... I can barely take myself to write this... she suggested that I join Labour. Harsh words ensued. I’ll say no more but I still feel sullied.
The Liberal Democrat party is my party. I’m here to stay. Being in this party is like being in a marriage; I love you but don’t expect me to like you all the time.   Frankly at the moment I’m pretty pissed off with you.

Nick Clegg MP with Julian Huppert MP signing the pledge not to raise tuition fees.

Say No to Trident, Lib Dem Conference Report 2010

2010-09-23T13:21:00.006+01:00

Say No to Trident’s foray into the real world met with mixed success it would be fair to say. The greatest event was our fringe meeting held in coalition (a popular concept nowadays) with Liberal Democrats for Peace and Security. Julian Huppert MP, just arrived back from China where he had been asked by one of his hosts whether Britain would join in if the USA decided to attack China? A scary prospect indeed and while it seems absurd for us to contemplate currently, it gives an interesting insight into the mindset of Chinese strategic thinking. They obviously see the USA as a threat in military terms and are seeking insight into just how must they would be up against if the worst happened. It has to be said that Britain, with one honourable except of Vietnam, acts as very reliable auxiliaries to the American legions. Julian went on, expressing the view that Trident had already had been included in the Strategic Defence and Security Review by default. Since I too have been saying this for some time, I confess to a small internal cheer on this one. Tessa Munt MP is wonderful; although describing herself as a “baby” whip, if she had to choose between that office and her convictions on Trident, the whips’ office would have to be looking for a replacement. David Grace of Liberal Democrats for Peace and Security spoke on the current political situation and what was hoped to be achieved by his motion which had been put together with Louise Edge of Greenpeace. And of course, Kate Hudson of CND told us of their latest report which outlines the economic damage that would occur if the Trident replacement is pushed through on a like-for-like basis. The event was packed out, with standing room only and, as Kate also expressed in her blog, was both good natured yet determined

Another highlight of the Conference for SNTT was the speech by Janet King during the emergency Trident motion. She spoke simply yet with conviction about the broken promises and poor example of Britain and the other nuclear-armed states of failing to live up to the promises made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed forty two years ago. Janet’s speech was in contrast to my own. I am afraid that I got too bogged down in the internal politics of the issue and simply did not send a clear message to a wider audience. It went down well in the hall but I promise I’ll be better next time. Nader Fekri, a SNTT member on the facebook site spoke passionately on the immorality of nuclear weapons. Shirley Williams was brilliant as ever in reminding Liam Fox that Bush is no longer in the Whitehouse. Jacque Bell was also ready to speak but sadly was not called.

I have to say though I am still not satisfied with the terms of the debate. Any motion on nuclear weapons which myself and Nick Harvey, Armed Forces minister, can agree on has to be a fudge. In fact, this debate did not advance the cause of unilateralism (or bi-lateralism which is even more to be preferred if practical), it merely is a restatement of current Lib Dem policy. The speech that made this totally clear was from Steve Coltman of Loughborough. He was the one advocating the deployment of Astute-class submarines armed with nuclear warheads. This is not what Say No to Trident wants to see. We have to stay firm; both in aim and principle. I am almost certain that if our original motion had been allowed to pass through by the Federal Conference Committee that today the Liberal Democrats who be a party that supported unilateral nuclear disarmament. The amount of support we encountered as our tiny four-person demonstration (myself and Janet, joined by Margaret Rowley and Geoff Reed) stood outside the conference centre on Monday was staggering. In fact, we were campaigning to the converted, with only one young man taking the time to argue with Janet who is in her natural element approaching complete strangers with a happy smile, placard in hand. It was mischievously suggested by one lady that we got the wrong conference and that we should be standing outside the Conservative’s Birmingham event instead!

So where does this leave us? At Conference, at least some are now aware that there is a grass-roots movement and a few of them know it is called Say No to Trident. The organisation has made good contacts with organisations like CND, Greenpeace and Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. What we haven’t achieved yet is the change to the policy which we so dearly desire. The next motion that we put in cannot be about Trident. As far as we Liberal Democrats are concerned, that system would be out on its ear if we ever get power. The next fight will be whether we replace it with the systems that Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey favour or rather sanity will prevail and our party policy will be a Britain without nuclear weapons.

What the Two Davids have in Common

2010-08-27T14:13:00.004+01:00

On the face of it, perhaps it would be easier to list what David Milliband and David Cameron don’t have in common. Both are of a similar age, both Oxford-educated and they both followed the now well-worn path of the political professional after leaving university. So is it any wonder that the two Davids have similar ideas about the path to power?

During the battle for the Labour leadership, it has become clear that D. Milliband favours the New Labour approach: appealing to all sectors of society while his brother Ed wants a return to core Labour supporter of old. I remember when Tony Blair came to power. It was while I was a mature student at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. I used to have socialist friends (I still have a few but nowadays it is hard to find a real socialist) and I actually felt sorry for them. Even before 1997, socialists have been effectively disenfranchised in this country. In the 1970s, the voter had a real choice between the right and the left of politics. Nowadays that is no longer the case and I think that is to the detriment of this country.

It was actually for my degree essay on evolutionary theory that I found myself reading one of Professor Ian Stewart’s popular books on mathematics. I can’t remember which one but it contains the scenario of the two ice-cream sellers on a crowded beach. The sellers sets up at opposite ends but this means that the people occupying the middle can go to either of them, while the individual trader has no chance of attracting customers from the other end of the strand. In order to maximise their share of the market, both sellers start moving towards the middle with the eventual result that they are side-by-side.

So it is now with politics. New Labour was effectively a post-modern response to politics, agreeing with the likes of Francis Fukuyama who had proclaimed the End of History, the victory of capitalism and the never-ending reign of globalisation. Blair and Brown modelled themselves rulers of this Brave New World, post-modernisers to the core. History was reduced to a series of rival dialogues, each of equal or no value and therefore tradition meant nothing. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, built up for 300 years after the Glorious Revolution, based upon earlier civil wars and the Magna Carta, were worthless in the 21^st. Century. Civil rights were meaningless and the power of the Courts eroded. Hence New Labour’s love of identity cards and the super-databases behind them; they agreed with Sir Humphrey that in order to decide what the government needed to know, they needed to know everything. The process of government suffered likewise, with Cabinet meetings reduced to listening to the Word of the Dear Leader and real policy being decided on the sofa with an inner cabal. Senior civil servants were replaced with political appointments, advisors ensuring that the civil service remained “on message”. While Paris glittered after its spring clean, London got the Millennium Dome. Gold, that old-fashioned economic mainstay was sold off at under $400 an ounce. Social mobility actually decreased during the thirteen years of Labour. But worst of all was the Labour leadership’s willingness to follow the USA into bloody and illegal wars. Labour became like Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, who after drinking the troll’s brew grew to be like an onion: all layers and no heart; a being so empty of morality that not even the Devil wanted his worthless soul.

That’s my verdict on New Labour and anybody who still wishes to continue that project but how does David Cameron fit into this? Well, it seems to me that he has attempted a similar trick with the Conservative party and has marched his ice-cream stall to the centre of the beach. After the defeat of the Major government in 1997, the Conservatives veered to the Right under the successive leaderships of Hague, Duncan-Smith and then Howard. With New Labour straddling the Centre-Centre Right, it may have been principled but it simply didn’t work in electoral terms. In order to gain power, the Tories had to march back to the Left, or at least the leadership had too. I’m not so sure that the bulk of the Conservatives have decamped from their grounds on the Right. If the Coalition has shown anything about stresses within the parties of the partnership, it is that the Conservatives that are more ill-at-ease than the Liberal Democrats. Cameron came very close to failure in the last election, an unforgivable sin considering the open goal that Labour had left them.

This situation of both the largest parties fighting over the same electorate means that the democratic process is Britain is in real danger. After all, if the arguments are reduced to a narrow part of the field, in reality what is point of the political process? No matter which party is in power, the country is left under a dictatorship of the Centre. Views outside a narrow strip of opinion have no chance of real political power.

So like any good Liberal Democrat, I come to electoral reform. It is necessary in order to avoid the dictatorship of the Centre. Both the left of the Labour party and those on the right of the Conservatives would benefit from a change because under coalitions, the views towards the ends of the political spectrum have some chance of representation. People usually use this as an argument against electoral reform but in reality it is far more democratic than the system we currently have. The Centre will be dominant as this is where the opinion of most people lie but at least those on the edges can have some say as coalitions wax and wane. Given my opinion of New Labour, I am not surprised that they have failed to even support the modest Alternative Vote system that they advocated during the general election. The Tories are being, well, typically conservative in their unthinking opposition. But it is vital that all those actually believe in representative democracy campaign our hearts out come the referendum next May. Britain needs this reform in order to have any chance of principled government in the future.

Otherwise, we will be left with the two largest parties in their role as amoral ice-cream sellers competing on a beach.

Complaint - Any Questions 20th of August, 2010

2010-08-21T09:32:00.003+01:00

Dear Any Answers,

I decided to sleep on it before writing but come the morning I still find myself angry at remarks made by two of the panellists on Any Questions last night.

In turning a question about the Megrahi release into an anti-Scottish rant, Ruth Deech and Douglas Murray showed their true ignorance about the United Kingdom, their base assumption being that Scots are over-subsidised and holier-than-thou. Well thanks a bundle for assuming that we all support Alex Salmond and the dreadful SNP. As for the money, aren’t they forgetting the oil and gas industry that has been keeping the whole of the UK afloat for the past thirty years? The reason why there is an apparent subsidy per head of population is that outside the Central Belt, Scotland is a sparsely-populated country so we cannot have the economies of scale available to the South East of England. Or are we to assume that Deech and Murray begrudge the Highlands luxuries such as roads, hospitals and electricity? And as for the Scottish parliament, I think the panel demonstrated very well this evening why Scotland cannot solely rely upon London to represent our best interests.

Honestly, when picking a panel in future the producers should broaden their reach beyond the Home Counties chatterarti and invite members more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Yours sincerely

Martin Veart

Edinburgh.

Distraction

2010-05-31T16:38:00.004+01:00

It is easy to be blinded by suffering. In the latest misadventure off the coast of Israel / Gaza, the latest reports available list sixteen dead at the hands of the Israeli commandos. Why did they people have to die?

Of course, the easy answer is that they didn’t have too. This morning on the Today Programme the beautifully-voiced Mark Regev defend the Israeli actions that led to the deaths of these unfortunates, along with injuries to many more; both flotilla crew and Israeli personnel. Naturally he claimed the Israelis were attacked first. I must of missed the event that led to members of the flotilla trying to board the Israeli warships. He also reminded the world that the Israelis had offered to take all allowed goods through the Israel-Gaza border. Since the central purpose of the flotilla was protest against the joint blockade by Israel and Egypt and to remind the world of the very real suffering of the Palestinian people, that is hardly the point.

It is easy to become hardened by suffering. Fear does that and fear is the state that the Israeli people are encouraged to live in. The world is against them, misunderstands their plight and that is why their forces, of which they all must play their part, must be aggressive because that is the only language that their barbarous and less sophisticated neighbours understand.

The rest of us, onlookers of various degrees, are asked to take sides by the competing and extremely sophisticated propaganda machines of all sides. For instance, this morning the BBC website initially reported the source of this morning’s tragedy as a Hamas report, despite the live streams coming from various Arabic news organisations onboard. Hamas = terrorists therefore their word is not to be trusted. As a quoted source, the link to Hamas has now been dropped and for the moment it is still reporting only ten deaths, as reported by the IDF.

Why does this matter and why should we onlookers care? I’ve been to Israel several times over the years and it is my opinion that all populations are being misled. Despite being a democracy, Israel in my opinion is also a police state. The population are under the heaviest possible surveillance from the internal security forces. One waitress I met in Haifa was an Arab Christian and formally worked as a receptionist at the hotel where I was staying. Her story was that she made a bad joke concerning the conflict to a guest. Next day, she gets a phone call.

"Hey Girlfriend, how are you?"
"Who is this?"
"You can call me David and I work for the Misrad Habitahon [internal security]. I hear that you have been saying things that you shouldn't have."
"What is it to you?"
"Next time that I hear such things, it won't be a friendly chat over the phone. We will want to know more about you. A visit to our offices. Am I clear?"
The girl laughed at David. "You are afraid of little me? Some silly girl? This country is weaker than I thought."

She kept her dignity but not the job.

The hotel where she used to work was often full. On the last occasion the visitors were athletes and sports people from all over the world for the the Jewish games held last year. Before that, I overheard many snatches of conversations. The arms dealers were the ones that frequently drew my attention though. On one flight across I was lucky enough to be upgraded. My companion was a banker and the file he was perusing was for pilotless light aircraft, used for reconnaissance and attack roles. It was his business to provide the money. I remember reading Robert Fisk's accounts in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East ; of how he traced the history of one missile used by the Israelis in Lebanon back to the US Marine Corps and thus how the US tax pater is secretly being used to subsidise Israel's conflict with their neighbours.

So to my mind, this is why there is never peace in the Middle East: too many people are making too much money out of war. It is not just the arms dealers, it is their financiers also.

The deaths this morning were totally unnecessary unless their purpose is to keep the fires of hatred burning brightly. The secret fuel for this hatred is money and until the profit is cut, the war will continue. I say this to both sides and of none. Look up and see who among you are getting richer from this conflict. To protestors for peace: research the companies who are making the profit. Now most people don't tend to pop down to our local friendly arms manufacturer for a couple of SAM missiles, so look into the companies that they are dowing business with and the banks that are providing them with the finance and expertise. Target these companies and people for protest, boycott and blockade, not normal people who are just as much victims as anybody else. Governments who want peace, cut the flow of weapons to all sides and refuse entry to the warmongers. If you won't then it up to your populations to hold you to account.

Protests like the flotilla are just a distraction from what is really happening. In fact, by providing opportunities for needless death, they help to prolong the war.

Just received my pay slip and seen my tax go out....you’re welcome Britian

2010-05-27T11:57:00.001+01:00

The title of this blog is actually a tweet by chrisjw133 and I am grateful for the inspiration because he just reminded me why we pay our taxes.

As some of you may know already, I work in the oil industry. Okay, I can hear to booing from here but somebody has to do it as it: at least for the time being it is the basis of our global trade and economy. I look forward to the day when this is no longer the case but I digress. One of the benefits of working in this industry is the travel. It is a fact that people like me see places that only come into wider focus in times of disaster or political unrest. For that reason, I am glad that places like Angola has fallen out of the headlines and when I mention Mauritania, most people have to ask where it is. What such places have in common however, is either low taxation or a tax system that is easy to evade.

For instance, when I worked in Egypt, it reminded me of nothing more than a giant building site. Why were the houses unfinished? At the top of many residences the steel that reinforces the concrete is clearly visible but the buildings are obviously occupied. The answer lay in tax avoidance. Apparently property tax is not payable until the building is deemed complete. The tax is not based upon occupancy. The outcome is that roofs remain unfinished. Don’t tell me that the Egyptians are stupid; of course they are not. It is just that the government has colluded with the population to reduce taxation. It is their decision whether they want their country to look like a tip or not. Or is it?

In many such places the general population are not encouraged to engage in politics beyond attending the often mandatory rallies. One such instance I personally witnessed was Equatorial Guinea. EG, as it is usually abbreviated to, is a popular destination within west Africa for immigrants and this is despite being a dictatorship and having higher tax levels than its neighbours. I asked some people why they had settled in EG and they told me that compared to the countries they had come from, EG was better run and that ordinary people had some chance of seeing the benefits from the nation’s wealth. Certainly while I was in Port Harcourt there was a lot of infrastructure building going on.

It is easy to forget the benefits of taxation. In Uganda for example, education has to be paid for; denying vast numbers of the population anything beyond the most basic levels of literacy. There is an alternative for them however. If the poor were to join one of the many different religious groups that are flourishing in the nation, they have chance of getting their children educated for free. It doesn’t matter whether it is the one of the Christian or Muslim traditions: most have representation in the country. I was very impressed by both the grand (and recently built) Sunni and Shi’ah mosques that are to be found in the capital Kampala. Liberals like us are then up in arms when the Ugandan parliament, with popular support, propose to introduce the death sentence for homosexuality or when in Malawi sentences the unfortunate men Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga to fourteen years hard labour for wishing to marry each other. After all, who do you think are teaching the bulk of these populations? It is for such reasons that I welcome the Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy of raising international aid to 0.75% of GPD, despite the straitened circumstances we all find ourselves in and would encourage other rich nations to uphold promises that they have already made.

Of course it is not just places like Africa I see these things. The problems are the same across the developing world whether in Central America or parts of Asia. Colleagues of mine live in low-tax regimes, residing in beautiful houses behind their walled compounds and armed security. I’m not casting blame; they are merely taking advantage of the opportunities that life has presented them with. For me though, I prefer to pay my taxes and live in north-west Europe. Here we have the schools, the hospitals, clean water and food, the houses, roads fit to drive modern cars upon, train and air travel, relatively low levels of crime, and cheap communications. Not all of these are paid for out of taxation but far greater numbers of people can enjoy the benefits of such things because most people do pay their taxes and that the Inland Revenue is free from corruption. That is why fair taxation is vital to a nation’s wellbeing and the fairer the taxation, the greater the general benefit. I welcome the Liberal Democrat input on capital gains tax for example. Buying a flat to rent is a form of speculation and thus it is only fair that a person who starts a business up from scratch and sells it upon retirement, who has risked much and employed others, has a better deal than somebody who just hopes to benefit from the next property boom.

There is a flip side to high taxation though. The government is responsible to me and you, dear reader, for spending our money. Hopefully this new parliament is acutely aware of this on an individual level but, more importantly, on the grand scale too. The past ten years has seen billions of pounds wasted on invading other countries. Trident should be included in the latest Strategic Defence Review and, in my opinion, scrapped altogether. Hospitals have thankfully seen cases of superbug infections fall but this was only after misplaced privatisation of cleaning services in the NHS was re-examined. Thousands of deaths should have been prevented by ensuring basic standards of cleanliness that were laid down over one hundred years ago. Many PFI schemes are not getting the scrutiny that they deserve. Despite all the subsidies being paid out, how many of us are really satisfied with the state of our railways? I could go on and on.

The point is though I just got my tax bill and you really are welcome to part of my earnings Britain. Spend our money wisely though, because the British people are looking to see where the money, our money, is going.

How did we get here again?

2010-05-15T15:39:00.005+01:00

Recovered from election night yet? I don’t think I have. Sitting through that evening as the results were coming in returned me to every other disappointing election night. The grim analysis is that the people of Britain were faced with the possibility of real change, retreated to the safety of the familiar. Overall it was a good night to be an incumbent. What was also clear is that the Conservatives failed to engage the voters with either their vision or policies. Cameron’s strategy of being elected through the simple expedient of not being Labour nearly led to his undoing. Labour on the other hand must have been much satisfied with the result. The normal sequences of affairs would have surely led them to be slaughtered on election night.

As we all know however, these are not normal times.

Much has been made of the Liberal Democrat failure to break through. I reckon such an event was not likely to happen, although in the heady days after the first leaders’ debate it felt like anything was possible. The reality is that the Liberal Democrats did well not to be squeezed further. Overall our proportion of the vote was slightly up, even if that was translated into five less seats under the current disreputable voting system. This success, such as it was, is due in large part to Nick Clegg. As libdems, we all love Sir Menzies Campbell but I shudder to think of the result if Ming the Merciless had been still our leader and front-man on the debates.

Once the counting was over and the shock had settled on the country that there really was no clear winner, things started to get interesting. In my last blog I warned of the dangers of coalition should these circumstances arise. As Nick had said himself, he was honour-bound to talk first to the largest party if they were interested in coalition. In terms of both popular UK vote and number of Commons seats, that is the Conservative Party. I never believed that a coalition with Labour would have been a safe course for the Liberal Democrats to follow so it was with some relief that the quickest of glances at the parliamentary numbers showed that it was a near-impossibility. It was my greatest fear for the Liberal Democrats that we would be swallowed and slowly digested into the Labour party.

It is a failure of character I know but when it comes to politics I am in my heart very tribal. I despise Labour’s cynical abandonment of socialist principles in pursuit of power just as much as Conservatives’ pessimistic outlook on human nature which gives rise to their relentless championing of profit over people. Both are negative reinforcements to my choosing to be a Liberal Democrat. It is therefore no great delight to me that the Tories are now our coalition partners. Currently I am in a state of sadness that feels like it may have an enduring quality to it. That is my heart speaking but what of my head?

Much surprise has been made on just how generous the terms of the coalition have been to the Liberal Democrats. Really? I don’t think they are that great. The position of deputy Prime Minister is to my mind an unenviable one. Apart from a great-sounding title and standing in at Prime Minister’s Question Time, what else does the post actually offer? Nick Clegg is not leading any ministry nor are our other Libdem ministers in charge of any of the great offices of State: the Exchequer, the Home or the Foreign Offices. I am glad that both Vince Cable and Chris Huhne are in good offices but of course I would have wished to have seen at least one of them in the position they were actually shadowing while in opposition. Of course though, congratulations to all our people who have positions in the new government.

What is perhaps more important though is that many Liberal Democrat policies are now in prominent positions. What is the use of impotent politics? The best reason for entering politics is seeing that something is wrong with society and wanting to change it for the better. And here we are, doing it for real. Besides, it would have been hypocritical of the party to talk about doing things differently, to say that it doesn’t have to be this way with the two old parties and then, faced with the opportunity of making a real difference, slink back fearfully to our old corner of protest.

What is another interesting question is why so many of our policies made it through? Certainly the right-wing of the Conservatives are furious with the level of concessions made to the Liberal Democrats. If that is indeed the case it gives me a degree of grim satisfaction: certainly it is due payback for the vicious mauling we suffered at the hands of the right-wing press. That aside, I think the reason why Cameron was so generous was because he had to be for his own survival. He came very, very close to snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory in the last election. No political party, no matter what colour, tolerates abject failure from their leader. In a minority Conservative government, Cameron would have been at the mercy of his party’s right wing who would have pointed out the failure of a central message and is only too ready to steer the party back into deep blue waters. Instead, Cameron’s Conservative ship is now being trimmed with Libdems sails, allowing the government to keep close to the popular havens of the centre. Cameron must hope that this will push the Labour Party out to towards the reefs on the Left come their leadership elections later this summer.

Where does that leave us Liberal Democrats? First of all, on the receiving end of some understandable but unjustified accusations. The policies that we campaigned upon are still our parties’ policies. It is just that instead of being in opposition and not being able to implement any of them, we are now junior partners in a coalition with the ability to implement some of them. It doesn’t mean that we are reneging on things like the abolition of tuition fees in higher education. It does mean that we have agreed not to bring down the government about this issue by voting against them in the Commons. I still want to see Britain give up it’s nuclear deterrent and will be actively campaigning for the party to get rid of Trident. Coalitions do not last forever: it is important that good, sound policies are still in place once the parties do go their separate ways as they surely will in the end.

Labour backed out of serious coalition talks with us, calculating that come the next elections, the Liberal Democrats with be severely punished by the electorate, especially those who voted tactically for the Liberal Democrats. What Labour never really understood is that in advocating the changes to the voting systems that we do, it was never really about given an advantage to just the Libdems. If this country had a practical form of proportional representation, then the people of Britain would be free to vote for the views that they really support and not just be shoe-horned into giving their mandate to either Labour, Conservatives or even ourselves. It is about fairness, real democracy; not cynical control of the levers of power. Tactical voting should not be necessary in a functioning democracy and it is a sad indictment of the current system that so many people had to resort to it in the last election and that Labour are relying on people to use it again come the next one. In fact, a proportion voting system will probably lead to the wholesale reformation of all three major Westminster parties. This may not be a bad thing either.

At the moment though, proportional representation is not on the agenda but rather the Alternative Vote system. As Simon Hughes commented, it is a start; a move away from First Past the Post and should be welcomed as such. It will be interesting to see though whether Labour will keep to their pledges on AV or whether their old regressive instincts will win out in the end.

So here we all are. Good luck to all the delegates at tomorrow’s special conference in Birmingham . Tell the country that we are still who we said we are. As for me, I feel like Coleridge’s wedding guest “a sadder and a wiser man, he woke the morrow morn.”

Coalition? Er, no thanks.

2010-04-26T01:25:00.005+01:00

According to Conservative blogger Iain Dale, Nick Clegg is getting a bit uppity about his coalition demands. After all, Westminister is not Eton and as for the membership, well! Libdems are certainly no more than a bunch of monochromed middle-class oiks.

All good-natured joshing aside, just why are us Liberal Democrats demanding equal billing (and that means equal numbers of cabinet ministers) in any coalition? Aren't we just fresh off the political boat; rubes ripe to be turned over.

Not quite. Although the Liberal Democrats have the potential to break through on May 6^th (and that dear Reader, is still very much up to the people of Britain), as a party we have experience of coalitions around the country. Many councils are coalitions and - note Mr Cameron, still function well. The Welsh party were in coalition with Labour from 2000 to 2003. Likewise the Scottish Libdems were part of the Scottish Executive with Labour as the senior partner from 2000 to 2008.

When Labour lost to the Scottish Nationalist Party, it was widely expected that the Liberal Democrats would retain our coalition position. Certainly this was what the SNP wanted, expecting the then Libdem leader in Scotland, Nicol Stephen, to retain a fond attachment for the ministerial limo. To the shock of all, that did not happen. Scottish Liberal Democrats preferred to oppose and to this day the SNP is a minority government, supported by a deal cut with the Scottish Conservatives.

Why did the Libdems not enter into another coalition? After all, we achieved many things while in power: free eye tests and care for the elderly are excellent examples. We were in position to do real good and did so. The rub though was that come polling day; the Liberal Democrats got all the blame and none of the credit. Labour were only too happy to lay claim to popular policies. The SNP were successful in pouring scorn onto what they called “the Lib-Lab government”. The electoral results were not good for us.

There is more though. Let me make it clear that I am just a foot-slogger and not privy to talk above the salt. A few titbits did make it down to bottom-feeders such as myself though. I had heard that a senior member of the SNP later regretted that the coalition did not take place. Apparently it threw all their plans into disarray. During the campaign the SNP were making ludicrous claims about how they would put more police on the beat, cut class sizes, build more schools etc. while everybody knew there was absolutely no money available for these pipe dreams. For all their shortcomings, the people who make up the SNP are not stupid. They too knew that such promises could not be met. The plan was however was to put the blame on their would-be coalition partners for blocking all these wonderful aspirations when budget time arrived. Instead, they had to squeeze through a shambolic excuse of a plan with the help from the Tories.

“There comes a time to talk of many things.” If not cabbages then at least king-making has returned to the Westminster agenda. Two problems with that as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned: the first being Labour. As I have blogged several times in the past week, the attempts at heavy-petting from Brown’s party has been rejected with scorn as there is baggage in the relationship. Labour has never forgiven the Gang of Four (Jenkins, Owen, Rodgers, and Williams) for splitting the party in the 1980s. In their eyes, the Liberal Democrats remains an aberration; a coalition would the end-game towards final re-absorption of the Social Democrat Party. In other words, Labour would attempt to swallow us whole. Is this not merely paranoia on my part? Not at all: on BBC’s Today Programme, Nick Robinson confirmed as much when reporting an unattributed comment from a senior member of government “the unification of the centre-left would be the realisation of the New Labour dream.” [Quotation from memory].

On Sunday, Nick Clegg slammed the kissing gate on Labour fingers and coyly turned towards the Conservatives. He had to: both to distance us from Brown and to keep all options open come 7^th of May. While preferring an outright win for ourselves, we Liberal Democrats certainly do not want to see a Cameron majority on the ruling benches and thus there is all to play for. Certainly there will be no danger of the Tories claiming the Libdems as their prodigal son so in that regard a Conservative-LibDem coalition will be less of a danger. Though now we return to the perils of being the junior partner as illustrated above with our experience of the SNP. Just how are the Conservatives going to pay for their civil-national service and tax-breaks for the rich? As part of power, the Liberal Democrats would do some good only to be stiffed by both parties at the next election and a return to third-party obscurity. That is why if any coalition is going to be entered into; the price is going to be very high indeed.

Otherwise, the opposition benches might start to look very comfortable, at least for another few years. Liberal Democrats are a patient bunch. We can wait.

A reply to Polly Toynbee's appeal to vote Labour

2010-04-24T08:42:00.001+01:00

Polly, you never change. People want more than realpolitik; the only thing left in the Labour larder. What you in Labour have never recognised is that there are real and deep differences between the you and the Liberal Democrats. Labour thinking still sees us as the errant children of the SDP and since the Red Menace has now been seen off, you cannot understand why Labour and the Liberal Democrats cannot be one again.

We cannot. Labour is delving into areas of private life that is no business of any state. It was Brown's love affair with unregulated markets and lending that help get Britain into this mess to begin with. Labour still loves the boys' toys of strategic nuclear weapons and, worst of all, are only too willing to follow the USA into whatever madcap death-spree they want to pursue.

The British people want more that being sold to the highest bidder that is the Conservative vision but they also deserve more than the desperate clinging to power that Labour is asking for. We deserve vision, ideas, involvement and real democracy. We deserve to be treated like adults. Britain needs new hope, backed up with new policies.

That is why I am backing the Liberal Democrats.

(One can read Ms. Toybee's original article by clicking on the title)

Those Press Attacks on Nick Clegg

2010-04-22T07:28:00.001+01:00

There is an old saying "When one sees the enemy making mistakes, don't correct him!" so really I, as a Lib Dem activist, shouldn't be writing this at all! But these press attacks were entirely predictable following Nick's performance last week (see past blogs).

Usually when the press praise, one knows that it would normally happen over a period of weeks. Then the revelations would start, slowly at first, the cracks appearing and then the whole built-up image is brought down.

The problem with these attacks, as far as their intentions are concerned, is timing. There hasn't been time to build up any image of Nick Clegg in the press. So suddenly it is Demon Clegg - the baby-eating European. And people know that the whole thing is just panic from the right-wing.

The press is now reaping the cost of their policy of ignoring the Liberal Democrats. It is a good job for the country that we, on the whole, are fairly normal people and not some bunch of swivel-eyed loonies.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I.

Having Fun with the Daily Mail

2010-04-21T09:08:00.001+01:00

Following today's hatchet job from the Mail, I just couldn't resist.

"Sir,

"I am enjoying the coverage of the Liberal Democrats you have this morning but probably not the reasons you would hope for.

"I've been a Liberal Democrat from about 1990 and have been pressing for changing the system for years because although Britain is in many ways a great country, we could be greater still. Successive Conservative and Labour governments have failed, yes, failed, to bring this about. And all your paper seeks to do is keep the status-quo.

"I'm sorry if it makes you and some of your readership uncomfortable, but clearly a growing number of your fellow citizens feel that enough is enough. The old parties have had more than a fair chance to fix things and the results are all around us.

It is time for new leadership, new ideas. It is time for the Liberal Democrats."

So far, my comments rating is -30. I don't expect it to rise any time soon.

Nick Clegg Nearly as Popular as Churchill?

2010-04-18T15:51:00.000+01:00

Bit of an extreme reaction, isn’t it? After all Nick Clegg, great guy that he is, hasn’t led the country victorious through a world war. So why, at 73% popularity, has Nick Clegg this apparently over-the-top poll rating?

I’ve been mulling this over. According to the pundits, the first week of this election campaign has been rather lack lustre. Everybody knew the date and therefore knew what was to come. David Cameron certainly did: it was decided that although the Liberal Democrats would benefit from the exposure; Cameron would come onto the leadership debates, turn up the charisma, dance rings around Brown and emerge the victor. Because although the Lib Dems might be in the room, the received wisdom from all is that when it comes to the crunch, the British people know that really that the third party are an irrelevance. It will always be between the Conservatives and Labour.

This view has been valid for many decades but failed to take into account a few factors, firstly being those on the weeks leading up to the debate. It is very clear that in the build-up to the election, the Conservatives have been wooing all the minor parties willing to listen about their support. I have blogged a couple of times about the Conservative / SNP union and noted with regret Tory tampering with the delicate situation in Northern Ireland. So what is a desperate Labour party to do? Sidle up to the Liberal Democrats of course, or at least attempt to poach their voters. The Conservatives too realised that the election is so tight that they cannot afford to alienate the Liberal Democrats. The result of this was the Nick had a relatively easy time of it on the night from the other two leaders.

This is not to discredit Mr. Clegg. He played a blinder of a debate, presenting a positive picture of the Liberal Democrats, answering the questions(!) and interacting well with all audiences. Despite what the others say, Nick won not only on style (as they concede) but also on policy. The people of Britain are not fools and therefore cast a dim view upon the evasions of the other two. But what Nick also did was to steal the charisma of David Cameron. Conservative H.Q. had their man in the role of leader; guiding Britain out of thirteen years of failed Labour control. Sadly for the Tories, Nick Clegg was able to cast Cameron as part of the problem, not the solution.

Why should this be? The main reason is, of course, the M.P.s’ expenses scandal. No Westminster party is totally clean on this affair but people remember one thing: compared to the other parties, the Liberal Democrats came out of the scandal with far less mud clinging to us then either Labour or Conservatives. We all remember the deep, deep anger at the time. Labour and Conservatives both thought though that come the election it would be business as usual. That the British public would fall in line, join them in this silent conspiracy: one kept mainly in the quiet with the help of Britain’s media. Come this election however, the British public have other ideas. The best result for the old two parties would have been a low turnout as people either abstained in protest or grudgingly cast their votes as usual. At least the first leadership debate has blown away a lot of that apathy. The people are eager for giving the establishment a damn good hiding and behold; they now have a weapon: Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

What now? Now the real fun begins. Already this weekend have seen attacks from the Conservative friends in the press corps: The Sun, News of the World, Daily / Sunday Mail et. al. Everything from being shaky on defence, economy, character and even Britishness. The opposition parties claim our figures don’t add up. They do, and at least our figures are out there to be scrutinised. Where are the Conservative figures? Who can trust Labour after years of being addicted to spin and the dark arts? Below you will find a link to the Liberal Democrat manifesto. And just to make it real easy for you dear reader, I will supply links to the Conservative and Labour manifestos as well so you are in a position to compare like-with-like. That is how confident I am that the more you see of the Liberal Democrats, the more you will like what you see.

As I wrote in my last blog and as Nick Clegg is saying, all this is just a start. The brick-bats flying in the direction of the Liberal Democrats will not decrease. We activists will have to stick to our principles and keep on delivering those leaflets; knocking on those doors. Do all we can and I for one am content to leave final judgement to the people of this nation.

Links to Manifestos

Liberal Democrats: http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx
Conservative: http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx
Labour: http://www2.labour.org.uk/

Leaders' Debate at the Vearts'

2010-04-16T11:19:00.005+01:00

Being a political junkie, sometimes to the annoyance of the rest of the family, there was some tussling over the television remote last night. Kitchen duties meant that I kicked off listening to the leaders’ debate on Radio Four. As soon as that dishwasher was loaded though, I wrestled control of the zapper from my daughter’s clutches and the image of Simon Cowell was replaced by the contest from Manchester. Within a few minutes however, the usual chatter had died down, my daughter had curled up next to me on the sofa and was gazing intently at the screen.

I looked down at her. “You ought to go to bed.”

“I want to watch this.”

“Oh come on, you are just saying that.”

“No, I’m not!” she objected. “It’s interesting. It’s not like parliament when they are all shouting. It’s just the three of them; I can hear what they are saying and I can understand what they are telling me.”

To be fair to her, she did quite well before sleepiness overcame her attention. It was only with the entry of her mother that she was finally chased up stairs to bed. Sadly because of that I missed the part where Trident was being discussed but Mrs Veart was able to fill me in on what was said.

Mrs Veart is nobody's fool, least of all mine. Therefore as a floating voter I asked her after the end what her opinion was. Gordon Brown she described as “solid”. He knew his facts and was able to deliver them. But then again, she mused, he ought to. If a Prime Minister doesn’t know his stuff with the entire apparatus of government at his disposal, he wouldn’t be doing his job. David Cameron was dismissed immediately as a “lightweight”. What really provoked that damning comment was his approach on the NHS. One does not answer the question by eulogising nurses and doctors continuously. Also Dave’s threatening China with nuclear weapons did not go down well.

Nick Clegg however did impress. He did answer the questions and engage the audience, both at home and in the studio. He was relaxed and confident. It was not perfect though. The repetition of points did not go down too well as it looked like he didn’t want to (or couldn’t) enlarge on the subjects. Although in Mrs Veart’s verdict, Nick was the clear overall winner on the evening, I had to ask the killer questions:

“Who will you vote for in the election?”

“Liberal Democrats, probably.”

“Why only probably?”

“I don’t feel that Clegg is ready for being Prime Minister yet. Brown obviously is more experienced. But then, he is the one who is responsible for a large part of the mess. And Labour is squeezing us so hard in the NHS. There is hardly any time to draw breath before it is on to the next task. Cameron is just scary. No way will I ever be voting Conservative.

“With Clegg, nobody comes out of the blue like he has done tonight and becomes Prime Minister. It just doesn’t happen, unless one is really exceptional and nobody on that stage was tonight. Not even Barack Obama did that. But give him another four or five years and I am sure that Nick will make a good Prime Minister.”

I think what happened in my own living room last night was potentially a microcosm for the entire country. On the narrower political point, Nick Clegg surprised both the public and commentators. His openness and honesty impressed people. The people of Britain have finally been able to see him and like what they saw. That is not the same as wanting him transported straight to No.10. It is an excellent start but, nonetheless, still only a start. To my fellow activists, enjoy the glow and make the most of it. Warm feelings sadly do not last for long.

What is perhaps more important however is the wider political impact. The leaders’ debate was a lot more interesting and engaging to the broader public than anybody had hoped for. Viewing figures were almost 10 million. Expect this number to rise for the next debate as the word spreads that this is the chance to really hear the issues being discussed. The Times carried an article where the reporter went into a bar and tried to persuade the people to turn over to watch the debate. He could only do this by promising the bar free drinks for the duration. The bar’s attention slowly became focused on the screens: booing, cheering and by the end, clapping.

If through these debates the people of Britain start to reengage with the political process, then all of us will be the real winners.

Resisting the Charms of Adonis

2010-04-09T10:59:00.002+01:00

In today’s Independent, Transport Secretary Andrew Adonis appeals directly for would-be Liberal Democrat voters to switch to Labour in Labour-Tory marginal seats. Adonis bases his arguments upon history, as well he has to. It smacks of desperation that he boasts of Labour removing “most of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords – a reform the Liberals failed to implement when they had the chance in 1911.” Please! That begs the question why did it take Labour nearly eighty years to catch up?

Cheap shots aside, Adonis claims that Labour and the Lib Dems have much more in common with each other than we have with the Conservative party. As part of the proofs on offer, he admits that Labour has often stolen Liberal Democrat policy and put it into law. All very gratifying but Labour has not been shy of doing this with Tory ideas either. Blair and Gordon Brown have rightly been called Neo-Thatcherites, for they have continued with light-touch financial regulation and the privatisation of public assets that would have made even ex-chancellor Ken Clarke blush with shame for the modesty of his own ambition. From health, defence and prisons, if it isn’t screwed down by union interest, Labour has sold it; usually through the mechanisms of PFI initiatives. Shall we then talk about the levels of debt incurred as a result of these policies? Something that the Conservatives were supremely unconcerned with but an issue the Liberal Democrats have been raising since the early part of the decade. Now are we all Keynesians again in the face of the economic storm but in order to be true Keynesians, the government ought to have been saving during the good times. Instead they were like the pools winners whose motto was “Spend spend spend!” Whoever is in power next will have to cut cut cut, for as a country we are totally spent. It is still not clear that we will avoid the fate of Greece and become another IMF basket case. But we have been there before; last time under the leadership of James Callaghan and Denis Healey in the 1970s.

On the matter of defence, although Andrew Adonis would like to place Iraq firmly in the history books, I don’t think the British people would agree with him. Blood, both of the British service personnel who were killed and injured, the Iraqis who died in their hundreds of thousands, and all those who are still suffering today, is not so easily washed away. On the political front, the whole business shows a massive failure of judgment, with an all-powerful executive able to hoodwink and railroad most of parliament and a large part of the country into an illegal and aggressive war. With honourable exceptions on both sides, spineless Labour MPs were followed by gung-ho Tories through the lobbies in support of Blair and Bush’s crusade. It was the proudest moment of my political life so far when we Liberal Democrats stood up and with one voice said “No!” to war. And in other areas, Labour and Tories stay united, wedded to the military demands of a Cold War mentality, refusing even to consider the prospect of a Britain without Trident.

Lord Adonis writes “The Lib Dems and us are united by a common antipathy to the values of Tories.” As illustrated above, is there such a large difference between Labour and Conservatives? Twitter is awash with the (rather clunky) term “Labservative” but there is a point. Since Labour renounced socialism, the democratic debate has been considerably narrowed in this country. He accuses the Lib Dems of self-interest with our demands to change the voting system. Not of course there is any self-interest in Labservatives wishing to keep the first-past-the-post system(!). But the main point in changing the voting system to proportional representation is to strengthen democracy in Britain. For instance, in their domestic policies, Labour has very little environment ambition in evidence, nor do the Tories. There should be room for smaller but entirely representative parties in Westminster. But under the current system there isn’t. So proportional representation is not the pure self-interest that is claimed. Nor do the Liberal Democrats support Labour’s Big Brother vision for Britain, nor their repression of social mobility through the vastly inefficient families’ tax credit scheme.

The problem with Labour is that they are addicted to power and are cynical in their pursuit of it. Perhaps Andrew Adonis feels well placed to appeal to Liberal Democrats since he was a Lib Dem counsellor himself once. I have to ask though whether he really understood the party of once he was a member. Sure, it is possible to become a high profile politician by being a Lib Dem but we have to fight tooth-and-nail for any real power that the public might entrust to us. Not so with the other two parties. Since World War Two, all they have really needed to do was to wait a generation for their turn in the ministerial limousine. This is not a political system worthy of the people of Britain. One has to wonder however, if it wasn’t such a temptation that motivated Adonis’ switch to Labour in the first place and whether it still is behind his desperate appeal to us today.

Gay Rights – Malawi vs. Scotland

2010-03-24T12:30:00.000Z

It was reported this morning on the Today Programme that in Malawi, two gay men, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga who were arrested in December 2009 for undertaking an engagement ceremony, will now face a full trial in April. Maximum sentence for those facing the charge of gross indecency is fourteen years.

“So what?” one may ask. Not a lot we can do about it. Form a facebook protest perhaps? It is terrible, but what can be done?

Actually, quite a lot can be done. Approximately one third of Scotland’s foreign aid budget goes to Malawi. That is £70 million every year. I also notice that there is a cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on

Malawi

, whose purpose is:

To develop and enhance links between Scotland and Malawi and to provide a forum for discussion on these matters. In particular, the group will focus on links between the two parliaments and between civil society in each country. In order to achieve this, the group will work with parliamentarians from each legislature, with Malawians living in Scotland and with other organisations working in Malawi.

It has to be said, that the last entry of this group was for the AGM in October 2009. During this meeting, several issues were raise on civil society within Malawi, including the rights of women and children. The case of Mr Monjeza and Mr Chimbalanga should therefore be well within the remit of the cross-party grouping. It is a straightforward issue of human rights.

Now I am aware of cultural differences that are between many African countries and Western nations, especially on this issue. But gay rights are not just human rights. It is, just as importantly, a health issue that has particular urgency for the continent of Africa. If homosexuality is driven underground, the risk of spreading HIV is greatly increased. I don’t expect many of the citizens of Malawi to approve of the relationship between the couple on trial, but it is very much in their own interests to tolerate gay relationships within their own society, thereby allowing for the education of best health practice for all citizens. Gay relationships will persist, regardless of any law cited by either state or society.

At our last Spring conference in Perth, the Scottish Liberal Democrats passed a motion on the right to gay marriage. Meanwhile, two people in a country that has close links with Scotland, are facing prison for wanting exactly the same thing. It would be bizarre if our MSPs, indeed our party, remained silent on this case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8579738.stm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cpg-malawi.htm

http://news.scotsman.com/malawi/70m-Malawi-aid-39could-give.5780423.jp

http://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/news/000402/scottish_liberal_democrats_back_equal_marriage.html
Picture rights remain with BBC News

Giving the Beeb the Bird

2010-03-21T15:47:00.002Z

The BBC is very proud and defensive of their role as agenda-setter to the nation. Their take on the upcoming election:

Labour - can they hang on despite the odds?

Conservative - will Cameron bottle it?

Liberal Democrat - which side will we favour once the bottle stops turning.

Of course, in taking these viewpoints, they influence actual events. For instance, the odious Stephen Nolan the other week laid into Danny Alexander for a solid 20 minutes on which side we would take on a hung parliament. In trying to force the issue, he and therefore the BBC was effectively attempting to influence the result by being able to say "a vote for the Liberal Democrats is really a vote for..." Conservative / Labour (delete one, depending upon answer). What is more, when Danny rightly refused to commit, the Liberal Democrats were then described as indecisive and wishy-washy. It was a no-win situation.

Should this really be the role of a public broadcaster? It is, if they are only interested in political balance between the two largest parties in Westminster.

The BBC might retort that only the largest two parties can win under the first-past-the-post system. This means that fretting about a hung parliament is the only consideration that the Liberal Democrats are due. But who are the BBC to decide this: surely it is only in the remit of the people of the United Kingdom?

In deciding the questions to be asked, the stories to be covered, the BBC is effectively influencing the outcome of the election. Of course, all press should be rigorous in challenging the policies of parties and the actions of politicians. But hypothesising upon election outcomes in order to influence the vote? That is simply undemocratic and the next time it happens, as it undoubtedly will, our representatives should call them out on it.

Saying No to Trident

2010-03-19T14:04:00.003Z

I haven’t blogged about my activity with the Say No to Trident group on LibDem Act website and I don’t know why this should be the case. It was set up in December 2009 following my first (and I have to admit, failed) project to generate discussion on the issue of nuclear weapons – Letters of Last Legacy. The concept of this was very simple. In each Trident-armed submarine there is a letter from the Prime Minister, in which are his or her personal views on whether Britain’s nuclear weapons should be used if Britain had already suffered a nuclear first strike, killing or disabling the mechanisms of statehood, command and control. I invited people to imagine if it was their own letter that was to be read by the captain and crew.
After an initial surge, the contributions dried up. But one of the correspondents, Rebekah Gronowski, urged me to set up a group on the newly-formed Liberal Democrat ACT site. I decided against transferring the concept across but rather went for a more simple message: Say No to Trident.

It rapidly became apparent that most group members wanted more than merely to be rid of the Trident system, but rather to ditch Britain’s ownership of nuclear weapons completely. Since this is also my own view it was an easy path to take. But I know if we had stuck to the more conservative line of “no like-for-like replacement of Trident”, the group would have had much wider support that it’s current membership of fifty nine. Both Nick Clegg and Tavish Scott (the Scottish leader of the Liberal Democrats for you folk residing south of the Wall) have come out on that stance. One member of ACT even wrote to me, explaining that he would not be joining Say No to Trident precisely because of our unilateralist views; he did however support the scrapping of the Cold War system.

I am indebted however to Dan Fawcett who has directed the group’s attention to a speech by Nick Clegg of the 10th of March, in which he states

“I think there is no case for a nuclear deterrent. I certainly think there is no case for the like for like replacement for that system” [Trident]

Need I ask how encouraging this that? As a group, we wrote to Sir Menzies Campbell who is currently drafting a defence review for the party. It is not due out until after the general election but we are becoming more hopeful that our message is coming better supported among the leadership of the party.

Now I know that a lot of people in the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for the party to go unilateral for a long time. I remember all-to-well being appalled at the activities of the Greenham Common Women as relayed to me by fellow party members who were also active Greenham protesters, in a conversation during a party conference in the early 1990s. Well, I glad to be able to tell you that people can change. I took part in my first peace march last weekend. The main point however is that ideas, if they have merit, are kept alive by such worthy and good people until their time comes. Sometimes, that does indeed take generations. The Say No to Trident group may be a newcomer to the fight but, if we are successful in our aim to change party policy, it will be mostly due to the long term supporters of unilateralism within the party.

Here is an invitation to you: come, join us and help Britain face the 21st. Century without being burdened with these unnecessary and dreadful weapons. How can we claim to be a party with the green thread of environmental awareness running through every policy then turn around and support the ownership of the most poisonous, polluting and destructive weapons on the face of the planet?

It cannot be so.

Do something about it, right now. Join Say No to Trident and, if you are not a member already, join the Liberal Democrats.

Links
Say No to Trident group
http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/saynototrident

Join the Liberal Democrats
https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx
"What Next for Britain" Nick Clegg's speech to Chatham House, 10 March 2010
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/download/-/id/1461/doc/transcript/

Israel, Arms and the End of NATO?

2010-03-09T14:27:00.002Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8555300.stm

As usual with the prospect of peace talks, the stress is ramped up just prior to the start. Israel’s decision to proceed with the building of 120 new homes “for safety reasons” on the West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit is a bricks-and-mortar reminder to the Palestinians that regardless of negotiations, peace or war, Israel has the power and cannot be stopped. So don’t expect too much from the coming negotiations.

When I was blogging about my time in Israel last year, I came out against the call of boycott against Israel, much to the disapproval of many of my facebook friends. Sanctions usually hit the average person and leave the elites richer. I am certainly against cultural sanctions as it is very easy to impose a siege mentality upon the Jewish residents of the region. Of course, it should also be pointed out that most Palestinians are under real siege conditions; a situation exacerbated by the cooperation of the Egyptian authorities when it comes to Gaza.

What really struck me what I was there were the numbers of arms traders and their financiers that were in Israel. I was sitting next to them on aircraft, over-hearing the chit-chat of gun-dealers in bars and restaurants. These experiences have led me to the conclusion that peace is not a viable outcome in Israel / Palestine for the simple reason that too many people are making large fortunes out of the current state of low-level warfare that is encouraged to exist. In my opinion this is the core reason why peace is impossible. It does not matter how many marches are made, petitions signed or Jaffa oranges left unsold. The arms business dwarfs every other consideration.

There are no easy or quick solutions to address this state of affairs, especially in this time of recession. But to remain silent is to acquiesce to the continued injustice, humiliation and brutality that Israel inflicts upon their nearest neighbours.

These is one path that I would advocate however: an arms embargo. I know it wouldn’t make much difference. The USA would be more than happy to take up any slack and it is that one nation that has the power to make any difference. Robert Fisk has already established how the US military directly transfers weapons to Israel (the bill being picked up by the American taxpayer) so any effect of a military embargo by the European Union would be very small. At least at first.

Where it may really bite would be, after giving due notice, would be if the European Union would boycott those arms-dealers who continued to trade with Israel. This might not be as radical as it first appears. NATO, in recent years especially, has just become a giant arms fair owing to the necessity for new member nations to “standardise” equipment. In other words, buy new kit for Western Europe and North America. It is this continued trade that is keeping NATO in existence when in terms of the 21st. century, the organisation is an anachronism.

What would make more sense is for the EU to become more self-sufficient in terms of military defence with the establishment of a European-wide Defence Force. Naturally this would also require expansion of domestic production and supply.

With the failed adventures in the Middle East and Afganistan, the future of NATO is in doubt already. The continued state of the Near East might just be excuse that Europe needs to go it alone.

The Return of the Tartan Tories – Why a vote for the SNP is a vote for Cameron.

2010-03-01T19:44:00.002Z

Let’s face it: in some ways the UK is a divided country. Even if the Conservatives get a majority at Westminster in the upcoming elections, they are not going to get many seats in Scotland . We Celts are cursed with what the English find unforgivable: a good memory. The Poll Tax will continue to cast it’s shadow through many a generation here.

What is a Tory leader to do with us? General Wade will not avail him nowadays; it is to the more subtle, nay to darker arts Cameron feels that he must turn.

The big man has been busy. Those few (I bear no illusions) those very few who read my blog of 7^th of October, 2009 would have already been alerted to Conservative efforts to get nationalists (of all colours) onside. It was very sad to me personally that this policy was confirmed with the wooing of the DUP during January this year. Being half-Irish, I am appalled at the folly and shallowness of Cameron meddling in sectarian politics which has cost thousands of lives in the past generation. While the situation in North Ireland is improving, it is still fragile as events of the past week has all too readily shown.

Why all this is important is as follows: not only is Cameron gathering support in case of a hung parliament, the Conservatives have already pledged to restrict voting in the Commons on what is defined as English matters to English MPs. Not that it will really matter to the SNP because they already have a self-imposed ban on voting on matters that they define none of Scotland ’s business. Hence the Conservatives will maintain a majority on many of the votes through the Commons and it is all the better for them if most of the Scottish MPs are from the SNP. However, this is a two-way street that also favours Alex Salmond.

Don’t take my word for it. The Scotsman newspaper has come to the same conclusion. In it’s front page story today, it states that the SNP’s best hope was a Conservative victory at the polls, because it plays into the (well deserved) antipathy for the Tories north of the border. In a survey of 1,000 individuals, about two-fifths of both Labour and Liberal Democrat voters said that they would more likely to favour independence if there was a Conservative government at Westminster .

To summarise: in Scotland the SNP wants you to vote SNP for obvious reasons. But so do the Conservatives because they don’t stand a chance here and the SNP will not vote on English matters. More votes for Cameron in parliament. And more chance of a Yes, Yes vote for Salmond’s independence poll, should it finally occur.

So if you don’t want a Conservative government, you had better not vote SNP either.

Q.E.D.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Crumbs-of-comfort-amid-poll.6111540.jp

http://martinveart.blogspot.com/2009/10/strange-bedfellows-snp-tories-and-west.html

A reply to an isolationist British Muslim

2010-02-17T16:41:00.000Z

I received the following e-mail the other week:

Established 1981

London School of Islamics

An Educational Trust

63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD

Email: info@londonschoolofislamic

s.org.uk
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667

Broken Britain

Britain has a broken society. This is a dark portrait but it is very true. Children are left to rot and they grew into animals. Binge drinking, drug addiction, a culture of disrespect and antisocial behavior, teenage pregnancies and abortions, knife and gun culture are part and parcel of every day life in all big city centers. The teenage pregnancies and the sheer madness of sex education teach nothing about morality. British society is suffering from unprecedented social decay and societal breakdown, according to the Children’s Society shocking evidence. Britain has more broken families than other countries. British children are rougher with each other, and live more riskily in terms of alcohol, drugs and teenage pregnancies. Britain 's rate of teenage pregnancy is the highest in Western Europe . According to official figures, nearly half of all babies are now born out of wedlock. They are more likely to suffer social, mental and emotional problems. Research has revealed that migrants in Britain are more likely to have children within marriage. The teaching of sex education could not curb teenage pregnancies. Infact, it has simply increased. This is a clear indication of broken society. It is an eye opening for the Muslim community who sends their children to state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

In broken Britain , the break downs of family are ripping apart communities. According to a report, Scottish schools like English schools have become home for rapes, gun and knife culture, drug dealing, gang culture and racism. It is a horrendous portrayal of the collapse of civilized life and of human despair. Carrying weapons is becoming the norms, violence is “routine” and families are terrorized by gangs. Every parent is worried about his child being indoctrinated into the idea that gay and sexual promiscuity is “normal” modes of behavior. Homosexuality was regarded as mental illness but now blue eyed western educated elites are its defenders and promoters. The spectre of hidden epidemic of sex crimes inside Britain ’s classrooms has emerged after Scotland Yard revealed there have been nearly 900 rapes or sex attacks in schools. The vast majority of victims were school children under the age of 16. As many as one in three were under 11. According to official figures, hundreds of children under the age of 12 were treated for addiction to drink and drugs.

Children are being taught that sexually transmitted diseases could be easily treated and there is no acknowledgement of the emotional harm of premature sexual activity. The truth is that more sex education and contraception are provided to children and teenagers, the more they fall pregnant. Studies have shown that access to contraception and sex education, sexual activity and conception and pregnancy rates go up. The sexual health of young Londoners is a “major public health issue” and still among the worst in the country, despite innovative projects and improvements in services.

The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a
safe environment with an Islamic ethos. Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. The significance and value of Muslim schools is that the Islamic religion imposed obligations of good citizenship, keeping the peace and paying taxes. While ambition of state school is to get children humping each other before they are out of primary school and giving them parenting classes when they are fourteen to help the girls cope with the babies they will have conceived at thirteen.

Iftikhar Ahmad

. * * * .

Dear Iftikhar,

The picture you paint of British schools has some truth but by no means complete. Most major cities have sink schools in which generations are wasted but to use these as representative of the entire state of Britain and our education system is selecting facts to suit your own agenda. To be frank, many of your statements are just gratuitous and insulting, as well as being wrong. In fact, in one sentence you manage to be both racist and homophobic. If there were awards for bigotry, that would be a contender.

I'm more worried though about your proposed solution. If a school has problems, surely the best way to progress is through gaining the support of the community of which the school is part. This is done through many paths: school governors, parents' councils, direct involvement in day-to-day school life. On top of this is local political supervision as well as governmental inspection. You propose a different route: segregation. You imagine islands of civilisation among jungles of savages.

I don't think you understand Britain. If faced with a problem, a local community does its best to face that problem together. There maybe alternative paths to a solution, but common ground is sought out and used as a basis for progress. So your answer, for Muslim families to flee to educational fortresses, of which you would doubtless be the gatekeeper, does disservice to them and to the greater community. Your letter is a crude attempt to scaremonger, to isolate and ultimately to control Muslim communities within Britain. You must know that the more communities isolate themselves, the less they will be understood and the more bigotry they will face. But I suspect that would suit you just fine.

Your e-mail saddens me. I hope, as a representative of an educational trust, you can broaden your viewpoint in future.

Regards

Martin Veart.

Recycling and the UK. Then and Now

2009-12-17T11:52:00.001Z

A long time ago, when fish and chips were really wrapped in newspaper, my mother could take back that empty bottle that once contained dandelion and burdoch, get the deposit back on the bottle and use it pay towards a poke of chips or on a new bottle of the thick, fizzy, dark brown liquid. In those days we walked as a family to the nearest chip shop, which was over a mile away.
Now I don’t take my daughter to a chippy. Too many calories in the deep-fried food, cod has joined the panda on the WWF endangered species list, the food is served in polystyrene boxes, sugar surges and eight-year olds are not a good mix; I would doubtless be told where to go if one were to ask for money for an empty bottle.
Why am I rambling like this? Look back on what we used to do in small businesses and a lot of the packaging was recycled material. But now shops are under no real obligations: if you’re lucky there will be recycling bins available at the end of the car park. Is it any wonder that Britain has terrible record of recycling when compared with are continental neighbours? I would suggest that the reason is that UK governments has not put the burden of responsibility across society evenly: leaving it just up to the individual instead of those that supply the packaging in the first place: the businesses that sell the stuff to begin with.

On the continent it is different and I was reminded of this on a recent trip to visit relatives in Germany. My sister-in-law works for one of Germany’s largest supermarket chains and she filled me in. Shops have to provide recycling facilities for all the packaging materials they sell. This means that some chain stores even refuse to carry certain lines if they decide that it doesn’t make economic sense to deal with the returned packaging. Instead, they leave it to their competitors. The in-store systems have a degree of automation but there is also labour required. I’m sure the businesses don’t like it but that is the law: they have no choice. And yes, there is a deposit system on bottles: both glass and plastic are covered (such a machine is shown in the photographs).
It has been like this for years. The same automated bottle-handling systems were in Norway when I was living there ten years ago. What do we have in the United Kingdom? Some poor individual at the till offering to sell you a “bag for life” but with the usual plastic ones still available for those who ask..

It is just not good enough. Although the government’s Defra website shows that we are recycling more in the UK, about two and a half times more than we were ten years ago, about eighty percent is still going into landfill, (it varies with materials: about fifty percent of paper is reused or recycled). In 2007, Austria was recycling sixty percent of it’s used materials with our northern-European neighbours not far behind.
If Britain wants to lose the dirty man of Europe image, one which we have held for years for various reasons (remember acid rain for example), we need to be doing far more. The individual household is starting to get on board the recycling train: time for business, especially the supermarkets to be made to get on board too. That is not going to happen by voluntary measures: legislation is the only way.

Strange Bedfellows: the SNP, Tories and the West Lothian Question.

2009-10-07T13:17:00.001+01:00

07:34 Today Programme. BBC Radio 4 6th October 2009.

"Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, repeated this week the Conservative pledge to stop Scottish MPs voting on purely English or Welsh issues. The Conservatives would complete the devolution settlement by allowing English MPs a veto on legislation the affects only England, and English and Welsh MPs a veto when it affects England and Wales. Shadow Scottish secretary David Mundell, and the SNP chief whip in the Commons, Stuart Hosie, discuss the Conservative's constitutional change proposals."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8294000/8294126.stm

It wasn’t my imagination that Scottish Nationalist MP, Stuart Hosie, seemed intensely relaxed about the Conservative proposals over the baring of Scottish-based MPs on issues that are judged purely to be matters for England and Wales.
On the face of it, the proposals seem fair. The English should have their own representation, just as the Scottish, Welsh and (hopefully soon) the Northern Irish have. Although is this the right way to go about it?
The problem with banning of Scottish members from voting is that it is unconstitutional. The Westminster Parliament is the parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. To make it an English Parliament would mean a massive change in direction to our constitution, effectively paving the way to the break up of the United Kingdom. Hence the Tories having the support of the SNP over this issue.

There is a political problem that the Conservatives face and it is one that I do sympathise with. The Tories are not popular in Scotland, just having one parliamentary seat out of fifty nine. The banning of Scottish MPs effectively mean that a lot of Conservative policy will have a much easier ride through the next parliament after the election (assuming a Tory win of course). It would be to the detriment of the people of England if MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom were excluded though. Devolution has allowed certain things to be done differently and why shouldn’t the people of England benefit from the insights on offer from other parts of the UK? Instead of enforcing party discipline, an alternative could be to lift the whip on Scottish MPs voting on English matters. This would allow the individual to abstain or otherwise, allowing MPs to share their experience of their own part of the United Kingdom and allowing them to pass a disinterested verdict on English policies that is beyond party politics. Before devolution, this possible answer to the West Lothian Question would not have been feasible. Now however it would allow all the people of the Union to enjoy the benefits of devolution while Westminster remains unchallenged as the seat of parliament of the United Kingdom
As the Conservatives stand, their suggested policy would play directly into the hands of the nationalists. For a party that used to known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, this is surely not a tenable position. It also gives the people of Scotland a very strange choice among the parties at the next Westminster elections. Of the four main parties north of the border, a vote for either the SNP and now the Conservatives is a vote in favour of the dissolution of the Union. Labour is a spent force at Westminster, bracing themselves for the oncoming decimation. The only Westminster party that a reasonable supporter of the Union can therefore vote for are the Liberal Democrats, who support home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Lockerbie: business as usual

2009-09-10T15:51:00.005+01:00

It was sometime in 1992 when the tape arrived on my desk. Before the days of plug-in hard disks and easy-use PCs, data would be recorded onto magnetic tapes which was loaded on massive reel-to-reel machines. The tape in question was on blue plastic, seven inches in diameter. The rim was heavily broken with the pieces being held in a plastic bag. The label was from a UK gas well and its original destination was head office in Houston. It never reached Texas because it was freight onboard Pan Am 103, flying on the night of the 21st of December, 1988.

It is odd how one can be just on the edge of large events such as Lockerbie. Seventeen years later, that feeling has returned to me. A couple of months ago I was in the Scottish Parliament when the First Minister, Alex Salmond, was being quizzed about the possible release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan who was found guilty of the bombing. Despite assurances from Salmond that the decision would be left to the sole discretion of the Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, the First Minister’s word was widely disbelieved in the chamber. It is understood that Salmond rules the SNP with a rod of iron, with MacAskill been as likely to be able to act in a independent manner as the Westminster Cabinet would have been free to act under the leadership of Tony Blair. In other words, not very free at all.

Anyway, Al Megrahi is free now and at home. Both Salmond and Prime Minister Gordon Brown are swearing until blue in the face that it has nothing to do with oil contracts. Both must be confident that there is no “smoking gun” – nothing that can link the release to oil contracts. Of course, it is entirely coincidental that the UK is the major oil producer in Northern Europe, with most of the industry and jobs being based in Scotland. So my ears didn’t prick up at all when I was in a casual conversation this week, in a furniture store of all places, with a lady whose husband is also working in the oil industry. He is currently in Libya, planning a major new gas pipeline between North Africa and Europe.

This would make sense how? The obvious answer is Russia. Over recent winters, Putin and Medvedev have not been shy about using gas as a political and economic club to wield over the neighbours’ heads. Europe urgently needs another supplier.

America has been understandably outraged about all this. I would have more sympathy with their view if American companies had not continued to trade with Libya during the 1990s. It was widely known within the industry that a lot of business done under the Tunisian accounts was really work which originated in Libya. If managers were needed for a meeting in Tripoli, the road distance is about 500km; not a distance for a regular commute but close enough for an overnight stay. And yes, the authorities in the USA would have been aware of such activity. There seemed to be a fair amount of CIA activity when I was there.

Everybody will give lip-service to the victims and their families. But it looks like their needs are very much second-place to the real-politick of the situation. It may be that justice itself is completely absent. Not only is this a case of a convicted mass-murderer receiving mercy, there has always been doubts hanging over the conviction itself. It was claimed recently by a guest on the Today Programme that the sole eyewitness against Al Megrahi, the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, had subsequently been resettled in Australia under a new identity and had received payments from the US government to the value of seven million dollars. That is some witness protection scheme.

Seen in the rather ghastly light above, it is little wonder that Gordon Brown has been unwilling to speak on the matter. If it had been only this topic where he has attempted to keep silent, one would have been perhaps been more understanding. But recently Brown has been quiet on all subjects. This is a sign of a leadership dying on its feet. Brown has no new initiatives and can only react to events over which the Labour government is too tired to even attempt to manage.

Media commentators have been advising people to put on their cynical hats when dealing with the entire business. Sadly I cannot advise you any different.

Television Licensing

2009-07-22T18:21:00.008+01:00

WARNING: THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENSED

To the Legal Occupier,

We're writing to inform you that we have authorised Enforcement Officers to visit your home. If they find evidence that you are watching TV illegally, they can take your statement under caution with the relevant criminal law.

We are taking this step because:

According to our records, there is no TV License for this address.
You must have a TV License to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.
We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply.

An enforcement visit is the first step in our action to seek prosecution. Please be aware that should your case go to court, your statement can be used as evidence. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000. We take this offence extremely seriously, and catch around 1,000 evaders every day.

We strongly advise that you act to stop our investigation by buying a TV Licence. You can do this in minutes by visiting www.tvlicensing.co.uk or by calling 0844 800 6720. A licence costs £142.50 for colour and £48 for black and white.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Armstrong

Regional manager

Scotland East Enforcement Team

If you have recently moved home, please transfer your old TV Licence to your new address. You can do this at www.tvlicensing.co.uk/moving or by calling 0844 800 6720. Please have your TV Licence number to hand.

If you don't watch TV, please let us know by calling 0844 800 6720.

* * *

Dear Ms. Armstrong,

Normally at this point, I would take the opportunity to thank a correspondent for writing to me. In this case I am unable to do so. I am deeply offended by the tone of the letter that has been sent in your name.

When I bought the property in question on the 19th of June, there was already a letter from the Television Licensing agency on the doormat. This first letter already contained falsehoods: namely that there had been several previous attempts to contact the owners. How could this be when the house is a new-build dwelling, with no previous occupiers? Using the telephone number supplied however, I contacted a member of the television licensing staff to inform the organisation that nobody would be living in the house until mid-August, and that I would be in contact again when my television was moved from my current address.

That should have been the end of the matter. Instead, today I receive another and, to be blunt, a nasty, threatening letter which simultaneously manages to be inaccurate, self-justifying and bullying.

"We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply." This is a lie. I refuse to give you the benefit of the doubt because I contacted your organisation over a month ago. Just how long does it take for you to update your records? You have the temerity to threaten me with legal action because of your own incompetence? You advise me to purchase a television license in order to avoid a visit from Enforcement Officers? Send them round! Waste more taxpayers' money why don't you?

What I hate even more is that the letter assumes guilt and it is up to me to prove innocence. Just who do you think you are? You are a civil servant, working on behalf of the British people. You are not a member of the Stasi.

I have taken the liberty of posting your letter and my reply on my website and I am also bringing your tactics to the attention of the media.

I have no regards for you.

Martin Veart.

The Crisis of Politics in the United Kingdom

2009-06-05T10:10:00.002+01:00

In his book, The Great Crash 1929, the economist J.K. Galbraith makes the observation that embezzlement is the one crime with a time lag. There is a period during which the victim is ignorant of the loss and the embezzler is profiting from his gain. Both are happy. It is only during economic hard times that the truth comes out. Galbraith has been yet again proved to be correct, both with our banking and political systems. At least one cannot make the criticism that successive governments have been hypocritical. Until this year, it has been a guiding principle of economic theory that self-regulation is good regulation. Members of the Westminster parliament applied this principle to themselves.

MPs’ pay has always been a problem in the public perception. In the 1980s, there were attempts to link the pay of MPs to that of civil servants. But automatic pay rises have never been popular, especially since it has been long-term government policy to hold down the level of pay for workers in general. I don’t need to remind you that on both sides of the Atlantic; the rich have become a whole lot richer while the main losers have been the middle classes. Of course, the majority of MPs come from the middle classes. As was vogue in the past decades, self-regulation provides opportunities to be creative with what earning potential is out there, with the obvious route being expenses.

It is for that reason that one sees a wide variation in the degree of abuse that members of parliament have inflicted upon the public purse. It ranges from no abuse whatsoever through to the potentially criminal. What is clear is that all members have had the opportunity, many have succumbed to temptation to some degree, sometimes with the result of looking ridiculous, but few have actually been venal.

If the degree of actual corruption has been low, why the massive public uproar? First of all, it is justified. Instead of getting to grips with the issue of pay and expenses, it is an issue that has consistently been avoided by the House of Commons, with reform often being blocked by vested interests. But that isn’t the main reason and let me illustrate the point with a little story.

As some of you may already be aware, I work offshore. My employer used to supply secure parking for the vehicles of those away. Some years ago, this was withdrawn with no alternative being supplied. When I went offshore, I therefore parked my car close to the main reception, in clear view of security. Nothing wrong with that except, as a protest, and against company policy, I did not reverse-park.
Upon my return, I was taken aside by Lachlan, one of the security staff, where I had to explain my vehicular positioning.
“Hmmm. I thought you were up to something Martin. Because you wouldn’t believe the amount of abuse that we have had to put up with. “Can’t you do something about that car?” “Get it towed away!” People were so angry! To them it looked like you were getting something they were not.”
This is the main factor. How often has one heard on recent phone-ins the charge “If I did that with my company I would get fired!” Our MPs have been found guilty of this, the gravest of charges: enjoying privileges, at our expense, which we as common people cannot hope to enjoy.
If true, this insight suggests that our MPs are “out of touch” with the rest of us in the United Kingdom. On one level, this cannot be correct. Our MPs meet with their constituents on a regular basis: listening to our problems and if possible, advising and helping us sort them out. So if many of them are remote, what makes them so?

It is certainly wrong to generalise but since the 1970s there has been the rise of a professional class of politician. Now, I wasn’t going to pick on individual MPs in this article but a great and an early example of this trend is Jack Straw, the current Minister for Justice. Unlike many other Labour MPs, he didn’t come through the union route to politics but became seriously involved in his university days, becoming President of the Students’ Union in 1969. Jack Straw practiced law in the early 1970s but most of his career has been political; working for Barbara Castle as a political adviser and effectively inheriting her seat when she decided to stand down in 1977. It is a pathway to the Commons that has been widely followed since.

For a House that is supposed to represent the whole spectrum of British life and population, a class of professional is not desirable. But wait a minute! Should not a politician be professional? Certainly yes, a person can act professionally on behalf of the people but that is not the same as being a professional politician. For instance, in the dreadful case of the murders of the two French students Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez, would have led an old-school politician such as William Whitelaw to offer his resignation. There has been no such offer from Jack Straw because, apart from being a back-bencher, what else can he really do? It’s been a very long time since he practiced any other trade. Another example is the current implosion of the Labour Party. MPs are railing against the late-night telephone calls coming from No.10 to constituencies of perceived rebels. As one of the targets, Barry Sheerman MP was on the Today Programme (Radio 4, 5th June), telling of an early morning telephone conversation with a local party member after that person had just been called from Downing Street, wishing for the local party to drag Sheerman in and, hopefully, start the de-selection process. It is hot-house politics: alien from most ordinary peoples’ experience.

And so we return to expenses. . Before that, an MP was allocated three thousand pounds (about £15,000 in today’s money) a year for London living and told to get on with it. The system of self-regulation has been going on since the 1980s so for the vast majority of parliamentarians, it is the only system they have known. And for some of those, it is the only real profession they have known too. Is it any wonder that a few sought to maximize their income and otherwise treat the public purse with negligence and even contempt?

There is a deeper reasoning however, which goes to the heart of how our society is ordered. Do we follow Plato’s vision, where we are all specialists, led by a specialist caste of politician? The alternative view is expressed by Aristotle who states that a man should not entertain the notion of entering politics until the age of thirty. In other words, to have worked a trade, become a parent, fought for the state and generally become a well-rounded citizen before standing for office.

With respect to the many young politicians currently active in all parties, some of which I know personally, in general I would suggest that Aristotle has it right.

Mumbai elections - the Excluded Vote

2009-04-30T10:48:00.006+01:00

By Mumbaikar

Election Day is finally here. And no , I did not vote. Not because I didn’t want to, but because I was not allowed to. My name does not appear in the voter list despite several attempts to feature there.

"Did you vote?" I asked a few of my friends. Back came the reply - "No.. our names aren’t on the list." That made me realize I wasn’t the only one. Then as I switched on the News, the ticker read "Kashmiri Pundits lathi-charged on protesting their exclusion from voter list", whilst the screen flashed campaigns of eminent actors urging the youth to vote. Then it was all suddenly crystal clear to me- ‘secular’ politicians don’t want the Hindu vote to meddle in their filthy plans which is why they have figured out this clever way to ensure the ‘minority’ votes. Recently, Varun Gandhi (great-grandson of India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru) was arrested for allegedly making "speeches with an intention to create enmity among people on the basis of religion." In short, for voicing his concern about the future of Hindus in this country also known as Hindustan. But nobody ever objects to the ruling party making pro- ‘minority’ speeches all the time. Hypocrites.

Then comes the issue of buying votes. I remember asking my dad once “Why do the poor come out in large numbers to attend a party leader’s speech? Why do they roam around all the day as part of political rallies? Don’t they have bigger things to worry about?
“Things like, “How do I earn money for my next meal ?” I had answered my own question. Free food, even clothing is handed out as a reward for the support.

Mumbai (South ) is the richest constituency in the country. But the middle class doesn’t care enough to vote. A good portion of the youth demographic is qualified and well educated. But all they want to do is leave the country in search of better prospects abroad (It’s unfair to complain of brain-drain unless something is done to retain these brilliant minds here). It’s commonplace to hear an engineer say ‘Iss desh ka kuch nahi hoga…vote karo ya na karo.. ‘ (This country will never change…whether you vote or not). For young India, politics is synonymous to a feeling of cynicism and disgust ..to a sense of apathy and powerlessness.

With every election that comes my way I can only hope that I get to cast my vote and pray for a better tomorrow.

This blog is from a guest writer. It should not be presumed that I share all or any of the views expressed in this feature.

Mumbaiker is a pseudomyn.

Day Trip to Jerusalem

2009-04-05T13:58:00.013+01:00

It has to be said from the start. Our guide was a complete racist.

From when we first past the Arab village outside Caesarea, the first comments came about “dirty” Arabs. It is not the first time that taxi drivers comment on this. In fact, if I am in a car and it is daylight, every driver seems to be have a bad word for the place. So he was not the only one. But if there was an opportunity to pass a slight upon the neighbours, Jacob would take it up with gusto. Here is what I saw. Jisr Al Zarqa is indeed a bit of a dump. And the Israelis seem to use this example to foreigners to express their own superiority. I wish the locals knew about this and tidied the place, especially where it backs onto Highway 2.
We didn’t take the main highway into Jerusalem, rather the 433 back route, that eventually leads to Jerusalem from the north. Palestinians are banned from using this road. Fences and patrols would keep them off. Jacob pointed to the hills, saying that they are pretty but evidence of Palestinian arable backwardness. Or is it an example of how the Palestinians had been left only the most difficult land to farm? It wasn’t any value with arguing with Jacob though. I would learn more through listening. He was receiving nods of agreement from some of the Americans in the group though.

Picture from the highway, showing fence as we passed a Palestinian village. Some of the other fences were electrified.

Harsh limestone hillside terraces farmed by the Palestians.

Enough. I had to get this off my chest before describing the actual trip. Because Jerusalem is beautiful. As Jacob informed us, it was the British who passed the law stating that all the buildings in the city were to be built of the light cream limestone (apparently the one good thing we had done). Nowadays the modern buildings are just clad with the stone. It is very pleasing. We drove into East Jerusalem, parking on the Mount of Olives. I will describe the places and history as Jacob did. That is, I will not qualify statements with “in this of that tradition they say that such-and-such will happen or had happened here. Each rock in this place seems to have a story linked to it.

The cemetery on the Mount of Olives will be the site of the Last Judgement. Therefore all interned here will be the first to be resurrected and undergo judgement. To be buried here could be seen as a form of eternal queue-jumping, at the entirely reasonable cost of twenty thousand dollars. But the place gives a magnificent view over the Old City, with the golden Dome on the Mount, the site of Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his most beloved son Issac at the behest of God. To the left, is the blue-grey dome of the Mosque of Al Aksa. This is where the Prophet Mohammed arrived in Jerusalem, flown on the back of a magical creature. It is the third most holy site in the Islam but is also the site where the Jewish Messiah will build the New Temple after entering Jerusalem through the Golden Gate. Historically, the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem had the Golden Gate sealed, in order to prevent the Jewish prophesy coming to pass. But it is also a site of great tension between modern believers of both faiths.

On the lower slopes of the Mount are the Garden of Gethsemane, now the site of the Church of All the Nations. That is the old Christian Churches : Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, Assyrian and Ethiopian. Sorry Protestants: you guys are merely protesting Catholics. The church itself has the most wonderful mosaics inside and outside still have many of the olive trees which Christ would have walked through. There is a pillar marking the spot where Judas kissed Jesus, thus rendering Him up to the seraphim guard. Across the street is the now empty tomb of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Empty because she ascended directly to Heaven from the summit of the Mount of Olives.
Garden of Gethsemane. Olive trees, some of which are over 2,000 years old.

In order to get to the Church of the Sepulchre, the site of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, one must walk through Bazaar. That was great but there was simply no time to stop and stare. Although the Church outside is nothing special to look at, it is wonderful to be there. And frankly, the city wasn’t busy. For a site of such historical and cultural significance, there was little queuing, apart for the Tomb of Jesus.
Again the church is split into zones of controls, with to my eye the Greeks getting the best of the deal, holding the site of the Crucifixion, the Tomb and even the centre of the world, at least as it was defined in Medieval times. The poor old Coptic Church just had a booth at the back of the tomb; the Assyrians a bare and graffiti-strewn chapel which has the tombs (again empty) of Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene. I didn’t even notice the Ethiopian section. Catholics and Armenians had the other, larger sections.

There wasn’t time for us to walk the Via Dolorosa but the last few Stations of the Cross were contained within the church. It was at Golgotha that I had a religious / spiritual / psychological experience (delete as appropriate). People can touch the rock at the foot of the cross (see picture to the left). I did so, lightly brushing the stone with my index finger and thumb. Both digits are still currently painful and when I carelessly licked my thumb later during lunch, I was surprised to taste warm, thick, salt blood.

Owing to the Sabbath, the Jewish Quarter was very quiet. Jacob knew his stuff; he led the group to a vantage point overlooking the Western Wall. It is called the Wailing Wall because above these foundations was once the Temple which contained the Jewish Holies of Holies. Only the High Priest was allowed to enter upon two occasions a year, a rope being tied to his leg in case anything happened to him while he was in the presence of the Holies. The temple was destroyed in AD70 by the Romans and because it is not exactly known where the Holies once stood, we were told that some Jews would not walk upon the top of the ramparts in case they accidentally entered the sacred site.

Jacob had nothing really to add about the Al Aksa Mosque but did relate of the recent riots (this decade) that occurred in the area. It was thus an area which we had to pass through security. That confirmed something that I had first noticed at the port of Haifa. The security guy standing point (right at the front) of the port and therefore the guy first to be shot if the area came under direct ground attack is black. Now, I thought this a coincidence until I was there during a shift change. Sure enough, the black security guard was replaced by a black comrade. At the Western Wall all those on gate duty, at both entry points, were also black.

I think most of the group posted notes into the wall. I was wearing my old African bush hat so didn’t have to avail myself of the paper yarmulkes that were on supply, although I would of worn one otherwise. I wish photography was allowed in the area because my colleague Peter looks, well, a picture in his!

The Judean Desert starts where Eastern Jerusalem ends. As the minibus descended into the rift valley, vegetation got scarcer and then almost ceased. The rounded limestone hills, light brown to cream in colour stood out. The Earth looks different without plants. As a geologist I was able to appreciate many of the features as we drove westward, heading towards the Dead Sea, 400m below sea level and the lowest point on the planet. But seeing the barren hills gave me a feeling of unease. It was like seeing one’s parent naked.

Swimming in the Dead Sea is both the most silly and the most relaxing thing I have ever done. There is no beach in the traditional sense of the word. The edge of the water is blue, sticky claystone which sucks at one’s feet until you slide onto one’s back.. And then you just float! Lying flat out, not even my ears got wet. It is amazing just how much of the body is above the water line. Just as well really, as the water is extremely acrid, being nine times the salinity of normal sea water. Getting out is fun! Showers and changing rooms were available, at the cost of NIS35 (about seven pounds / twelve dollars). Across the water rise up the mountains of Jordan.

It was up the Jordan valley that we returned. Once back inside Israel proper, Jacob spoke about returning to civilisation. Again, we were back into rich farmland.

Apart from such constant anti-Arab remarks, Jacob was a good tourist guide. Knowledgeable and efficient, he knew his routes, his scripts and was able to answer questions on other matters with real knowledge. Every mile there was something he could say about where we were. He is not a stupid man, it just amazing to me that how the strong love of one thing, in this case Israel, can lead a person to think so ill of those who do not share their passion and even to cleanse their nation’s own history. It was the lessening of the man but I know he is not the only person in the region who suffers from holding such an outlook.

It seems to me that Israel is the land where fact becomes myth and legends often become fact. Sometimes telling them apart is almost impossible.

Writing Again.

2009-03-09T11:55:00.001Z

It’s rather alarming how quickly one can become institutionalised. From October I have been travelling; mostly between Edinburgh and Aberdeen at first but then northern Italy, Holland and as some of you who have read earlier blogs, several months in Israel. Within four days of my return from the Near East, I was out again, travelling to a rig off southern Norway with connecting flights via Denmark. The week following my return I was again in Aberdeen arranging for the sale of my house. So, last week is my first complete week back with the family and to be frank, it is a weird feeling. The rolling stone has finally stopped, at least for a little while.

One would think that being in one place would be a wonderful opportunity to catch up and of course I have with my loved one. But mentally I have just not been able to face anything else. This will be the week to catch up on other neglected business, one of those being writing.

I promised to have a think about the best way to approach the recent crimes committed in Gaza. Now, it is one thing for people like me to write that word, it is a very different thing to prove it. But the laws do exist for groups and individuals to take such allegations to a court of law. From Arabic sources, there was some criticism of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for the Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir. The basis for this criticism is that it was seen mainly as a political act against a Western enemy. I wondered if Sudan was possibly a signatory to the ICC treaty. Of course it isn’t, but neither is Egypt, Syria, Iran, the USA or Israel. This is interesting as obviously the ICC’s remit covers crimes committed outside the signatory countries. Therefore I would suggest that those in the position of bearing first-hand witness to the recent events in Gaza pool their resources and gather evidence with the view of a submission to the ICC. An alternative avenue would be the Spain's courts, as Spanish law allows for an international arrest warrant to be issued against those charged with crimes against humanity, wherever the events were alleged to have taken place.

It is most probable that these processes are already underway. Why they are so important is this: Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians over the years have been widely and rightly criticised and being both immoral and unjust. By the same logic therefore, I cannot support the call for embargo and sanctions against Israel. Collective punishment is never right. The individuals who directly take the decisions to proceed in a manner that can be shown to be criminal should be the people who bear the responsibility.
Under liberal values, the rule of law has precedence over all other considerations. That fundamental of western society cannot be compromised: when it has been in the past critics have been quite correct in raising charges of hypocrisy.

Below I have included a link for the ICC which lists the 108 nations and territories that has signed its charter. Apart from the USA, other notable non-signatories include Russia, China, Pakistan and India. This is not to say that all is rosy in the gardens of those countries who have signed: members include Brazil and Columbia for instance. But the step of putting the law of law first, at least in principle, is an important one for any nation to take. It is a principle that should be applied equally: to those who are perceived to be our friends as well as our foes.

Chosen Links.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Home
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NetApp/App/MCMSTemplates/StatePartiesIndex.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={7A50B016-A0B6-43EB-AFF8-15FCEDC03D02}&NRORIGINALURL=/Menus/ASP/states+parties/&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#B

A Little Story of Shame

2009-01-27T20:32:00.016Z

It’s a fair walk from the top of Carmel, dropping down almost 500m from the top of the mountain to the main coastal highway running south to Tel Aviv. Just before reaching the junction of Ezel and Hahaganna Avenue, however, there is a small collection of kiosks selling sweets, drinks and flowers. And next to that, on a scrap of waste land, is a small shanty hut, a tent and large home-made banners in Hebrew. Welcome to the home of David Alon and his wife of thirty five years, Rena.

In broken English David tells me their story. In 2001 their son, Shel, was a soldier and, from what I can tell, he was with the Shabak HaBitahon Haklali, or Misrad Habitahon as David called it. This is Israel’s internal security agency, known just as the Shabak in English. While he was on duty in Israel, a Palestinian had attempted to wrestle his automatic rifle from Shel, apparently with the intention of turning the weapon on the people around. During the struggle, the attempt to snatch the weapon failed – a good job since it had three fully loaded magazines with forty five rounds – but Shel suffered a stab wound to the neck. His health has not been the same since. Psychological problems have also led to two suicide attempts since the incident.

As David tells me the story, Rena serves us hot strong silty coffee served in plastic cups. I ask David why is he protesting?

“For my son! They have not given him what he needs to live.”
“Compensation?” I ask.
“Yes, compensation! They give him just a little then forget. For eight and a half years, we try to get what is his by right.”
“How long have you being camped here?”
“For six months. This is now all we have! We camp here so that see us every day. To shame them.” David points out the low office block nearby. “There! There is their office. Where they work.”
“Has anybody come to speak to you?”
“Nobody. Nobody speaks to us. But they see you speaking to us. The is a camera over there.” He points to a little patch behind us where a large black dog is tied up and barking. “There. Maybe they come to talk to you after. What will you say?”
“I will tell them the truth. It’s a free country isn’t it?” I answer sweetly.
David rolls his eyes. “Ha! A democrat!” He then goes on to tell me about the press coverage, or the lack of it. Not one local journalist has decided to run the story.

Posters outlining the campaign, the bottom one showing it has been currently running for six months.

“We sleep here for six months. In the wind, the rain. I was a big man before we come here. I lose twenty five kilos. We have nothing. But we do it for my son. I tell him “Shel, I am loyal to you 100%! They are not loyal. You are family. I do this for you.””
“Why do you think the journalists do not cover the story?”
“Misrad Habitahon tells them not to. From Misrad Habitahon, they get money, they get stories. What can I give them? Nothing!”

"Journalists and TV - Why don't you come here? Are you afraid of the truth?"

David asks me whether I am Jewish or Christian. I am puzzled as to why he asks this but tell him I am a Christian.
“Christ[ian]? Good. I want to become. I am ashamed to be Jew in this country. If a person does bad, they give him medals, everything. If he does good, they walk away from him.”

"Terrorist stab me in the neck. Misrad Habitahon stab me in the back"

During our conversation, David asks me several questions. His English is not great and my Hebrew is non-existent so the conversation is a bit laborious. Rena joins in and they speak in Hebrew, with David returning to me with fresh questions. I make it clear that I am not a journalist, that I am interested because I write a blog. Finally they understand. The Alons are desperate for somebody to pick up on their and their son’s story.

“Tell a journalist to come, and somebody who can speak Hebrew and English. If you could speak Hebrew, I would tell you everything. English is difficult for us.”

The pictures show the banners that are hanging around the camp. The translations are based upon what David has told me.

Finally I bid the couple farewell and wish them luck. As I walk back up the hill I have time to reflect. I am a blog writer and not a journalist. A journalist would have asked tough questions, challenged them about their disillusionment with Israel, asked David if it was sensible to be so inflammatory towards his fellow countrymen. A journalist would have been able to check their story. My next move would have been to speak to the press in Haifa and asked them why they have not given the Alon’s story any space. I would have also gone to the press-office of the Shabak and asked them for their side of the story. I tried looking up the story of the initial attack on Shel Alon and the Alon’s six-month long campaign in the Jerusalem Post, Israel National News, Haaretz.com and Israel Insider but drew a complete blank. It goes to show that the Internet is a valuable resource but is still limited.

The flip side of this of course is what if David is right? That the local journalists won’t touch this story because of vested interests and because, although true, it shows Israel in a bad light. How else can such a story be brought to the world, except through a random meeting between a curious foreigner and a family struggling with an indifferent and powerful state?

Israel is a free country. The Alons are free to campaign and the State is free to ignore them.

David and Rena Alon, outside the tent that has been their home for six months

* * *

The next day I go to work offshore. When I return the taxi picks me up and on the way to the airport we drive past David and Rena's camp.

"I'm sorry," I say to the taxi driver. "But I can't read Hebrew. What do those posters say? Is it some kind of protest?"

"It will be to do with the elections," replies Lulu. "We have an election on the 10th." He looks over at posters.

"Ah, they are just election posters?" I ask innocently.

"Yes."

Berlusconi Really is an Idiot

2009-01-26T21:39:00.005Z

“You are kidding Joe! He said what?”
“I know!” Joe was smiling in disbelief. “How can such a man be the Italian Prime Minister? It’s incredible! What an idiot!”

It was during an afternoon walk with my friend that he told me what Silvio Berlusconi had said yesterday. The comments had not been reported on the BBC news so I had missed them.

Following several brutal rapes in the Italian capital, Berlusconi put forward plans to deploy up to 30,000 troops on the street. But when criticised that these measures would be expensive and ineffective, he replied:

“We could not field a big enough force to avoid this risk [of rape]. We would need so many soldiers because our women are so beautiful.”

As Joe pointed out to me, the logic is we might as well condone bank robbery because it is the fault of the banks having all that money in one place. I just cannot believe the depth of ignorance displayed by this individual.

I’m not going to harp on about why Berlusconi’s comment is so damaging. You are a smart person, dear reader. I’m writing about it really as a follow-up to my earlier article The Shadow Within. In that I discussed the challenges of racism and sexism that we are still facing in the 21st. Century. Berlusconi’s stupidity has given me another opportunity to illustrate the point. There are a lot of human rights issues that seemed to have been won some time ago. That is obviously not the case.

Naturally Berlusconi is unrepentant. Apparently his comment was meant as a compliment to Italian womanhood. “People should have a sense of good humour," he said. We do Silvio; that is why your comments are so appalling.

If a British Prime Minister had said such a ridiculous and insensitive remark, I hope he would have had the decency to resign.

But of course, that thought wouldn’t even cross your sexist mind, would it Mr. Berlusconi.

Selected sources

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4339817/Silvio-Berlusconi-criticised-for-pretty-girl-rape-comment.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83709&sectionid=351020606

http://martinveart.blogspot.com/2009/01/shadow-within.html

What Does Israel Want?

2009-01-22T13:55:00.011Z

I like trivia. Especially quizzes. And the one in the Jerusalem Post that morning in early December was particularly tough. I only got four out of ten correct. One of the questions stuck with me though as particularly curious. “Outside which town is the proposed site of the new Palestinian airport.” I didn’t have a clue. Ramallah perhaps? Isn’t that the capital of the West Bank? No, the answer was Netanya. Now I know that Israel is really a small place, but I’ve been there and that is definitely still in Israel and not the West Bank. A curious fact which I have been pondering since.

* * *

By a telephone call, I had just been snatched from working on my house, again, flown overnight from Edinburgh via London to Tel Aviv and frankly I was pessimistic. My driver Momi was pumping me with questions “Martin, will they find anything? Is there gas there?” Having just left the rig six days previously, I had seen no indication of the major find that was about to take place. But that is the nature of exploration: one day there is nothing, the next the whole world wants to be your friend.
Gas was not the only thing on Momi’s mind that morning. “Our attack in Gaza will be a failure if the Hamas leadership survives. But what do they do? They hide under the hospital! We don’t want to kill civilians. Why can’t they hid somewhere else?”
Perhaps they weren’t very enthusiastic about being killed, I thought to myself. What did people expect? Hamas to move into a field so that they could be decently bombed?
“But Momi,” I said. “All the Arab states have said that if Israel retreats to the pre-1967 borders, there will be peace.”
“Why can’t these people accept that they lost! We won, they lost. Get over it and move on!”

The attack on Gaza is now over. Momi didn’t get his wish: the Hamas leadership did survive. But the effect on the people and the city are terrible and it will take years to rebuild. Personally I don’t think that matters much to Israel, even less now that the Tamar gas find is looming larger and larger in the public consciousness. The Saudi’s have already pledge $2 billion worth of aid to rebuild the territory. As I outlined in my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!”, the Palestinians could be a lot richer than they are if Israel had not been consistently blocking the development of the gas fields offshore Gaza. But on the grounds that profits would go to finance weapons for Hamas, negotiations were ended with BG Group and the company closed it’s offices in Tel Aviv in 2007. That was not the end of the story however: talks were restarted in 2008 in an attempt to convince BG Group to sell their stake in the Gazan gas fields to a new consortium, the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC).

Israel needs gas in order to secure water. The chosen method is the building of new desalination plants which are very energy-intensive. So Israel wants energy in order to deal with the effects of global warming. There is even an alternative to this however. Since I last commented upon this issue, I have been contacted by Terry Spragg who has been kind enough to outline to me a new technology for moving large volumes of fresh water across oceans without the need for container vessels, potable water tankers or laying pipelines. Known as the Spragg Bag, each individual section can hold up to 17,000 tonnes of fresh water, with what is claimed to be the world’s strongest zip fastener linking together up to five of these bags. The real smart trick however is that these bags can then be towed by a vessel as modest as a standard-powered tug boat. I can certainly see the value of this remarkable technology, especially in emergencies such as the one that Gaza is facing at this moment. Whether the Israelis will go for it to solve their own water issues, that is a matter which shall be considered in a moment.

There are a few more apparently random thoughts that I would like to add to the mix before struggling to some kind of conclusion. The first is Israel’s recently built security fence, or apartheid wall as it has been called by it’s critics. I think there is truth in both labels. As far as security is concerned, it seems to have worked. Well I was here in 2000, people were a lot more nervous. I was in a bar in Natanya which was then bombed the following week. Security was very tight within Israel. Now it is a lot more relaxed. But there are negatives to it as well. The routing of the wall was little more than a blatant land grab in many places. It’s main function however is to control, absolutely, the movement of people and goods into the Palestinian West Bank.

Likewise the withdrawal from Gaza. It was true that Israelis did withdraw people, but that is nothing like the same as granting the Palestinians within autonomy. The reason being is that the supply of goods and services remain in control of the Israelis. The bombing of the supply tunnels were justified on the grounds that these were the routes by which weapons were smuggled into the territories. Probably true, but they were also the way that most other supplies moved into Gaza too. Laying siege is not the same as granting freedom.

We finally return to the proposed Palestinian airport and why I love trivia. If the airport is built outside Netanya, it is obvious that Israel intends to remain in full control of the movements of people and goods into the West Bank. Just as in Gaza. Just as it was unhappy with the attitude of BG Group and is now pressing that company to sell out it’s stake to the Israeli-controlled IEC. What Israel wants more than anything else is total control over it’s land and resources. The political implications are even more obvious: there will never be a viable two-state solution because an independent Palestine will be outside the control of the Israeli government and this can never be tolerated.

Let us return to water. The gas is so valuable to Israel because it will allow the planned desalination plants to be powered independently of Egyptian supplies. The is an alternative however in the form of mass-importation of water from Turkey (a close ally of Israel) via giant water bags. But we have already seen the case for Israel’s love of control. I therefore think that importation of such a vital resource will not be looked upon favourably by the Israeli government. The only ray of hope I can offer Terry Spragg is this: it is Israel’s stated aim that the planned desalination plants are intended not only to supply the country with it’s water but are also to be used to replenish the depleted aquifers beneath the land. What if the fast-track to refilling the aquifers was not the desalination plants but by limited term importation from Turkey? This would mean that the desalination plants would not have to produce so much water and that the new finds off Haifa will last the country even longer. Hell, it would even be good for the environment!

Selected sources

IEC control
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2133287/?relatestories=1

Spragg Bags (and photo credit)
http://www.waterbag.com/

Please refer to my previous article “Israel and Gaza – it’s a gas!” for other references.

The Shadow Within

2009-01-21T02:55:00.003Z

This blog entry will not be a comfortable read. The title of this article isn’t about the inauguration of Barack Obama. That for me at least seems to be a joyful and hope-filled occasion in a world where hope has been having a hard time of late. No, the shadow that I refer to is the racism that one still encounters.

When I was growing up, I was taught by my father that people are people and that basically we all want the same thing: a reasonable standard of living, good health and education for our children. That was somewhat at odds with what some of our neighbours were willing to grant us, growing up as we did in England of the 1970s during the Troubles of Northern Ireland. Having a Irish-Catholic background, people were not racist to our face, but often were behind it. My father was not perfect himself: he thought South Africa was the best-run country he had been to on that continent since it brought a better standard of living to more people, both black and white. On that basis, he was content to support the white apartheid government there. Being a marine engineer, he also did not have much time for Indian radio officers and electricians he encountered; considering them mostly lazy and inefficient. For that reason, I came to learn that he too was considered a racist.

It was when I was in my early twenties however, I took a trip down to London with a couple of friends. I had known one of them for years, but the other was relatively new to me. It was all very nice and very civilised until we got to the outskirts of Brentwood. There, they saw the first black man of the day. These nice, civilised people changed instantly. “There’s a nigger! You smell! You stinking gigaboo!” It wasn’t meant as a joke: there was real hatred in the voices. Sometime they were almost screaming. I had heard racist jokes before and had repeated them myself. That was the first time I had encountered serious, heart-felt hatred and I did not find it attractive.

When I was twenty four, I joined the oil industry. I liked it instantly as it was the first really decent job I had and also background did not seem to matter; as long as one could do the work, you would be accepted. Just what I needed. It is one of the aspects of the industry I still like today, but I have to temper my enthusiasm somewhat. Things were not and are still not today perfect. I was told by Pat, a wily and tough accountant, that I could go far. I pointed out to her that she too should be leading her accounts department, as her boss was considered weak and ineffective. “Yes Martin,” she corrected me. “But unlike you, I don’t have a pair of balls.” She was right. When I left the company to go to university, I was enlisted by my otherwise excellent boss to help select my replacement. We got the shortlist down to two and the outstanding candidate happened to be female. I pressed him upon his reluctance. His reason was that he “would not feel comfortable working with a woman.” At least she was hired, but only after intervention from above. Even when I rejoined the industry, sexism still continued to be an issue. I still remember managers who, when faced with a c.v. from a female applicant for an offshore position, would instantly throw it in the bin. I am glad now that things are changing, but female workers are still under-represented in offshore roles by a considerable degree.

As a strange coincidence, the last location where I spent both Christmas and New Year away from home, was also the place where I first witnesses hard-edged racism in the industry. That was in Cabinda, geographically part of the Congo but politically belonging to Angola. Not all the white fellows there were racist but many of them were. When challenged about it, or signs of disapproval were made, the stock reply was something like “I can be racist because I have to work with the fuckers ever day.” It was at that time a local employee had turned off an alarm that had sounded at the oil storage depot at one o’clock in the morning. The result was a discharge of up to 40,000 barrels of oil into the Atlantic, which polluted 180 miles of coastline. I raise it in context here because of the reaction of many of the ex-pat workers. Chevron would only admit in public that thirty nine barrels of oil had leaked, thereby avoiding the need to announce an international pollution incident. A government minister was reported to have angrily said “We may be black, but we are not stupid!” You can imagine the response that this brought privately among many of the white workers.

President Obama taking the oath of office withMichelle looking proudly on. Photo credit AFP

So we come to today’s inauguration, or “niggeration” that it has been called among most of the American employees on board this rig. Note I write “most”, not some. And it doesn’t seem to be a generational thing; all age groups are represented in voicing abuse. Most of the humour centred around President Obama potential for being assassinated, with one view that “I hope he gets a year in power so people can ask “what have we done?” before he gets offed.” I guess the new president didn’t receive much support from the eligible voters on board.

I hope such comments represent an decreasing view point, not just among Americans but among the peoples of the world. Obama spoke today of boundaries falling, of people realising their common humanity. I’m reminded of another fellow from Louisiana. It was a couple of months after Hurricane Katrina had devastated large parts of the state. I attempted to commiserate with him about the damage and loss of life, especially in New Orleans. He looked at me as if I was mad. “Them people were told to get out!”

None of us are perfect; even I have been, correctly, brought to book recently for one of my comments that showed poor judgement and understanding. But President Obama and his staff still has much work to do. I support him in the struggle ahead and wish him luck, success and a very long life.

Gaza and Israel: it's a gas!

2009-01-17T07:16:00.004Z

The semi-submersible drilling rig on location over the Tamar-1 well

It was bound to happen. Israel can’t carry on indefinitely it’s ruthless bombardment of Gaza. With only three days left before the inauguration of Obama and the 44th President of the United States of America, it wouldn’t look good if there wasn’t as least some form of ceasefire on the table by then. The last thing that Israel needs is to get off to a bad start with the new president.

It is therefore by total serendipity that the upcoming ceasefire follows on from one of the most fortunate events in Israel’s recent history: the discovery of potentially the largest hydrocarbon reserves the country has known. Since I am directly involved in the project, I cannot say much. But I can refer you to the various press releases made by partners and a government website, The Israel Export and International Co-operation Institute.

“The Tamar-1 drilling, some 90 kilometers west of Haifa, is considered the most promising of the potential drilling sites off Israel's coast. Initial estimates were of a 35% chance of finding a reserve of 87 billion cubic meters of natural gas.”

This is relevant to Gaza, as Michel Chossudovsky points out in his article The Israeli Invasion & Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields, there has been a long-running feud between Israel and Gaza as to the exploitation of the large gas reserves that were discovered off the coast of Gaza in the late 1990s. To this day, these gas fields lie unexploited because of blocks put on development by various Israeli governments. Following the election of Hamas, efforts were redoubled to ensure that the Palestinian authorities would not see any of the estimated $2 billion that the project would yield for the Palestinian people. These blocking efforts culminated in the intervention of Tony Blair with the operators BG Group (formally British Gas) when they finally lost patience with the Israelis and approached the Egyptians instead.
Chossudovsky puts the case that Israel, increasingly desperate for natural resources, planned Operation Lead Cast to be rid of Hamas, not to prevent a few rockets being fired, but to install a Palestinian authority which would be a more suitable partner for the exploitation of Gazan gas. In other words, effective annexation of the most valuable resource the Palestinians have.

Why does Israel need this energy so badly? On top of the normal needs of a modern society, Israel is having to face another more pressing crisis: the lack of water. With climate change leading to less rainfall in recent years and an increase in population (a growth of over one million, mainly from Eastern Europe in the 1990s), the country has been growing increasingly thirsty. Development of existing aquifers has met with limited success so the authorities have turned to desalination to solve their water needs. A plant opened at Ashdod in 2006 with supply five percent of the country’s needs and more are planned. Desalination has long been used in the Arabian Gulf, where the energy required for this process has not been an issue. The same cannot be said in Israel. As the old joke goes, Moses may have led the chosen people to the land of milk and honey but it seems to be only place in the Middle East without oil. Israel is already dependent on Egyptian gas supplies and are willing to do anything to avoid becoming even more dependent on a neighbour which is still viewed as a potential enemy.

If the hopes for this discover are realised, the Tamar project may be just what Israel needs: a large supply of energy, independent of Arabic sources.

In the meantime, the people of Gaza are still dying. Expect the number of sorties to increase right up to the ceasefire being signed because there is a lot at stake. But the Tamar gas project may not just benefit Israelis but may supply what all the people of the region need: a little respite.

Let us all hope the time is used searching for a long-term peace, and not just another ceasefire.

Selected sources:

Tamar gas project
http://www.export.gov.il/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?CategoryID=391&ArticleID=10137
Water
http://www.water-technology.net/projects/israel/
www.waterwebster.com/documents/desalinationreportjune2007.pdf (page 28 - Israel)
Gaza gas
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00101.htm

Traveling Back

2009-01-07T16:29:00.005Z

From the East, flights to London always seem to demand getting up at ungodly hours. Flying from Israel is no exception, even when the airplane’s departure time is a not unreasonable 07:30.

My alarm had been set for 02:30 but as it happened I was awake way before that. Working offshore without a back-to-back means one has to be ready to work when they need you. A couple of nights previously I had started my surveying at midnight so my sleep patterns, having to switch on demand from day to night and back again, do get messed up.

The taxi was ready at 03:00hrs outside my hotel. The night receptionist had kindly made me a cup of hot instant coffee, which I carried into the leather-upholstered Mercedes cab. A good job it was, as I managed to spill some of it onto the front seat. Not a good start but many apologies and the use of a ‘wetwipe’ later, we were off.

I didn’t get the name of my driver but like all those on contract to the oil company, he is from Ashdod in the south of Israel. He had already had a two-hour drive up to Haifa but at least Ben Gurion Airport, just outside Tel Aviv, was en-route back home.

The radio was tuned into a late night phone-in show to which the driver was listening intently. Being in Hebrew, I had no idea as to content, so I asked him what the topic was.

“It’s about Gaza,” he replied. “It’s people phoning in from all over the world.”

“What are they saying?”

“It is messages of support. Prayers for the safety of our kids who are fighting and hope that the rocket attacks are stopped.”

“What do you think of the attack on Gaza?”

There was a silence for a while. I thought that he would not reply but then an answer came.

“I live in Ashdod with my family. I have four children, the eldest of which is eleven. Three boys and a girl. Ashdod and the other towns have been closed for business in the past week. No schools, nothing. Nobody goes outside because of the rockets. My wife says to me tonight “Don’t go! Stay inside where it is safe.” But I have to work.”

I agreed with him that life has to continue but didn’t he think that it was heavy-handed for the IDF to be killing so many when Israeli casualties had been so low? At that point in time, four Israeli deaths had been reported. Of course, that was four deaths too many.

“Yes, but you have to understand we have been getting rockets every day, every day for the past six or seven years. Our argument is not with the Palestinian people but it is with Hamas. They hate us and it has been worse when they came to power. What else can we do?”

This fatalism by the Israeli people seems to be the attitude of pretty much every Jewish person I spoke to on the subject. The new bout of blood-letting seems to be accepted as part of the cycle of things. “What else can we do?” is the usual reply from pretty much every Israeli I have heard voice an opinion on the topic.

I have been wondering about this attitude of acceptance. On the Friday night before travelling I had met a couple of guys in the Bear Bar in Haifa, Anwar and Carmel. Really nice lads; age-wise probably in their late twenties, maybe early thirties. Anwar had been a commander in the IDF for five years. But as their names may suggest, they are not Jewish, rather they come from the local community of Druze Christians. In childhood they had not been sold any dream of ‘a little piece of land for our own.’ But I am certain that if they had still been in the military, they would have played their required part in Operation Cast Lead.

It seems to me that it is their time in military service of the state that unites the people of Israel, regardless of ethnic or religious background. Those three years (minimum) does more than anything else instil a sense of nationhood and solidarity. It also allows individuals in Israel to look on at the suffering of their closest neighbour with detachment because these people do not have that shared experience. They are in effect, “other. Not one of us.” After all, that is exactly what military training sets out to achieve. I cannot see what else it can be because otherwise the Israeli people are warm, friendly and so hospitable.

The killing in Gaza has been continuing all week now. Since the friendly-fire incident of a few days ago, I have not heard any news of further Israeli casualties. Really that is a good thing. But I so wish I could say the same about casualties and suffering of the Palestinians of Gaza. The Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ron Proser, was on the Today Programme (BBC Radio 4) this morning, defending the IDF’s attack on the UN school which killed sixty and injured many more. He made the claim that several days prior to the attack, Hamas had used the school compound as a site for mortar battery.

Meanwhile, in this morning’s Independent, Robert Fisk has written these lines

“And I write the following without the slightest doubt: we'll hear all these scandalous fabrications again. We'll have the Hamas-to-blame lie – heaven knows, there is enough to blame them for without adding this crime – and we may well have the bodies-from-the-cemetery lie and we'll almost certainly have the Hamas-was-in-the-UN-school lie and we will very definitely have the anti-Semitism lie. And our leaders will huff and puff and remind the world that Hamas originally broke the ceasefire. It didn't. Israel broke it, first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians.”

At least the BBC presenter on Today had the gumption to question the ambassador on who had really broken the cease-fire. But really even that is missing the point. The real question should have been “why was there a siege around Gaza to begin with?” Let me offer a possible answer. In recent history a blockade has been used to “soften up” a country or territory prior to war being waged against it. Iraq is the best example of this. So, with this in mind, it can be presumed that eighteen months ago, Israel knew that they were going to attack Hamas in Gaza at some point in the future. The ceasefire of the past summer held reasonably well; at least the rocket attacks upon the southern towns were much reduced. It was only following the two Israeli attacks in November (killing ten Palestinians) that the vast majority of the three hundred or so rockets were fired before the cease-fire was officially ended.

There is an election due soon in Israel. Before Operation Cast Lead, the ruling coalition looked set for defeat. Now the polls show that they have a fighting chance of being re-elected.

There is nothing more cynical than politicians laying down the lives of people simply to win an election.

Cited report:

Robert Fisk in the Independent newspaper, 7^th. of January 2009.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html

2008 - Bloody Awful

2008-12-28T17:19:00.007Z

What a bloody awful year it's been for the world. It hasn't been the best for me either. At least I found out the reason why I have been feeling generally under the weather all year. Nursing a gut-full of African parasites since April 2007 would tend to take the edge off most people. But I'm clear now so am feeling better on that count.

My troubles are small when compared to the rest of the world however. These past few days have been atrocious. The continued Israeli attacks into Gaza is just creating more suffering. Isaac Hertzog was on the BBC today, asking what else could they do to stop Hamas’ missile attacks into Israel? Not provoking them earlier in the month would have been a good start, with the killing of Hamas personnel within the Gaza border. But that has always been the way. Attack and reprisal. Now Hamas has promised revenge. As if turning a café full of Israelis into an abattoir would solve anything. If it’s war both sides want, then things just have to continue in the same vein. The only country who has any sway over Israel is the USA. According the APF news agency, President Elect Obama is “is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza.” President Bush is speaking not to Israel nor to the Palestinians. Instead he has called the Saudis. Please excuse my cynicism, but I don’t doubt the purpose of the call was to make sure that things are business as usual. And I know about Mr. Obama’s policy of “one president at a time” but his silence on the matter amounts to consent for Israel’s actions.

Perhaps it is time for the USA to review it’s policy of arms trading with Israel? I doubt if you are reading this blog Mr Obama, but if you wanted to do something to gain the trust of the world when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this would be a major step. I’m not advocating leaving Israel defenceless, just not in a position to be so damn aggressive. It looks like that Gaza is now in for the same treatment that Lebanon received in 2006. But with the population so tightly packed in such a small area, the slaughter will be intense.
Oh, and while you are at it, Mr. Obama, perhaps it is also time to review US policy on retaining the capacity on being able to fight two major wars simultaneously? I know there is an old saying about if one wants peace, one should prepare for war, but if one wants war, then it seems to me that the preparations are the same. And given the current economic strength of America, can the USA continue to afford such a policy. It was the arms race that broke the Soviet Union. Is America risking the same fate?

Speaking of wars, Afghanistan and Iraqi have also been weeping sores. I link these two countries because of the military effort that has been required to launch concurrent invasions. As you doubtless remember, the invasion of Afghanistan occurred in 2001, following the 9/11 attacks upon the USA. Many things were promised as justification: the eradication of the Taliban and their regime based upon the culture of the refugee camps, the end to terrorist training camps and, most importantly, the rebuilding of the country after over twenty years of bloodshed. Well, thanks to the second Iraq War and the resources that were diverted into this illegal campaign, none of that happened. In fact the Taliban has regained support again and has spread, now posing a real threat to Pakistan. The radicalisation of Pakistani youth has now spread over to the sixty-year rivalry between Pakistan and it’s larger neighbour India. The terror attack on Mumbai this year is in all probability a direct result of the failure of the Afghanistan campaign.

So what has all this stuff got to do with us? The opinions I have been hearing and reading from friends and colleagues range from support for the Israeli action (“what else are we supposed to do?”), through to apathy (“both sides are just as bad as each other.”). One of my Indian friends has directly linked the Mumbai attacks to Kashmir, saying “Kick the Bastards Out.”

Fortunately there are others who share my horror at what is happening and are vocal in their protests. With the building threat to civil liberties in the West however, it remains to be seen for how long such voices are tolerated by governments. If we are lucky, it may be for another generation. But all the signs are there. It remains to be seen in American whether Barack Obama will continue with the expansion of the so-called Patriot Act. If he does, the only possible hope I see is that the left-wing of US politics will listen to the right-wing as they protest and say “Hey, that is what we were saying a couple of years back.” In Britain, the New Labour Government has already introduced the Identity Card (a misnomer – really it a super-database in which all available information about an individual is accessible in one place). In Australia, moves are afoot to censor the Internet – The Great Australian Firewall. A term chillingly reminiscent of the Great Chinese Firewall – their governments attempt to control access to the Web.

For shear nerve and audacity however, the prize for Scumbag Country of the Year 2008 must go to Russia and it’s attempt to rehabilitate Josef Stalin. The authorities are running a plebiscite for the Greatest Russian Ever, the mass murderer and psychopath old Uncle Joe is tipped to get the vote. I couldn’t finish Simon Sebag Montefiore’s book Stalin, the Court of the Red Tsar. Each page seems to have been written in the blood of thousands.
There are obvious political advantages for the rise of Stalin to official favour. It will signal the way for the return of the cult of personality, and with that the crimes that Stalin and his lieutenants committed will no longer be seen as such, but rather as strict and necessary measures with which Stalin guided the country to survival and through to prosperity. Measures, should the unfortunate need arise, the government, probably with Mr Putin again at it’s head, will not hesitate to enforce.
What I find personally disgusting is that even elements of the Orthodox Church has jumped aboard the bandwagon, with icons of Stalin now hanging in several churches, and even calls for canonisation. I never thought I would ever use this phrase, but the canonisation of Josef Stalin would be a blasphemy against God.

Nikita Khrushchev, one time henchman of Stalin and his successor was probably the only First Secretary to leave the Soviet Union in a better state than how it was when he came to power. The politicians of today would be wise to remember Khrushchev’s words that follow. When in his old age he was asked if there was anything he regretted, Khrushchev answered “Yes, the blood. So much blood.”

Selected Links

Gaza: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7801657.stm
US military policy: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/07/mil-050714-rferl01.htm
AFP reports: US reaction to Gaza
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hlg6gJoFxIIFzFiTaidIBHFQFafA
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3eDBHAxraJgDP729NqRoCg00Imw
Australian Internet debate: http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/world/2008/12/26/7855261.html
Stalin: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7801773.stm
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KvwwAAAACAAJ&dq=stalin+the+court+of+the+red+tsar
Khrushchev:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/product-description/0743231651

Picture credits

Gaza: Mohammed Abed, AFP
Stalin: BBC website

US TV News

2008-12-27T09:45:00.003Z

I first realised that there might be something up with the quality of US media in 1996 where I was in Houston for some training. I was due to be at work for 8.00 am. so decided to catch the news for fifteen minutes prior to departure. CNN was located on the television. Not my favourite broadcaster, but I knew it from the international coverage so, it was reasonable enough. Or so I thought it would be. The 07:15 story was the Santa Claus’ of Time Square. Okay, I settled down to wait for this soft item to finish. 07:20 and it was still on. By that time even the commentators had given up; just images of guys in wigs and red suits were being broadcast. 07:25. They’re taking the piss aren’t they? 07:30 came and it was time to leave for work. What the hell is going on?

This couldn’t possibly be representative of the internal US media could it? So after that I made a point of tuning in on a daily basis. While the items were not so dire (how could they be?), the coverage was limited to solely US domestic news. If there was the rarest of mentions of anything international, it was always in relation to either a visit by a senior government member or news from abroad that had direct implications for the USA. I was told there was one regular international news programme, that going out at the less-than-peak-time of 4.00 pm. In the domestic news there was always, and I mean always, a news item about the President, even if he was doing bugger all that day.

As I said, that was twelve years ago. This morning I found the CBS Early program. Okay, I thought. Let’s see what is on?

Main news item on the hour: consumer spending. Message: “do the patriotic thing,” go out and “if you have money, spend it.”
The holiday period with the Obama family.
Lance Armstrong is a father again. Does drug taking reduce an athlete’s sperm count?
Schumacher Chevrolet. A small business bucking the trend. “What would you do if you got a call from the White House, asking you to step in and run America’s motor industy?”
Military families at Christmas
Eartha Kitt. Died on Christmas Day, aged 81.

Alright, it is the holiday period. But if this is representative of the news in America, no wonder the general public is ignorant of world affairs. I love the American people, they are warm and generous and it is a fantastic place to visit. But it is almost distressing the lack of general knowledge that most people have about the outside world. There has been plenty of jokes made about it already. I too have my funny stories. But this isn’t the time to tell them here. I’m trying to make a serious point. The citizens of the USA deserve better than they are getting. When I was a child, I learned things off the news. The British media is by no means perfect but it is often informative and does cover at least the major world events even in its’ most popularist news programs. There is even a special news program for children on the BBC to introduce them to the concepts of news and information.

Bigger names and smarter guys than me have commented on the state of the US media and whom they serve. Noam Chomsky has written extensively on it. It was also highlighted by Michael Moore in his film “Bowling for Columbine.” The problem is though is that a lot of the serious criticism of the media has been coming from the left of the political spectrum, while the right has been critical of the media for being too liberal. As a foreigner, I don’t understand the terms of such debate. It seems to me that the root question the American people has to ask is “Do we want to be informed and educated by our television news media or not?”

Because at the moment, that question is being answered for you with a resounding “No!"

Weather

2008-12-24T14:08:00.008Z

The view from my logging cabin isn’t so benign this Christmas Eve. An angry swell is rolling away from this side of the rig and although there are patches of blue sky, to the east the horizon is smeared with rain and there is a faint rainbow that disappears into battleship-grey clouds.

From the security of an oil rig, one gets to know the sea without the trauma of sailing upon her. A fact I am eternally grateful for because I get sea sick amazingly quickly. The last time I suffered from it was three years ago in Israel. If one is feeling queasy, it is by far better to get into the open air. My mistake was to come across a toilet en-route to the deck. A crewman found me, three hours later, hugging the bowl. At best I was semi-conscious. That didn’t stop them bundling me onto the personnel basket and being lifted skywards onto the rig’s desk, where I promptly collapsed onto all fours in a vain attempt to vomit up my own sphincter. Below are a series of photographs as to what is entailed in a basket transfer. Thankfully the past few trips have been less dramatic.

The seas last night were fairly dramatic. Wind speeds hit forty-three knots, quite a storm for the Mediterranean and since this rig isn’t really built to North Sea specifications, operations have been suspended. Currently we are Waiting On Weather. Despite the huddled looks of the Philippine crewmen, it isn’t cold. Air temperatures are still in the mid-teens Celsius. It is rough certainly, but that would be par for the course at this time of year in the North Sea. In fact, it would be pretty normal for most of the year. At the moment the rig is being hit with a Westerly wind and I would estimate it to be a Force Six or Seven on the Beaufort scale. Wave height is averaging two-three metres, with a maximum of about four.

For those of you landlubbers (Aharrrgh!) not familiar with the Beaufort Scale for estimating wind speed, I’ll leave you this link to explains it:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/marine/guide/beaufortscale.html

Basically it runs from Zero – flat calm, sea state mirror-like – through to Force Twelve – Hurricane – I told you it was a bad idea leaving the basement and now we are all going to die.

I can’t say that from a rig one gets to know the sea as well a skipper of a yacht or even a supply ship. One certainly isn’t so aware of the currents around the rig for instance. But over the years I’ve seen a few sights. My first summer offshore the sun shone for six weeks solid and the seas around Norway could have been made of glass. Coleridge got it spot-on with his “as still as a painted ship / upon a painted ocean.” It was also off the Norwegian coast however, where I came across the opposite of calmness. North of Bergen there is an area of the Atlantic where the ocean floor rises steeply from very deep water, enhancing the wave height above. For over a week, the average wave height was eighteen metres (sixty feet). Fortunately the wave-length was long, enabling the rig to sit within the peaks and troughs. What that looked like was one would see a hillside of water approaching the rig; the rig would rise upon it and from the peak one could see miles. Then down again, with a hill of water moving away, the next one coming on towards you. Maximum wave height hit twenty-eight metres (over ninety feet).

I am sometimes asked if I’m ever scared by storms. If I was going to be, it would have been on such an occasion as those mountainous seas off Norway. But although there were a lot of nervous people on board, myself included, to say that we were scared would be an over-statement. Nobody panicked, nobody showed real fear and I think that is what kept everybody calm. The rig was moving a lot – pitching over ten degrees and people were getting sea-sick. But afraid? No.

Now, pop me into a thirty-foot fishing boat and a Force Nine gale and it might be a different story.

**********

Basket Transfer

(from boat to rig)

Approach the basket, luggage in the middle and don the floation vests

People on the outside, luggage on the inside. Hold on tight. Going up!

Still going up!

And safely round and over onto the rig.

Great fun!

Merry Christmas Everybody!

Watching the Waves

2008-12-20T19:47:00.003Z

From where I am sitting, I have a lovely sea view. It is fairly calm, the dark water is lightly ruffled and the sky is mostly overcast; the occasional patch of blue showing through the fluffy swollen clouds. And it is warm, about 22 degrees Celcius maybe more. Which tells you I’m not in Scotland. Another thing that detracts from the overall pleasure of the scene is the noise: hisses, bangs, throbs and crumps are all around, causing the cupboard doors to oscillate, my legs to vibrate and the metallic box in which I am currently sitting to occasionally shudder. Yes, the joys of being on board a deep water oil rig.

As those of you who were kind enough to read my earlier blog “Air” will already know, I am a seismic engineer. When performing a survey, the equipment I use puts an awful lot of energy into the environment. Nowadays that means looking out for marine mammals, prior to using the equipment. Which is fair enough; with power comes responsibility.

Usually when on the look-out for marine mammals, I don’t see anything that would interfere with the job. Occasionally up in the Moray Firth, I have spotted the distant breaches of bottle-nosed dolphin or harbour porpoise. From a lifting chopper I even once caught a glimpse of an Atlantic white-sided dolphin. The only time I have even had to postpone a job (so far) was off Mauritania, when on the point of deployment about 400 common dolphin decided to pass the rig. That was some sight; it took about twenty minutes for the last of the animals to move out of range. But even then they didn’t come too close. The previous week a calf had got trapped in the moon-pool (in this case, the hollow centre of the ship through which the drilling apparatus passes through) and had subsequently died. So who can blame them for staying away? But that has been the exception: most days marine mammals are noted for their absence.

That is not to say however that one doesn’t see anything. In the North Sea one often views a wide variety of birds. Gulls of course, varying in size through greater black-backed (wing span a little under two metres), through less black-backed, herring and down to common and black-headed gulls and kittiwakes. Off the Shetland Isles, one has an excellent chance of seeing Arctic skua, the heavy brown pirate gulls of the north. Gannets, fulmars and auks are common sightings. Perhaps more unexpected are the migrant species that occur. Often one sees something small and brown flitting in the shadows without being able to get a positive identification of it, but on other occasions they are in clear view: starling, robin, blackbird, flycatcher have all shown up. On a rig in the southern North Sea I once saw a large owl on the helideck, and on another occasion even a heron! A couple of eagles decided to make the drill ship there temporary home ninety miles off Mauritania (and for those of you who like their omens, yes, a lot of oil was found on that well) but for me, the most memorable occasion was when the rig played host to a flock of brambling. They are a small, colourful bird: think of a fancy sparrow and you get the idea. Anyway, the weather was freezing and these poor things must have been hungry. The birds were approaching the crew, sitting on their shoulders even, just begging for food. And we fed them: bread, porridge oats, fruit and water. It is amazing to approach a flock of wide birds, not have them fly away and come to the hand for food. The brambling started to recover after about three days of this treatment; at least they certainly had enough energy to fly away at our approach. I have no idea if they made it to land. The odds were against them but one never knows.

So, what did I see today? In the Mediterranean sea birds do not seem to be so common. In fact I haven’t seen any today. What is on show are medium sized tuna. Last night there were hundreds of them around the rig, attracted by the bright lights. I’m not certain what species they are: maybe yellow tailed? They are not small: averaging a couple of feet long. While waiting for some crane lifts today I decided to take a walk around the rig. Sure enough, the tuna were still there, either being dark narrow silhouettes, with electric-blue pectoral fins or rolling on their side, displaying their deep, shimmering, silver flanks. About forty metres off the starboard aft of the rig there was a sudden formation of splashes, as if a volley of mortar shots had hit the water. Away about fifty meters aft, six or so of the tuna launched themselves into the air. Something was hunting them. A big crescent splash then a brief view of a large dark back. Porpoise? A terrified yellow-tail hurled itself skywards followed in a split second by a massive dark fish: and fish it was. About six feet in length, the blue fin tuna cleared the water completely, turned in mid-air and splashed back into the sea.

I uttered a soft, Californian-style “Wooooow!”

Forced Marriages

2008-12-15T11:23:00.005Z

I was part of a crew in Baku a few years back when one of the guys got involved with a local girl, an ethnic Russian. For the brief time they were together they actually made a good looking couple. But Tim (as we shall call him) obviously had little idea about the local culture. One night over a few vodka’s, he looked over at Svetlana and said, almost to himself

“Maybe I should kidnap you.”

My heart sank. “No Tim, you have no clue what it’s like here.”

Svetlana stared back. “I already have been kidnapped. I escaped after three days.”

Today, the story of Humyra Abedin, 33, the UK-based trainee doctor, is in the news. She is being returned to Britain after suffering four months of captivity at the hands of her parents, who had been trying to force her into a local marriage. Most people associate such behaviour with families originating within the Indian sub-continent. This is not the case. Kidnap and forced marriage has long been a tradition in the southern republics of the ex-Soviet Union; often with the connivance of the girl’s family.

Before we were married, my wife was often pursued by suitors. One such was a close friend of her cousin who lives in Almaty, Kazakhstan. This particular friend was well-liked by the rest of the family and was undoubtedly sincere in intent. But for some reason was not acceptable to the one person whose opinion mattered most. This led to much frustration, until one day the cousins were discussing the matter. The conversation ended with the threat:

“So you won’t have him? What if I lock you in this room until you change your mind?”

It is at such times women realise their own vulnerability in the face of violence, even at the hands of their own family. Such attitudes will only end when women are no longer as seen as commodities to be traded and are respected for what and who they are: each as an individual human being.

Photo Credit: Dr Abedin outside the Dhaka High Court Photo: EPA

Air

2008-12-05T23:44:00.004Z

Without air and any one of us would die in a matter of minutes. In my work, air can kill in a millisecond.

How can this be? Air is the stuff of life, a child’s plaything. Heat it and direct it into a vast bag, a hot air balloon. In the movies it is something to blow across the hair of an actress or up the skirts of Marilyn Monroe. Put it under pressure though, and our saviour and toy can rapidly turn nemesis.

It is a simple process. All a compressor is is a series of motorised bicycle pumps. The air enters the first cylinder at atmospheric pressure which as you know, is the weight of the atmosphere we are adapted to live at. As the air passes through the various stages of compression, it is compressed down and down in volume until it leaves the final stage at 300 BAR – that is three hundred times atmospheric pressure. From there it is passed into a series of gas bottles which acts as a reservoir.

What is the reservoir used for? The output is fed down to a regulator: basically a valve which takes the pressure down to 140BAR. From there another hose leads to a seismic gun. This isn’t the kind of gun that is hand-held. They vary in size but an average weight is about 50 kilograms and they look more like a heavy missile or a skinny beer keg rather than an Glock or a Colt. There purpose is to store and then release a set amount of high pressure air upon command and to do this instantaneously – certainly within one millisecond of the other guns in the array. Although it is possible to use a single gun, they are more often used in conjunction with others. But whether it is one or twenty in a cluster, the purpose is the same: to generate a seismic signal.

This is a complicated method to generate seismic energy. The most straightforward way would be to use explosive. An explosive is a substance that compresses the air (or water) around it by burning ferociously. High explosive burns at a rate that is quicker that the speed of sound through air, thus adding to the force of the shock wave generated. As a generator of a seismic signal, explosive has no peer: it generates every frequency simultaneously. But that is the reason why it is so deadly: both the direct blast from a bomb and a seismic gun will kill but another killer is high-frequency energy. An air gun is designed to generate most of its signal at low frequencies. Thus it is much safer and more environmentally friendly to use an air gun in a marine environment than compared to an explosive. Flipper and his friends may get upset but unless they are directly caught with the blast, they won’t be injured or killed. Of course, another benefit of an air gun over explosive is that it can be reloaded with compressed air. A five kilogram charge is one-use only!

I’ll leave you with a little horror story as to what high-pressure air can do. A sub-sea engineer once showed me a scar across his thumb and then told me how he got it. He was cleaning a needle valve, unaware there was 700 BAR pressure behind it. The release blew a hole through his glove and through his thumb leaving an entry and exit wound and out though the glove on the other side. He was flown to hospital where his thumb had to be cut open to flush the grease out of the wound. The wound had to remain open for five weeks.

Air. Maybe a little more respect in future?

(The picture above shows a four-gun seismic source. The guns are the metal tubes on the sides of the frame.)

Hey Buddy! Can you spare $34 billion?

2008-12-04T15:51:00.003Z

From my hotel room I can see five parked cars below: two German and three Japanese. As a write, a large Izuzu 4x4 rolls silently by; the engine noise blocked by the wind. Far below, white and red streams can be made out, marking the route of the north-south coastal highway. It’s six lanes are broad and are just like the I-routes of the USA. But unlike them, the Israeli roads hold very few American-built cars.

Earlier in the day I had a three-hour walk around Haifa and it struck me that, considering the state of US-Israeli relations, just how odd it is that there are so few US cars are on the roads here. During my unscientific meander through the city, I started to notice that most private cars are from the manufacturers of the Far East and Northern Europe. But even American companies that build in these places seem to be under-represented. Of course, it isn’t all clear-cut: there are a lot of Mazdas here: that company has close links to Ford. But of GM’s European offerings, I only noticed one Opel (and that an ancient Astra) and an even older Ford Escort. But no Ford Ka, no Fiesta, no Mondeo, no new Astra, Vectra or c’mon! What is the name of GM’s smallest offering? The Corsa – as advertised in Europe by those silly glove puppets. No, here it is mainly Japanese, German and a smattering of French cars. Of US labelled cars, there were a couple of small Chevrolets (GM again) and a couple of more of their relatively new 300C, which seem to be hoping to be confused with a Bentley. Oh yes, and one Jeep Grand Cherokee. Just one.

Petrol here is expensive: a litre of 95 octane unleaded costing about $1.40. So while hitting the US-built gas guzzlers, that should not have ruled out Ford’s and GM’s European-built offerings. Just what is going on? The answer must be obvious: these companies are building cars that nobody wants to buy.

Five years ago, my wife and I became the accidental dining companions of a charming and elderly American couple. Both are professors, the husband being in St.Petersburg as a speaker at an international conference; his good lady wife being a professor of philosopher, with a particular interest in engineering. She was polite enough to be interested in my work, especially as to how somebody without an engineering background (my degree is in geology) can be put into a position of being a geophysical engineer and surveyor. But she earned her living by studying American industry and especially the motor industry. The key question that she seemed to want to answer was why did US manufacturers continue to produce products, but cars in particular, that are technologically inferior to their international competitors?

Today sees Richard Wagoner, chief executive of GM, and representatives of the other US motor manufacturing giants appealing to Washington and the US taxpayer for serious, serious money to bale them out. $34 billion. The car moguls are just hoping that the politicians will agree that they are too big to fail. At stake are the jobs of 355,000 employees that are directly employed in the US by the big three and a couple of million more that work in the component supplies industries.

It is a tough one. But the question that needs to be answered is even if the funds are granted, in the long term will the American motor industry still be able to compete with the rest of the world? Because if they can’t sell their cars to the nation who is America’s biggest friend, just to whom are they going to sell them to?

US / UK attitudes on election morning

2008-11-06T15:00:00.007Z

“Don’t you start about my president this morning. I’m getting enough ribbing in the lab right now!” Mike is a Republican and McCain supporter from Texas, who missed out on voting this time around because he was out of the country, even given the possibilities that now exist for voting in advance. “Godammit McCain got an asswhipping. How many seats on the electoral college did he get? 120?”
“156,” I replied. “And there are still some states to announce. But Obama was on 356 as of this morning.”
“So it was an asswhippin’ then. Obama has won and we’ll just have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s our president now and I wish him well.”

I think the last phrase is very telling. In the UK we don’t tend to think any better or worse about a particular person just because they made it to be Prime Minister. But the Americans are different. No matter how fiercely the election is fought, how nasty the tricks; when the man wins, he becomes the President and the vast majority of Americans rallies around him. I could never understand why this should be though. That is until Mike said his piece. Under the American system, the President is head of state. To be disrespectful of him (and so far, despite Hilary Clinton’s best efforts, it remains a ‘him’) is to be disrespectful of the institution too.

In Britain we often think the American attitude quaint. But aren’t we actually the same? Of course, prime ministers are lampooned without mercy. But what about the monarch? Recently in the television programme Mock The Week, it was reported that a particularly distasteful joke was made our own good Queen Bess the Second. Apparently many people complained to the BBC.

Now there are some in Britain who openly speak of the monarchy as being parasitic and that the whole thing should be scrapped. This is not the majority of the British people though. Each country finds it’s own way in addressing the issue. Personally I prefer an apolitical head of state. It allows for a greater freedom of political criticism for one thing. But when Britons are tempted mock the Americans for the reverence they show their politicians, and especially their president, it is well to pause for a moment and reflect how we treat our own head of state. Maybe we are not so different after all.

The Archbishop and Shari'a

2008-02-08T02:07:00.000Z

In an interview for The World at One, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world-wide Anglican church, put forward the argument that elements of Shair’a law should be introduced into British law. This was in order to avoid Muslims having “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Naturally, the Archbishop has been jumped upon from all sides of the political…(I was going to write “spectrum” there but upon reflection the political spectrum seems rather monochrome these day. But I digress..). More predictable will be the tabloid rants that will follow in the morning. Both The Sun and The Daily Mail are going to have a lot of fun at Dr. Williams’ expense.

So, what did the Archbishop actually say? A lot more than is being reported, even on the BBC. Dr. Williams is taking part in an ongoing debate in the future of multi-culturalism. This latest contribution is an attempt to address and expand the role of multi-culturalism in the framework of the nation-state.

Crudely put, the premise is thus: we are currently living in a post-Enlightenment world. People live in a multitude of over-lapping communities, each with their own culture, tradition and values. How do we allow people in such a society to follow their own way of life without compromising the rights of their fellow human beings, both those in their own cultural group, and those in adjacent groups?

By highlighting one specific aspect, that of Muslim communities and Shari’a, Dr Williams is effectively attempting to role back the nation-state, although not in the simple-minded way that doubtless will fill the newspapers tomorrow. The Archbishop also raises the dangers of human-rights abuses that can and do occur under Shari’a, abuses that simply are not to be tolerated under a Western democracy (and, I would argue, under any regime).

But it seems to me that Dr. Williams is a believer, but not of the Enlightenment. Although grateful for “the wake up call” that the Enlightenment has given religion, he is no great believer in what he sees as extreme examples of Enlightenment government in action, singling out Revolutionary France and China of the1970s. To my mind, neither is a great example. France descended into anarchy and bloodshed after the overthrow of the monarchy, and China was just rid of Mao, whose brutality exceeded none and whose permanent revolution was based on nothing more than state-encouraged violence.

What would be the future role of the State? It seems to be the guarantee of last resort for “human dignity”: a baseline which, it is believed that all can agree too. An individual would have rights guaranteed by the State, but would be free to suspend these if they so choose. But also one would be free to act upon those rights; nor could anybody stop another acting upon their rights if they so choose. Under Shari’a, that would effectively mean that apostasy could not carry the usual penalty (i.e. death). It would also mean that communities would be free to draw up codes that would have legal weight, especially in the areas of finance or civil disputes.

As things stands in Britain today, I think that Dr. Williams’ suggestions, although interesting, rather over-complicate matters. He is right to raise the issue of law and the plural society but Britain has always had a tradition, until very recently, of the citizen having negative rights. What I mean by this is that in Britain, if there is no law saying that a citizen is forbidden from doing something, then the citizen has the freedom to do it. This state is in contradiction to the European model of positive State rights: if there is no law allowing a certain act, then it is forbidden.

As applied to this debate, there is already room for groups to live how they choose. But if any religion has a set of laws that can be seen to have benefit to a community, why limit it to just that community? There is a political process in Britain that allows any citizen or group to put forward ideas, regardless of which philosophy the given idea is based upon. Let the suggested law be upheld to public scrutiny and, if it is a good law, then let it be passed into statute. That way, instead of being a more fragmented society, Britain becomes a lot more inclusive for all.

Bush in the Middle East

2008-01-09T15:37:00.000Z

After seven years in the White House, Bush is finally turning his attention to the problems of Israel and Palestine. At least that is the headlines in the media. In reality, Bush is visiting not only Israel / Palestine but also Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In other words, this trip is less about peace and more about oil.

Saudi Arabia, described by the US as moderate (ie. sympathetic to US policy) is in a difficult situation. There is nothing moderate about Saudi domestic policies, which has led to a great deal of internal unrest. Much of the population is relatively poor which, in the largest oil producing country in the world and the price of crude at over $100.00 a barrel, is a complete outrage. The money is going somewhere and my guess is that the royal family of Saud have a symbiotic relationship with both the USA and Britain. The West needs oil but the House of Saud needs the West in order to maintain power. Hence the wealth of the country is funnelled back to the West in the form of arms deals and various forms of military and security support. This visit to Saudi Arabia is the most important aspect of the whole tour but will receive the least publicity in the media.

The media focus will be on that one part of the tour which is probably the least important, at least to the participants. One can be sure that there will be no benefit for the Palestinian people. The Bush administration has no record in trying to help the Palestinians. I think the reason for his visit here is a lot closer to home.

Last night the New Hampshire primaries saw Hilary Clinton narrowly edge victory over Barack Obama, with the Republicans seeing John McCain as their clear winner on the night. 2008 is the year of the presidential elections. There is a large Jewish vote and the Republicans have got to be seen to earn what support it can.

Don’t expect the Bush trip to make any real difference to the Middle East, least of all to Palestine. I suspect the television coverage it generates is designed primarily for US domestic consumption.

The rest is business as usual.

Voting Russian Style

2008-01-05T23:17:00.000Z

Over Christmas I dined with several Russian friends. After one such dinner the talk turned to politics (for a change it wasn’t me who raised the subject). Our hosts are Putin supporters and the reason is that Putin delivers a better standard of living. Fair enough I suppose but what I didn’t expect was to have to defend the liberal democracy. The question was asked “surely you still don’t believe in voting?” As if I had just confessed to lingering doubts about the non-existence of Father Christmas.

In light of recent events in Pakistan and Kenya, who can blame them? Democracy as understood by the vast majority of the world is for the few. The recent thirty eight page dossier produced by the Pakistan People’s Party (formerly led by the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto) apparently gives details the ruling party’s subversion of the democratic process. (I have tried to find a copy of this document, it would make interesting reading). It seems that Mwai Kibaki in Kenya has been less sophisticated, relying on simply delaying the count while using the time to stuff the ballot boxes. Putin on the other hand has been the most successful. He has been allowed to do this because he has genuinely sought to be popular. And in the main that popularity has been achieved by returning order to Russian society.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the rule of law broke down in every level of society: the democracy that was brought in with Yeltsin was in fact the rule of robber barons. As long as the President’s family was in on the deal, gangster-capitalism ruled. I could go to the endless media examples to illustrate this point but instead I turn closer to home.

A friend of mine in St.Petersberg is an excellent chemist and food technologist. He was the head food technologist in a small business. In the evenings he worked on new technology processing sunflower oil. After two years the new method was perfected and the patent was drawn up. Celebrations all around! Or it would have been if my friend hadn’t received an unexpected visit from two men he did not know.
“We like your patent. Sign it over to us or we will kill you.”

Putin hasn’t put a total stop to this kind of theft but for many, life is a lot more stable since 2000. After the criminal excesses of the Yeltsin years, that is good enough. Also Putin has restored pride to the country; going from 80’s superpower to 90’s beggar was a bitter pill for most but in recent years the trend is being turned around. High oil prices and flexing of military muscle means that the feel good factor is back for the average Russian.

There is always a price though and in Russia’s case it is freedom of speech. Journalists (except in the tiny English language press) have returned to Soviet-style self-censorship, encouraged to do so by state persecution and even murder of colleagues. Oligarchs who have refused to bend the knee to Putin have either been imprisoned or fled into exile. They are not mourned by most Russians, the fortunes of the oligarchs were created during the corruption of the Yeltsin years. These times also saw Russia making many deals with western companies which with hindsight were seen as bad deals. Hence Russian moves to repossess assets such as Shell’s fields off Sakhalin Island and similar moves against BP in Siberia. It is this pressure against foreign corporations (especially British) that has led to degradation of Anglo-Russian relations, perhaps even more that the Litvinenko poisoning. I digress but all this conflict with foreign companies plays well at home for Putin.

Now we must look forward to the Presidential elections in March. I'm sure we'll see more of the vote-rigging ploys: ensuring managers recommend the correct candidate to their workforce, mind-games with internation polling verification organisations and patrols of students to prevent "Orange-style" popular uprisings as happened in neighbouring Ukraine. All these measures happened during the latest parliamentary elections.

But in my opinion these 'safeguards' are no longer necessary. As the father of another of one of my Russian-born friends said when asked by his daughter who he intends to vote for, he replied:

"I don’t know. Putin hasn’t told us yet.”

Reforming the House of Lords

2007-11-14T13:12:00.000Z

I was listening to Radio 4 the other day when I was annoyed to hear an idea being praised by some academic. It was on the selection for the House of Lords and the idea was that citizens should sit on juries to select peers. The reason this annoyed me is that I floated this very idea some time back. This is how it came about.

Remember New Labour’s “Peoples’ Peers”, the label applied to the Independent Appointment’s Commission chaired by Lord Stevenson? Members of the public were nominated, with the Commission receiving over 3000 applications to join the House of Lords. There was widespread outrage when Lord Stevenson announced the names of the successful applicants. Among those newly ennobled, six knighthoods and five other honours had already being awarded. What is more, Lord Stevenson suggested that normal people, such as hairdressers, would be uncomfortable being in the Lords.

This was November, 2001. At the time I happened to be listening to the Jimmy Young Show on BBC Radio 2 and decided to contribute to the debate. I was fortunate enough to get through to a producer (possibly with the name of Chris?) who was courteous enough to listen to my idea which was this:

The Independent Appointment’s Commission was effectively a selection jury made up from the Great and the Good. Is it any wonder therefore that they had selected new peers from their own social background? Therefore if the IAC was truly to represent “Peoples’ Peers”, the selection committee would have to be made up from normal people. How could this be achieved? By selecting the members of the IAC on the same basis as juries are selected for court cases. The individuals selected would be part of the panel for the duration of that selection round.

Now, I was on the telephone for about four minutes putting forward this suggestion. The gentleman on the other end seemed genuinely impressed and questioned me on aspects of the plan. After the conversation ends I listened to the rest of the programme in the hope that my idea would be mentioned. It was not. And there matters rested until I heard the same suggestion being praised the other day.

I am not accusing anybody of stealing my idea. It is almost certain that whoever came up with it recently had arrived at it independently. No matter what the provenance of the idea is, I reckon it is still a good one.

The problem with selection of the House of Lords is that it is tied too much to the justly criticised patronage system. IAC was a flawed attempt to balance the system. I am against the direct election of the Lords for the simple reason that it will undermine the independence of the House. Peers will be in the power of the political parties rather than independent as they are now. An elected Lords will also undermine the constitutional supremacy of the House of Commons. In recent years the Lords have been a centre of effective resistance to government attempts to pass through illiberal, not to say draconian measures such as the extension of the term of detention that the police can hold a suspect without charge. The Lords also acts as a centre of expertise and specialised knowledge that is simply not available to the Commons. This is all the more important with the increasing professionalisation of the political classes. In my opinion, a House of Lords made up of entirely elected members will fatally wound the institution and inevitably it will become a rubber stamp for the executive in power.

The power of the Lords is that its members, once they join the House, are life members. The government no longer has direct control over them. Certainly many still take the whip and sit loyally with their political party. But still the Lords is a rigorous obstacle that contentious bills have to pass through.

The key to reforming the Lords lies in reformation of the selection system. Whether made up members of the public or more specialised members (such as politicians, academics or religious leaders) or even a mixture of members, juries may offer a simple and elegant solution as to who becomes a Lord.

Vladimir Putin: Almost There

2007-11-05T20:08:00.000Z

In August I wrote a blog about Vladimir Putin (Putin – Frost in August http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-PB8HL2c4KvWeAHaufGxndyYD?p=314 ) Events have continued apace since then, pretty much as expected. Iran is still enjoying Russian support for its nuclear aspirations. The rumours of assassination attempts on Putin during his trip to Tehran naturally came to nothing. Since the majority of Muslims from Chechnya are Sufi and Iran is Shia, Iran has little interest in aiding the continuing insurrection against Russia in its southern provinces. (In fact I would not be at all surprised if the whole story of the murder plot originated from some Western spook house, aided and abetted by tame journalists, in an attempt to sour the cosy relationship between Moscow and Tehran.) But I digress… It is at home that Putin’s conquest of Russia is nearing completion.

As outlined in Frost in August, Vladimir Putin’s wooing of the Russian people continued apace before the elections. An excellent example of this during the pre-election phase was Putin’s appearance as guest-of-honour on broadcaster KVN’s television comedy show celebrating its 45th anniversary. Naturally Vladimir got to have a speech at the end (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaDfEwtGb8), an opportunity which I hope he felt was worth the wait as during most of the show he wore the fixed smile of a guest watching his hosts’ children at play and being expected to enjoy the experience. But now Putin can rest from such trifles and return to the real business of power: the elections for the lower house of parliament, the Duma, which started this week.

Being as cautious and methodical as always, the Kremlin has restricted the number of observers from the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) from 450 in 2003 to “up to seventy people” for the December elections. Putin has also endorsed his party, United Russia, and put into place this year Viktor Zubkov as current Prime Minister. Zubkov is expected to run for the presidency following Putin’s mandatory retirement from the role in March next year. Should Zubkov win (and I don’t think anybody would bet against that), Putin is expected to take the role of Prime Minister.

From there, I reckon it could go in two directions. The current plan in the media is that Putin would be able to stand in the presidential elections for 2012. There is another option though. Under many states, the role of President is one of figurehead, wielding no actual power (the ex-Soviet Union was one such state for example). It may be that the constitution will be changed, in the name of democracy naturally, devolving much of the current presidential role down to the Duma and its prime minister, which would happen to be one V. Putin.

Now the name of this article is “Vladimir Putin: Almost There.” All these parliamentary manoeuvres are as naught compared to what is happening in the country-at-large. First of all, a law has been passed for the compulsory teaching of religion at all schools. The religion of choice and of nation is Russian Orthodoxy. This form of Christianity is rather illiberal (especially on women: long skirts, headscarves etc) and the usual Sunday service (although they are rather beautiful) is in the order of three hours long; standing only. This isn’t the problem though. In the past Russian Orthodoxy has been totally loyal to the regime of the Tsars, with the same level of loyalty being expected from United Russia. Other forms of worship are being actively discouraged if not suppressed. The second factor is coming from the Russian people themselves. They have stopped talking politics on the telephone. Discussions are starting to be limited to small groups in individuals’ homes.

The transition to totalitarian state is almost complete. Almost there, Vladimir, almost there….

An Open Letter to Ming Campbell

2007-10-15T18:34:00.000+01:00

Dear Sir Menzies,

You have done the right thing. Thank you so much for standing down as leader at this time. But it is my sincere hope that you do not stand down too far.

We in the Liberal Democratic party need your wisdom, knowledge and statesmanship in the House of Commons. Please offer your services to the new leader, whomever that may be. Your place is on the front benches of our party.

Thank you for your hard work and efforts as leader.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Veart.
Member of the Liberal Democratic Party.

How Green is my Oil Industry? A personal look at the last ten years.

2007-09-28T11:47:00.000+01:00

Today I joined the Green Liberal Democrat group on facebook and I’m feeling rather a hypocrite. The reason being is that I work in the oil industry which, to put it mildly, is not the greenest of places to be.

Standards in the North Sea have gone up in the past decade; that is certain. When I first went offshore in 1997, waste was not segregated, recycling was non-existent and the attitude towards spills was to follow the Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Get Caught. I still smart under the dogs’ abuse I suffered from the crew of a British rig for reporting a half-mile slick to the OIM (Offshore Instillation Manager: the captain of a rig or platform). Although the rig management was supportive of my action, the guilt crew were less than amused and accused me of making a fuss over nothing more than five litres of light lubricant. I told them that when it came to pollution, I have no sense of humour.

Things are better now. Led by the Scandinavians, waste is segregated effectively, although standards could still be higher in some rigs in the UK Sector. Oil-based mud (used in drilling) is not used when there is a viable and more environmentally-friendly alternative and when it has to be used, the rock cuttings are tightly controlled and are shipped back to land for cleaning and processing. The Scandinavians are not ahead on everything though: in my particular line of work, seismic surveying, the regulations on the disturbance to marine mammals are far tighter in the UK sector than either Denmark or Norway. The Norwegians used to have a popular tee-shirt that read “If we had dolphins, we’d eat them too!” so I guess there are cultural differences to be bridged in both directions.

That is the North Sea. Although the major oil companies are keen to use green-wash, outside Europe the colour drains quickly away. Friends who have worked in Nigeria tell me that if Shell wants to drill a well in the Niger Delta, a straight channel is simply dredged through the marshland in order to position the swamp-barge in the desired position. Anybody who has flown over Baku can tell one of the pools of oil left over from years of activity, both under the Soviets and Western companies.

Another relic of Soviet activity is the ghost platforms in the Caspian Sea off the coast of Turkmenistan. Sailing through them is a thought-provoking experience. The Russians used to have a platform-factory in Cheleken. As Turkmenistan became independent, the Russians left but not before trashing the facility and sinking an unfinished platform in the deep-water access to the port. Sailing out into the Caspian gave a example into both the great industry and the limitations of the Soviet system. I counted about fifty platforms before reaching my destination and I’m sure that they continued over the horizon beyond. But all of them were in various states of disrepair: from being reasonably intact to being completely wrecked, some just a few bits of metal sticking proud from the sea. The reason was the Soviet Union did not have the technology to produce effective drilling mud. (Mud is important to keep the over-pressured fluids, be they oil, gas or water, from reaching the rig in an uncontrolled manner. The physical forces of such blowouts are tremendous and if hydrocarbons are present, stand well back and hope nothing lights the blue-touch paper). Anyway, the Soviets didn’t have effective mud and over one fifth of their rigs in that field suffered catastrophic blowouts. I was told 1500 men died in three years of activity during the 1980s. God only knows and at the time nobody cared about what the effect was on the environment.

The worst example of mass pollution I actually witnessed was in Cabinda, Angola during the Millennium celebrations of 2000. I had arrived in Cabinda just before Christmas (lucky me!) and apart from being separated from friends and family, the place wasn’t bad. Turtles were heaving themselves up the crab-infested sandy beach and a family of sea-eagles seemed to be the local royalty. The first I saw something was wrong was the helicopter with the spray-boom going up-and-down about a mile offshore. This went on for a couple of days before I started to smell the oil. On the third day the slick struck the beach. It is hard to describe how sickening a large oil slick is: the sweet-stale-chemical odour that fills one’s nose and after long exposure tears the eyes. The wildlife was wiped out. What was the oil company’s reaction to all this? Nothing. The staff at the oil camp were told nothing. Outgoing calls were monitored and if the slick was mentioned the line would be cut.

Naturally the story spread in the camp though. It seems that a local employee on night-shift in the oil-storage depot had heard an alarm go off at about one o’clock in the morning. Instead of doing something about it, he knocked off the alarm and went back to sleep. By eight in the morning between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil had been pumped into the ocean. The local base did what it can with the resources available to disperse the slick but it was too much. Now here’s the cynical bit: corporate headquarters in Houston decided to suppress the incident rather than act upon it and call in help from outside. Under international law, a major spill is more than forty barrels of oil. The oil company calmly announced that thirty nine barrels had been spilt and that it was amazing how a little oil could cause such a mess. Yes, it is amazing. When I left Cabinda and flew along the coastline, the beaches were black all the way down to the mouth of the Congo, about 180 miles to the south.

And the name of this beacon of global partnership? Let’s just say I have an urge to throw something at the television if an advert for Chevron appears.

That was seven years ago. It is natural to dwell on such dramas but the day-to-day running of the business is, in its own way, just as polluting. I have never dared to go to one of these websites that calculates one’s carbon footprint. I recycle at home, my wife takes the bus rather than the car, the house is fitted with low energy lighting where practicable… but all that is nothing when compared to how many business miles I fly in a year. Many companies are keen to recruit young people from developing countries, which is good; then move them to developed countries in order to keep pay low in the industry. Naturally people want to return home at least once a year so those extra flights are part of the deal. The actual running of an oil rig must be extremely energy consuming. I once asked why the external lighting has to be kept on during the daytime. The reason is that the generators run more efficiently under full loading. At my home base in Aberdeen, I have often tried to get people to turn off computers (or at least the monitors) at the end of the day but to little effect. The other week I mentioned the lack of aluminium recycling facilities and was told that situation was known but to put my criticism down in writing.

As Kermit the Frog said: its not easy being green. But one has to keep trying.

Gordon Brown: Mind Games and General Elections

2007-09-24T09:52:00.000+01:00

Just when the parties felt safe to stand down the troops and prepare for another winter at Westminster, Gordon Brown has seen fit to float the prospect of an autumn general election. It certainly has stirred up the media and for Sunday it was the main story on the BBC until news of the outbreak of Blue Tongue Disease on a Suffolk farm. Grabbing headlines is of course one of the reasons for the new speculation. The Labour Conference starts this week and Labour is naturally focusing the attention of everybody on that. All this spin about Brown being swayed by advice in his own party is nonsense: the Prime Minister is a control freak to the ‘n’th degree and it will be he that decides the timing of any general election; neither the unions nor other ministers and certainly not the Parliamentary Labour Party will have much in the way of input in Brown’s calculations.

I believe however there is a deeper purpose to Brown’s referral to the possibility of early elections and that is the effect is it hoped to have on the opposition parties. This cat-and-mouse of "will he, won't he" call a general election reminds me of the techniques employed by police negotiators in a siege situation: step up the drama to near crisis peak, relax it and then create another drama. Continue the cycle until the besieged are exhausted, then break down the door. Gordon Brown is attempting to stress his political opponents by using exactly the same mind game. He hopes by the time an election is really called, their activists will be in no shape to fight one. Brown has calculated that most of the British public are apathetic enough to be unaffected by this process.

Last night I listened to The Westminster Hour, read Nick Robinson's blog on the BBC site and heard Brown being interviewed this morning on the Today Programme. The game is still being played. To be frank, it has to be with collusion of the media because nobody raise the obvious point: neither Labour nor the Tories can afford to go to the country at this time. As of July 2007, Labour was in debt to the sum of £27million and the Conservatives owed £18million. The Liberal Democrats were looking pretty good in comparison, owing only £300,000. The recent scandals about payments for peerages and off-book "loans" means that New Labour and the Conservatives cannot employ the usual fund-raising routes to the wealthy elites, at least in the near future.

What would I do in Brown's position? I would go for an early election. The opposition are weak and it would head off the risk of disunity in the Labour movement - especially a factor in the unions at this time. Can New Labour afford to hold an election right now?

Not a chance.

Illustration credit: Gordon Brown after Newton by William Blake. Dave Brown

Is Ming Campbell Too Old to Lead the Lib Dems?

2007-09-21T18:01:00.001+01:00

The quick answer is no, age shouldn't be an issue to when it comes to fulfilling the role of party leader. Both Ronald Reagan and François Mitterrand were older and led both their parties and their countries successfully. Age is not the issue here.

So, why all the fuss? It wouldn't matter if it was just coming from the usual suspects in the media. Its not. The is a large section of the Liberal Democrat party that is posing the question "Is Ming the right leader for the party?"

I believe the answer is "No, he is not."

I have heard Ming speak. I am not one to deny his abilities and they are many: intelligent, experienced, articulate to name just three. But charismatic? Not enough I think. There is a fair amount of showmanship in being a good leader and Ming simply does not possess this.

Ming was a great deputy leader when Charles Kennedy was in charge. Ming lent gravitas and authority to Charles' laid-back style. Now that the spotlight is solely on Ming Campbell, his virtues are not enough to gain and hold the attention of the public.

In the next election, whenever that will be, I expect Ming to lead us and for the party to hold its own. But that should not be enough. The Liberal Democrats have a great deal to offer Britain and the British public and we need to be pressing forward in the polls. I simply do not see that occurring. The party will do okay: sorry, that is simply not good enough. I for one am more ambitious for the party.

After the next election I want to see Sir Menzies in a leading role of the Liberal Democrats. The party needs his wisdom and experience. So will the new leader.

The Dark Divide

2007-09-20T10:29:00.000+01:00

Viewed from the sea, the border between Israel and Gaza is a subtle affair; quite unlike the Israel Lebanon border where the no-man’s-land snakes over the hillsides in a broad stripe before dwindling into the distant east. Gaza from the sea looks just like another city which can be seen dotting the coast of the Mediterranean at regular intervals. True, maybe more high-rise towers, more densely packed than it near neighbours but nothing to especially draw the eye.

That is during the day. At night the scene is completely changed. While the coastal towns of Israel are shining with light, there is no sign of the city of Gaza. A passing ship may see the occasional headlamps of a car and imagine that one or two small villages and scattered homesteads occupy the land south of Ashdod. The tower blocks, the buildings, the streets; all become invisible. It is as if Gaza never was. The only clue that there is a border at all is a negative one: a strip of utter darkness that lies between the citizens of Israel and their near Palestinian neighbours.

That is the closest I have been to Gaza and although the view I describe is now several years old, I am certain that it has not changed. Indeed, from what I hear in the media it is worse now for the population of Gaza than it was then. The two-state “solution” that arose from the peace initiatives of the 1990s are now dead. Former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated as much this week. Now, I am not in the habit of agreeing with Mr. Bolton on many topics but in this I’m sure he is right. I do not, however, agree with his proposed solution: to carve up the remaining Palestinian populations between existing states, with Gaza going to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. I’m sure that the Israeli government would be more than happy with this; after all it has long being the policy of Israel to drive the Palestinians off the land claimed by Israelis and let the neighbouring states cope with the refugees should they choose to.

There are several objections to the Bolton suggestion. The first is the right to self-determination. These people are neither Egyptian nor Jordanian. They are Palestinian and I doubt that Palestinians of Gaza would be queuing up to join the repressive police-state that is Egypt. Secondly it assumes that Israel’s neighbours can swallow large numbers of new population, especially people that have been brutalised for many years. Egypt might be able to cope but I doubt that Jordan could. There are already hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees living in poverty in the country. Jordan has already closed its border to more. Maybe the assumption is that these people will be able to return home one day. Looking at the long-lived refugee camps of Palestinians in Lebanon, I have my doubts. Iraq has been trashed for a generation and those who have already left will not be returning soon. To bequeath another population on a fragile Jordan may well tip the balance for the country with the resulting in failed states running across the Middle East all the way from Israel’s eastern border to the western border of Iran, a truly horrific prospect.

It is perhaps time for Israelis to consider that which their policies have long attempted to avoid: what will happen if the Jewish people become minorities in their own state? For the citizens of Israeli, Gaza and the West Bank to live in one country and with equal rights under the law. Unrealistic and infeasible? At the moment, yes it is. Against the Zionist dream of a Jewish state? Yes. Would the majority of Palestinians have to renounce their claims on the land they have been driven from? Yes. Will the Jewish religion have to be granted special rights in the constitution of the new state of Israel-Palestine? Yes, that too. There would have to be much work to be done to bring this notion about and it would take time: a lot of time. Probably another forty years. It is not impossible though. Things have happened in my lifetime I never thought would happen: the fall of the Iron Curtain; Sinn Fein and the DUP in Northern Ireland working together in government. I know that these conflicts are not the same as Israel and Palestine. The point is that all conflicts have an end and despite the rhetoric on both sides, peace is seldom enforced by military means.

We all must work to break down the darkness that separates people.