Malcolm Blair-Robinson's Blog, page 142

Heathrow: A Gutless Government?

So it would appear. Cameron promised his party and his electors there would be no third runway at Heathrow. He then set up a commission which recommended that there should be. Now he has funked rejecting their conclusion, or accepting it. Instead we have more time to consider the options. Until after the election for a new London Mayor. Ah yes!

Only one thing is certain. The notion of political integrity is so devalued by the reality that it has now been consigned to junk status.

 

PMQs By The Understudies.

Theatre goers are familiar with the disappointment on learning that the star will not appear and instead they will see the understudy. Yet sometimes the performance is more enjoyable. Such was the experience of MPs yesterday. Convention requires the Opposition Leader to absent himself from the House for PMQs when the Prime Minister is away (being given the brush off by Poland) and his place was taken by the Prime Minister in Waiting (aka Chancellor etc). The Opposition Leader’s role was taken by Angela Eagle, Shadow defence secretary, but also shadow of Osborne. Ah!

The result was an impeccably timed and very funny exchange of acerbic observations by both the PM in Waiting and perhaps even the Opposition Leader in Waiting? Many in the Commons yesterday must have hoped that neither would have to wait too long. They all had a lovely time. But there is a problem.

It is this. Parliament spends a good deal of time on its own stuff and laughing at its own jokes and doing too little that voters feel are things important to their everyday lives. Voters are not voting for and funding by their taxes a political variety show. This is why when they stop laughing MPs on all sides are baffled by the ever increasing support in his party (outside parliament) and the country for Jeremy Corbyn. Because he speaks for the ordinary people in plain language, devoid of theatricals and to the point. And he speaks for those who do not bother to vote but who might vote for him and his version of Labour. There are fifteen million of them to be precise. They don’t answer doors to canvassers, nor do they talk to opinion pollsters. But should they decide the moment has come in 2020, it could be quite a moment.

At least Corbyn had a big leg up from Blair. The disgraced former prime minister, to whom only Tories now listen because they are all dressed up in New Labour clothes, wrote an article in the Spectator (exactly) bemoaning the fact that Corbyn had been elected Labour leader. That should help Corbyn a lot.

HESS ENIGMA: Download Now!

DOWNLOAD OR PAPERBACK FROM .99P   

Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy and right hand man, flew to Scotland on a mysterious peace mission in 1941, which has never been convincingly explained, to meet unidentified politicians who wanted to end the war. The truth has been covered up for generations because to reveal it would somehow undermine the honour and constitutional fabric of the United Kingdom. Who was plotting against Churchill? What were the peace terms on offer? What happened to Hess? Was he killed in the War? Was the prisoner in Spandau a double?

There are many questions to which in the modern day one man, Saul Benedict has all the answers, because his parents were players in the drama involving Churchill, Hitler, leading politicians and an important Royal. Saul is an author and declares his intention to write a book to reveal all, but he is shot dead, apparently accidentally by a poacher. But was it an accident? Rick Coleman an investigative journalist determines to find out and in doing so to uncover the mystery.

Taking place in the modern day but with flashback chapters which gradually unfold the hidden secrets, the novel is a fast moving and compelling read based on the family knowledge of the author whose parents had connections to both Hess and Hitler and to British Intelligence.  

                   Amazon UK           Amazon US

Middle East : A Strategy

The present defence and political posture of the West over IS is deeply flawed and going nowhere. The following, or something like it, offers a way forward. It stands most of what is happening  on its head. It will take real political courage to put it into effect, not the faux stuff we see flying around at the moment in and on the media and in parliament.

1  IS cannot be defeated by military means applied in its strongholds in Syria and Iraq. It is not actually a direct threat to the West and Russia there. The main threat comes from the embedded adherents already in situ all over the world who can be galvanised into horrific terrorist acts by exhortations, encouragement, in revenge or on a whim. IS itself is the product of war and like a partisan militia living in the forest, thrives upon it. It has no infrastructure to speak of, apart from some oil wells which are easy targets to destroy, but its command centres and headquarters are makeshift and can be remade almost anywhere. Military activity should at this stage concentrate only on containing it.

2 There are, as everybody agrees, two prongs to any solution. One is military the other political. At present only military activity is organised. The political settlement is not even agreed in outline. This is back to front. The political outcome should be agreed by all parties and enforced, if necessary, by military action. Then everybody knows what they are fighting for.

3 It is impossible to resolve the IS crisis without working with Russia as an integrated ally of the US led  international coalition. To achieve this the censorious attitude to Putin and his government has to stop. Childish needling, like having Macedonia (!) join NATO is just stupid.

4 The preservation of a viable Syrian state is critical. If it collapses IS will occupy Damascus within days. Russia has to assist Assad’s forces to drive back its enemies and create a ceasefire which will allow a political solution in Syria and an end to the civil war. The West has  to accept Assad (who has never threatened the West) is as much a fact as Stalin was in WWII. We did not make Stalin’s removal a condition of working with the Soviets to defeat Hitler. Had we done so we would have lost the war.

3 In war you cannot pick and choose enemies like an a la carte supper. Assad is against IS. Russia is against IS. Iran is against IS. The West is against IS. But the rag bag conglomeration of militias the West loves to call the moderate (really?) opposition are actually ambivalent about IS, are disunited among themselves, many with very doubtful roots not far from IS and Al Qaeda. They have to be given a choice; either withdraw from the fight against Assad and turn your fire on IS, in return for a seat and the political settlement negotiations. Or be treated as an enemy. There is no other way to fight a war. The Russians know that, but the West has a problem getting its collective head around it. To do so is one of the tags without which the war will not be won. In WWII we did not try and distinguish between good and bad Nazis. We did not even care if they were Nazis. We just killed all Germans.

4 The time to get tough with the backers and covert supporters of IS is at hand. The Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, must be told to stop arming and funding IS or face an oil embargo and a freezing of all their financial assets in the West. Turkey, which seems to be playing several games at once must be told it either comes on board 100% or it will be suspended from NATO.

5 It then becomes possible to deal with the big picture which has two central components. The first is the restoration of peace through a viable political settlement in Syria and the second is to agree the boundaries of both a Sunni and a Kurdish homeland, where each can live free untroubled lives according to their traditions and beliefs. This will mean a final kiss goodbye to everything connected to Sykes Picot and a major redraft of the borders and territory of Iraq, Syria and possibly at the margin Turkey. That plan is the priority and has to be worked on 24/7. When it is available in outline a ceasefire everywhere should follow. Ground forces will be needed to hold the new lines initially and stamp out resistance from those so addicted to fighting and fiefdom (like in Libya) that they cannot stop. And those forces must come from the Arab states. Saudi Arabia is the third largest defence spender in the world after America and China, so it must be asked to make the biggest contribution. UN Command would be ideal. Western boots on the ground would cause the whole thing to collapse, so don’t even think about it.

6 As part of this enduring settlement there has to be aid on a scale not seen since the Marshall Plan post WWII, involving billions upon billions to rebuild Syria, Iraq and the two new Kurdish and Sunni states in very short order, so that lights stay on, hospitals function, education gears up, homes are rebuilt, transport infrastructure is restored; the list is terrifying but it will have to be done and everybody in the West is going to have to go without something to pay for it.

7 All refugees from the various war zones who have fled to Europe should be encouraged to return and help rebuild their countries and offered a generous bounty per family for doing so to help them reboot their lives in the lands of their forbears. Especially those with skills and professional qualifications, whose support will be critical.

8 IS will not be destroyed but it will cease to have any rational following, once the Sunnis  are restored to a homeland. There will be some mopping up, but the rejuvenation of the Middle East will enable all Muslims to focus on the enlightened and civilising traditions of their faith and its immense and positive contribution to the story of mankind. Against that, IS, with its blood thirsty regression into cruelty and abuse of human dignity will have nothing worth having to offer. That is how all insurgencies end.

9 Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the so styled War on Terror have been the biggest collective failure of policy and strategy for a very long time. The triumph has been the intelligence services who have blocked most of the attempted consequences. We cannot rely on their ability to do that forever and we now must get a grip and get to the core of all this smouldering hatred and violence. To do that we have to give justice to a good many people whose worlds we have wrecked.

A Good Win For Corbyn

The Oldham by-election was a good deal better for Labour than most commentators thought it would be. 60% of the vote on a low turnout after the death of a much liked local MP with a big personal following is unusual. It reinforces everything this blog has said about the mismatch between Westminster Labour and the people. It demonstrates that Labour’s problem is not Corbyn. It is the remnant of New Labour. About eighty of them. The sooner they cross the floor of the House the better.

So Where Is Labour Now?

We may well ask. Many think it is a near laughing stock. Yet in politics there are more people laughing on the other side of their face than anywhere else. In fact Labour’s plight is very interesting. It is certainly in a place no political party has been before. It has a leader for whom fewer than twenty MPs voted. It is split over bombing Syria and quite a lot of other stuff. A free vote is one thing but for the Shadow Foreign Secretary to bring the House of Commons to its feet cheering and clapping (clapping used to be a mega no no) as he defies his Leader is a rather untested event. Quite what goes next is hard to predict. So instead we will this evening take stock.

Corbyn is a popular hero who gets more media coverage than any opposition leader since Thatcher shortly before she brought down the Callaghan government. He has to fight his way to his car. Public opinion does not see him as a future prime minister but they do see him as an honest and genuine person who puts principle before power. In politics today such a person is the equivalent in motoring terms of a very rare vintage Bugatti. So the fact that his oratory is a bit stumbling and his stated positions more right than real is all seen as a plus. And when you look at the figures it is not, for Corbyn, bad news. The majority of his shadow cabinet backed him (so he can boot out the defiers at will), over 70% of MPs backed him, the majority of party members backed him and the majority of the unions back him. And practically every impartial commentator who had any real knowledge of the IS phenomenon backed his position too. All in all that is not too bad at all. Maybe not a champagne moment, but a glass of something certainly.

So what has happened? Simple. Old Labour is returning. New Labour is busting apart. Soon it will break off altogether. The Oldham by-election tonight will be interesting. Only politicians will stay up, and talk a lot of nonsense in the process. In the morning when we wake up we may find that Labour have held the seat. Or we may find that its is all a bit too much for ordinary folk and they’ve decided to play safe and vote for Nigel’s man instead. That will certainly cause a storm in a few muesli bowls. Might even spill some milk. But it will have no effect on what happens in 2020.

Hilary Benn: A Historic Speech

There is no doubt that the highlight of yesterday’s long debate in the Commons was Hilary Benn’s speech. As perorations go it was perhaps the most remarkable for a generation for two reasons. First because it was a great script delivered with power fluency and emotion and second because it was against the views of the majority in his party, both in parliament and in the country. It was also a humiliation of his leader. I cannot other recall any speech being greeted by such an unparliamentary ovation.

But whilst I admire the man and his delivery, I cannot abide his conclusion. If IS is all he said it was and it is, why is he doing its bidding? Because IS has a strategy. The tactics are to kill innocent members of the public in the West by terrorist acts, but the purpose is not just to kill. It is to provoke. That is the goal. Because they know that the one thing which grows their strength and fills their coffers is revenge attacks by the West, especially bombing, because of the collateral to civilians.

So while there is no doubt that the Benn speech will be remembered long after the debate is forgotten, it is a pity that such talent and sincerity was not employed in a more enlightened cause.

So Were the MPs Right?

No. The reason they have come to the wrong decision is that they are on the wrong road already and branching right or left makes little practical difference. It is not a matter which can be settled by phantom armies of moderate fighters, or a few more bombs, or even troops on the ground. Because what is going on in the Middle East now is not something that is ring fenced in a box of discord, which can be opened and cleaned by zapping the bugs.

It is the product of the ill conceived War on Terror which has been going on for fourteen continuous years in which bombs from the air and troops on the ground have been used in both Iraq and Afghanistan and bombs alone in Libya, leaving all these countries with serial violence, untamed insurgencies, dysfunctional governance and sectarian strife. Not only have millions of lives been ruined and unknown number of innocent civilians killed, promoting a diaspora on a biblical scale with which the West is unable to cope, but as each so called enemy is driven back, a new one pops up. Finally that mess-up is  almost without historical precedent, but is capped by the fact that the strategic aim of eliminating the terror threat has not been achieved by a country mile; indeed the threat is worse than ever.

So anyone who yesterday proposed, supported or voted for a continuation of the same pathetic mixtures,  completely lost the plot. They will, every last one of them, come to regret bitterly their failure. They felt themselves heroes but cowardice ran through the House of Commons last night like a river in flood.

Labour At War

As the debate in the Commons approaches as to whether Britain should extend air strikes to Syria (talk of going to war is rubbish; the RAF is already in action against IS, it is just an extension of the target range) another war is raging near at home. In the Labour Party.

It was, when one thinks about it, bound to happen sooner or later. The Labour party elects a leader by a landslide with the support of the trade unions, but the Labour members of parliament do not want him nor will they accept his leadership. The majority of Labour MPs are ideologically much closer to Cameron than to either Corbyn or Labour’s grass roots.  They are more or less the left wing of the Tory party in temperament, ideology and politics.

The shadow cabinet is worse than a fiasco. Something has now to give. The best would be for Corbyn to fire the lot and build a new one containing the loyalists he already has in it plus left wing members from the back benches. The remaining New Labour members should take the Tory whip. Corbyn will lose about ninety MPs but he will have a loyal and close knit opposition from which, like Attlee, he can build electoral success. He has a good chance of succeeding because there is an increasing groundswell to the left.

On the other hand if the New Labour majority of the party’s MPs find a legal way to ditch Corbyn, Labour faces electoral oblivion. Nobody is going to vote for a cheap imitation of the real thing, which will be a left of centre Tory party likely led by Boris (Osborne’s figures are unlikely to add up according to his forecasts). To prevent that the unions may need to read the riot act. They have the power after all. Just shut off Labour’s funding.

Labour MPs have some grounds for complaining that Corbyn’s leadership has been uncertain; for one who has never lead anything and arrives in post as a popular hero (he gets as much media as Cameron, unusual for an opposition leader) it is bound to be bumpy at first. But to smooth out the way Labour MPs have to make themselves capable of being led. This is not the case at the moment.

QE: A Simple Guide

QE in various forms is now very much part of the economic conversation, especially in connection with a fresh approach to financial issues by the new leadership of the Labour party. Dynamic Quantitative Easing remains under government, not bank, control and targets specific investment projects without borrowing, interest or repayments. It can reboot the economy, boost manufacturing and exports and enable sustained growth of real national wealth shared by all, rather than just asset inflation which is the downside of ordinary QE. If you want to find out more you can enjoy a lucid explanation of the original idea from the link below.

Download .99p  Paperback £2.99