Resisting the Charms of Adonis

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.