Pay gap between the sexes narrowest ever | Business news | Guardian Unlimited Money: "The pay gap between men and women has narrowed to the smallest on record, official data showed yesterday, as the rise in women's wages again outstripped that of men. But while the pay gap between the sexes is narrowing, women's hourly rate of pay is still 12.6% below that of men, down from 13% in 2005.
Average weekly pay for men was £487 in April, up by 3.5% on a year earlier, while pay for women was up 4.2% to £387. Across the board, average salaries have risen by 3% this year to £23,600, but the gap between rich and poor is continuing to grow, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) annual survey showed."
Friday, 27 October 2006
Tuesday, 24 October 2006
Denied
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | A cloistered metropolitan elite is in denial about Britain: "it's worth repeating some statistics: not just the fact that 12 million Britons live on or below the poverty line, defined in the case of a two-adult household at £180 per week, but some rather less-quoted numbers. In August unemployment hit a six-year peak of 1.68 million, spurred on by a big fall in the number of manufacturing jobs, now at an all-time low. Contrary to the idea that buying in and trading up are within everyone's reach, one in three of us still live in rented accommodation; according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a third of all working households containing people under 40 'cannot afford to buy even at the low end of local housing markets'."
Monday, 23 October 2006
och well...
normblog: Failure in Iraq: "whatever should now happen in Iraq, the war that I've supported has failed according to one benchmark of which I'm in a position to be completely certain.
That is, had I been able to foresee, in January and February 2003, that the war would have the results it has actually had in the numbers of Iraqis killed and the numbers now daily dying, with the country (more than three years down the line) on the very threshold of civil war if not already across that threshold, I would not have felt able to support the war and I would not have supported it. Measured, in other words, against the hopes of what it might lead to and the likelihoods as I assessed them, the war has failed. Had I foreseen a failure of this magnitude, I would have withheld my support. Even then, I would not have been able to bring myself to oppose the war. As I have said two or three times before, nothing on earth could have induced me to march or otherwise campaign for a course of action that would have saved the Baathist regime. But I would have stood aside."
That is, had I been able to foresee, in January and February 2003, that the war would have the results it has actually had in the numbers of Iraqis killed and the numbers now daily dying, with the country (more than three years down the line) on the very threshold of civil war if not already across that threshold, I would not have felt able to support the war and I would not have supported it. Measured, in other words, against the hopes of what it might lead to and the likelihoods as I assessed them, the war has failed. Had I foreseen a failure of this magnitude, I would have withheld my support. Even then, I would not have been able to bring myself to oppose the war. As I have said two or three times before, nothing on earth could have induced me to march or otherwise campaign for a course of action that would have saved the Baathist regime. But I would have stood aside."
Sunday, 22 October 2006
A case to hold leaders accountable
Lest we forget: an arresting case to hold leaders accountable: "The PM and the president will go down as two of the worst leaders in modern history, and the greatest threats to world peace since Slobodan Milosevic. It is likely that a new and dangerous round of nuclear proliferation will be one of the unintended consequences of Iraq ."
Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald calls for Bush and Blair to be held to account. I agree.
If I disagree with anything here it is that they are far greater threats than Milosevic ever was, and indeed it would be easy enough to make a case that they have been more dangerous than all of their putative enemeies, Al Qaeda, Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea added together.
Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald calls for Bush and Blair to be held to account. I agree.
If I disagree with anything here it is that they are far greater threats than Milosevic ever was, and indeed it would be easy enough to make a case that they have been more dangerous than all of their putative enemeies, Al Qaeda, Saddam, Iran, Syria, North Korea added together.
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Grim reality
I'm not sure if the headline below is exactly correct, some months or years of blood yet to flow I fear, arising out of the Iraq adventure, and Jenkins' article puts more faith in the American political system today than clearly it warranted in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and so far this year... But the factual meat of the piece is shocking. What has been done is shocking. And I agree with at least one conclusion here: that Blair is mad.
America has finally taken on the grim reality of Iraq
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday October 18, 2006
The Guardian
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | America has finally taken on the grim reality of Iraq: "The Baker report on an exit strategy from Iraq, leaked this week in the US, is as sensible as it is sensational. It rejects "staying the course" as no longer plausible and purports to seek alternatives to just "cutting and running". Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess...
...
The UNHCR estimates 365,000 internal refuges in Iraq this year alone. More are seeking asylum abroad than from any other nation.
A third of Iraq's professional class is reported to have fled to Jordan, a flight of skills worse than under Saddam. UN monitors now report 2,000 people a day are crossing the Syrian border. Over a hundred lecturers at Baghdad university alone have been murdered, mostly for teaching women. There are few places in Iraq where women can go about unattended or unveiled. Gunmen arrived earlier this month at a Baghdad television station and massacred a dozen of the staff, an incident barely thought worth reporting. The national museum is walled up. Electricity supply is down to four hours a day. No police uniform can be trusted. The arrival anywhere of an army unit can be prelude to a mass killing and makes a mockery of the American policy of 'security transfer'. All intelligence out of Iraq suggests this is no longer a functioning state.
...
Three years ago America went to war on a lie, a wing and a prayer. That war has clearly failed and consensus is disintegrating.
...
Downing Street is intellectually numb, like a forgotten outpost of a crumbling Roman empire. It can see the barbarians at the gates yet it dare not respond as it knows it should because no new instructions have arrived from Rome.
...
Blair's last comment on Iraq was that any withdrawal would be "craven surrender" and would endanger British security. This is mad."
America has finally taken on the grim reality of Iraq
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday October 18, 2006
The Guardian
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | America has finally taken on the grim reality of Iraq: "The Baker report on an exit strategy from Iraq, leaked this week in the US, is as sensible as it is sensational. It rejects "staying the course" as no longer plausible and purports to seek alternatives to just "cutting and running". Stripped of political sweetening, it concludes that there is none. America must leave Iraq without preconditions and hope that its neighbours, hated Syria and Iran, can clear up the mess...
...
The UNHCR estimates 365,000 internal refuges in Iraq this year alone. More are seeking asylum abroad than from any other nation.
A third of Iraq's professional class is reported to have fled to Jordan, a flight of skills worse than under Saddam. UN monitors now report 2,000 people a day are crossing the Syrian border. Over a hundred lecturers at Baghdad university alone have been murdered, mostly for teaching women. There are few places in Iraq where women can go about unattended or unveiled. Gunmen arrived earlier this month at a Baghdad television station and massacred a dozen of the staff, an incident barely thought worth reporting. The national museum is walled up. Electricity supply is down to four hours a day. No police uniform can be trusted. The arrival anywhere of an army unit can be prelude to a mass killing and makes a mockery of the American policy of 'security transfer'. All intelligence out of Iraq suggests this is no longer a functioning state.
...
Three years ago America went to war on a lie, a wing and a prayer. That war has clearly failed and consensus is disintegrating.
...
Downing Street is intellectually numb, like a forgotten outpost of a crumbling Roman empire. It can see the barbarians at the gates yet it dare not respond as it knows it should because no new instructions have arrived from Rome.
...
Blair's last comment on Iraq was that any withdrawal would be "craven surrender" and would endanger British security. This is mad."
Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Saturday, 14 October 2006
It's not just a legacy for Blair...
And worth repeating from Ian Bell's piece is this
"Things might have been otherwise. The single interesting claim in David Blunkett's recently-serialised, entirely self-pitying memoirs is that Blair was ready to sack Gordon Brown in 2003 if the chancellor failed to support the war. Brown, says the former home secretary, decided to back down for the sake of his job.
Consider, if the claim is true, what might have been. What if Brown had kept his courage and chosen to resign? How many among a cowed cabinet might have seized the moment and followed? Could Blair have survived to legitimise the Bush invasion plan? If not, could the plan have then proceeded? I doubt it. "
"Things might have been otherwise. The single interesting claim in David Blunkett's recently-serialised, entirely self-pitying memoirs is that Blair was ready to sack Gordon Brown in 2003 if the chancellor failed to support the war. Brown, says the former home secretary, decided to back down for the sake of his job.
Consider, if the claim is true, what might have been. What if Brown had kept his courage and chosen to resign? How many among a cowed cabinet might have seized the moment and followed? Could Blair have survived to legitimise the Bush invasion plan? If not, could the plan have then proceeded? I doubt it. "
Blair’s foreign policy blown apart
As usual, this great writer puts it exactly right:
Ian Bell in The Herald, Saturday 14 October, 2006
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, spent a good deal of time yesterday trying to find a reverse gear for the tank he had just parked on Tony Blair's lawn.
Had the general said that British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon"? Had he said that our presence "exacerbates the security problems"? Had he called pre-war planning for the aftermath of occupation "poor", the hopes for Iraqi democracy "naive", suggested that we should "aim for a lower ambition", and accepted that Iraqi consent for our activities, if any, "has largely turned to intolerance"?
Yes, he had. Requesting a better grasp of context, and qualifying his remarks furiously, the general was soon re-learning an old military lesson: once launched, a barrage stays launched. Direct hits on Blair's foreign policy had been scored.
Yesterday morning, nevertheless, Dannatt wanted the world to know that withdrawal "soon" would involve familiar platitudes. It meant a pull-out after the job was done, not before Iraq's elected government could attend to its own security, and certainly not if there was a risk of handing a victory to the insurgency.
Still, the general, having enjoyed the top job only since August, was unable to gainsay his own words in the Daily Mail. We had not been "welcomed by being invited into a country", namely Iraq. As Dannatt put it: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in."
Nor had things gone well since: "The hope that we might be able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start … has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and Basra."
Anyone can quibble over language, but it is safe to say that these are not the words Downing Street and the White House would have chosen. The Pentagon's plans for a "draw-down" of forces in Iraq are on hold, for an unspecified period. George Bush has spoken of an occupation lasting for perhaps another decade. Blair, addressing the Labour Party conference, refused to set a date for withdrawal. Such is the real context of the general's remarks.
It has other aspects. One is that Britain's most senior army officer believes he has inherited a cock-up. Secondly – and this has been the military chatter recently – Dannatt and his brother officers believe the army can "do Afghanistan", a mission he holds to be legitimate, but not when 7200 troops are stuck in Iraq. Thirdly, Blair is now so politically infirm, so bereft of authority, the chief of the general staff believes he can rebel publicly and defy all constitutional practice.
The Bush White House will not be pleased. Britain's involvement in Iraq has been a necessary if not sufficient condition for America's actions. Our troops are useful, not essential, but the symbolism they provide performs the opposite function. Now the pre-eminent voice among our military decides to break ranks, as several of his juniors have already done. With Blair unable to enforce his will – did Dannatt clear his remarks with Downing Street? – Britain begins to seem unreliable.
In one sense, nevertheless, Bush and the general are privy to the same knowledge. The Pentagon manages its dissent differently, but for more than a year, as Dannatt well knows, the message has been the same: where is the exit strategy? The practice in the US is for retired generals to speak as proxies for those still serving. They convey the frontline grumbling and the fears. With Bush predicting a conflict that will endure long beyond the end of his presidency, the complaints are growing louder.
At this point it is customary, at least for this writer, to challenge all those who championed the war. Who was right, we could ask, and who wrong? Will all those who refused to see this coming now explain themselves? Fat chance. That, though, is almost beside the point. One consensus holds between Blair, Bush and the generals. It depends on a single argument with which any of us who opposed the war must deal: what now?
It would be satisfying, no doubt, to hear president and prime minister own up to error and malign intent, but not helpful. They caused the hellish problem, but how is the problem to be solved? If withdrawal means leaving Iraq to death squads, al Qaeda, to civil war, chaos, Balkanisation and the ministrations of Iran and Syria, do we not compound the crime? Blair takes refuge in a version of that question almost weekly.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal leader, has called for a United Nations protectorate. Nice idea. But who will provide the troops? Not Britain and the US, obviously. Not the European nations who opposed the Iraq adventure in the first place, and whose commitment in Lebanon and Afghanistan has been half-hearted. Not, given a tangle of regional rivalries, the Arab world. There is no UN force ready to save the day.
The answer to Blair's question is brutal, but unavoidable. We should get out now and accept what follows. The longer we stay, the worse things become. Iraq, like the former Yugoslavia, is inherently unstable and will not be held together by force. The Kurds seem more than capable of defending themselves. Shia and Sunni will not be reconciled, meanwhile, thanks to the people for whom – the triumph of the Bush-Blair war – they share a common hatred.
According to the UN, torture in Iraq is now more widespread than in the worst days of Saddam: what hope does that yield? According to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion: Bush says the figure is "not credible".
Cluster studies in the field of medical statistics are less reliable than cluster bombs, perhaps. They might sound too close to guesswork. How can a study of 12,801 people, even when selected randomly from across the country, produce a figure of 655,000?
One answer: the researchers requested death certificates. In 92% of cases, these were provided. Given that sort of documentation, it is the scepticism towards the extrapolation that is "not credible". Let's agree, nevertheless, to settle for half the Johns Hopkins figure, or even half again: that's almost 164,000 souls whose futures our leaders failed to secure. So fighting on remains an imperative?
Things might have been otherwise. The single interesting claim in David Blunkett's recently-serialised, entirely self-pitying memoirs is that Blair was ready to sack Gordon Brown in 2003 if the chancellor failed to support the war. Brown, says the former home secretary, decided to back down for the sake of his job.
Consider, if the claim is true, what might have been. What if Brown had kept his courage and chosen to resign? How many among a cowed cabinet might have seized the moment and followed? Could Blair have survived to legitimise the Bush invasion plan? If not, could the plan have then proceeded? I doubt it.
Groucho Marx used to call military intelligence a contradiction in terms, but let's not be harsh on General Dannatt. He has let slip one truth. Here's another: 655,000 Iraqis, and counting."
Ian Bell in The Herald, Saturday 14 October, 2006
"General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, spent a good deal of time yesterday trying to find a reverse gear for the tank he had just parked on Tony Blair's lawn.
Had the general said that British troops should be withdrawn from Iraq "sometime soon"? Had he said that our presence "exacerbates the security problems"? Had he called pre-war planning for the aftermath of occupation "poor", the hopes for Iraqi democracy "naive", suggested that we should "aim for a lower ambition", and accepted that Iraqi consent for our activities, if any, "has largely turned to intolerance"?
Yes, he had. Requesting a better grasp of context, and qualifying his remarks furiously, the general was soon re-learning an old military lesson: once launched, a barrage stays launched. Direct hits on Blair's foreign policy had been scored.
Yesterday morning, nevertheless, Dannatt wanted the world to know that withdrawal "soon" would involve familiar platitudes. It meant a pull-out after the job was done, not before Iraq's elected government could attend to its own security, and certainly not if there was a risk of handing a victory to the insurgency.
Still, the general, having enjoyed the top job only since August, was unable to gainsay his own words in the Daily Mail. We had not been "welcomed by being invited into a country", namely Iraq. As Dannatt put it: "Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in."
Nor had things gone well since: "The hope that we might be able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start … has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and Basra."
Anyone can quibble over language, but it is safe to say that these are not the words Downing Street and the White House would have chosen. The Pentagon's plans for a "draw-down" of forces in Iraq are on hold, for an unspecified period. George Bush has spoken of an occupation lasting for perhaps another decade. Blair, addressing the Labour Party conference, refused to set a date for withdrawal. Such is the real context of the general's remarks.
It has other aspects. One is that Britain's most senior army officer believes he has inherited a cock-up. Secondly – and this has been the military chatter recently – Dannatt and his brother officers believe the army can "do Afghanistan", a mission he holds to be legitimate, but not when 7200 troops are stuck in Iraq. Thirdly, Blair is now so politically infirm, so bereft of authority, the chief of the general staff believes he can rebel publicly and defy all constitutional practice.
The Bush White House will not be pleased. Britain's involvement in Iraq has been a necessary if not sufficient condition for America's actions. Our troops are useful, not essential, but the symbolism they provide performs the opposite function. Now the pre-eminent voice among our military decides to break ranks, as several of his juniors have already done. With Blair unable to enforce his will – did Dannatt clear his remarks with Downing Street? – Britain begins to seem unreliable.
In one sense, nevertheless, Bush and the general are privy to the same knowledge. The Pentagon manages its dissent differently, but for more than a year, as Dannatt well knows, the message has been the same: where is the exit strategy? The practice in the US is for retired generals to speak as proxies for those still serving. They convey the frontline grumbling and the fears. With Bush predicting a conflict that will endure long beyond the end of his presidency, the complaints are growing louder.
At this point it is customary, at least for this writer, to challenge all those who championed the war. Who was right, we could ask, and who wrong? Will all those who refused to see this coming now explain themselves? Fat chance. That, though, is almost beside the point. One consensus holds between Blair, Bush and the generals. It depends on a single argument with which any of us who opposed the war must deal: what now?
It would be satisfying, no doubt, to hear president and prime minister own up to error and malign intent, but not helpful. They caused the hellish problem, but how is the problem to be solved? If withdrawal means leaving Iraq to death squads, al Qaeda, to civil war, chaos, Balkanisation and the ministrations of Iran and Syria, do we not compound the crime? Blair takes refuge in a version of that question almost weekly.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal leader, has called for a United Nations protectorate. Nice idea. But who will provide the troops? Not Britain and the US, obviously. Not the European nations who opposed the Iraq adventure in the first place, and whose commitment in Lebanon and Afghanistan has been half-hearted. Not, given a tangle of regional rivalries, the Arab world. There is no UN force ready to save the day.
The answer to Blair's question is brutal, but unavoidable. We should get out now and accept what follows. The longer we stay, the worse things become. Iraq, like the former Yugoslavia, is inherently unstable and will not be held together by force. The Kurds seem more than capable of defending themselves. Shia and Sunni will not be reconciled, meanwhile, thanks to the people for whom – the triumph of the Bush-Blair war – they share a common hatred.
According to the UN, torture in Iraq is now more widespread than in the worst days of Saddam: what hope does that yield? According to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion: Bush says the figure is "not credible".
Cluster studies in the field of medical statistics are less reliable than cluster bombs, perhaps. They might sound too close to guesswork. How can a study of 12,801 people, even when selected randomly from across the country, produce a figure of 655,000?
One answer: the researchers requested death certificates. In 92% of cases, these were provided. Given that sort of documentation, it is the scepticism towards the extrapolation that is "not credible". Let's agree, nevertheless, to settle for half the Johns Hopkins figure, or even half again: that's almost 164,000 souls whose futures our leaders failed to secure. So fighting on remains an imperative?
Things might have been otherwise. The single interesting claim in David Blunkett's recently-serialised, entirely self-pitying memoirs is that Blair was ready to sack Gordon Brown in 2003 if the chancellor failed to support the war. Brown, says the former home secretary, decided to back down for the sake of his job.
Consider, if the claim is true, what might have been. What if Brown had kept his courage and chosen to resign? How many among a cowed cabinet might have seized the moment and followed? Could Blair have survived to legitimise the Bush invasion plan? If not, could the plan have then proceeded? I doubt it.
Groucho Marx used to call military intelligence a contradiction in terms, but let's not be harsh on General Dannatt. He has let slip one truth. Here's another: 655,000 Iraqis, and counting."
'I agree with every word that Dannatt said. But he has got to be sacked'
Matthew Parris has an interesting take on the General's strike... his question is whether Blair would sack his new military chief. I think Blair ought to go. It is necessary to release the blockage so our government can start to move away from the insane foreign policy it has pursued under Blair's command.
I agree with every word that Dannatt said. But he has got to be sacked - Comment - Times Online: "The general knows HM Government’s policy in Iraq: the Prime Minister has made it very clear. It is to stay for as long as it takes to establish and guarantee a democracy there. There is absolutely no way this can be reconciled with an imperative to withdraw “some time soon”.
I happen to think the aims of government policy in Iraq are unachiev- able to the point of folly. Clearly the general does too. In which case he has a duty, and then a choice. His duty is privately to warn the Cabinet that he thinks its aims cannot be delivered by the deployment of the troops over which he has command. No doubt this private warning has been given, and ignored.
In which case a chief of general staff has a choice. He can resign; or he can soldier on, determined to do the best he can even though he suspects the attempt is doomed."
I agree with every word that Dannatt said. But he has got to be sacked - Comment - Times Online: "The general knows HM Government’s policy in Iraq: the Prime Minister has made it very clear. It is to stay for as long as it takes to establish and guarantee a democracy there. There is absolutely no way this can be reconciled with an imperative to withdraw “some time soon”.
I happen to think the aims of government policy in Iraq are unachiev- able to the point of folly. Clearly the general does too. In which case he has a duty, and then a choice. His duty is privately to warn the Cabinet that he thinks its aims cannot be delivered by the deployment of the troops over which he has command. No doubt this private warning has been given, and ignored.
In which case a chief of general staff has a choice. He can resign; or he can soldier on, determined to do the best he can even though he suspects the attempt is doomed."
Friday, 13 October 2006
Blair gives backing to Army chief
BBC NEWS | UK | Blair gives backing to Army chief: "'I've read his transcript of his interview on the radio this morning, and I agree with every word of it.'"
Blair is mad.
To say that the general's view - the commander of the army - is the same as the governemnt's - or really, now, only just the prime minister's - is impossible. You can't spin or finesse this. Most people agree with the general. Blair isn't one of them.
He's also weak. He should really sack the general.
I've heard some commentators - and most are completely fazed by this intervention, understandably - suggest that the government want the army to say things like this so they can get to a point where they can move out of Iraq and concentrate on "winning" in Afghanistan (no clearer outcome there btw...). Hmmm.
I think the prime minister's inability to sack the general right away is indicative of his paralysed position.
Army chief defends Iraq comments
This is bizarre and phenomenal. He must know what he is saying and why he is saying it.
BBC NEWS | UK | Army chief defends Iraq comments: "In a Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said UK troops should 'get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems'.
He also said: 'I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.'
And he said planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was 'poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning'."
Totally at odds with government policy.
BBC NEWS | UK | Army chief defends Iraq comments: "In a Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said UK troops should 'get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems'.
He also said: 'I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.'
And he said planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was 'poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning'."
Totally at odds with government policy.
Wednesday, 11 October 2006
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | '655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion': "The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.
Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions."
My god. What have they done? Even if these are overestimates, the scale of the Iraq disaster is equivalent to genocide.
Which means this:
"Gordon Brown offered unequivocal public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the final five days, only after deciding that Tony Blair would sack him if he did not, David Blunkett has claimed."
Blunkett: PM was ready to sack Brown over Iraq
means that Gordon Brown made a very bloody miscalculation when Robin Cook was doing the right thing and Clare Short was being shafted.
I wonder what his moral compass tells him now about that?
Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions."
My god. What have they done? Even if these are overestimates, the scale of the Iraq disaster is equivalent to genocide.
Which means this:
"Gordon Brown offered unequivocal public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the final five days, only after deciding that Tony Blair would sack him if he did not, David Blunkett has claimed."
Blunkett: PM was ready to sack Brown over Iraq
means that Gordon Brown made a very bloody miscalculation when Robin Cook was doing the right thing and Clare Short was being shafted.
I wonder what his moral compass tells him now about that?
Tolerating a conundrum - well, not, actually
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Sorry, but we can't just pick and choose what to tolerate: "Now we are having to defend things we disapprove of, such as the glorification of terrorism or, indeed, calls for censorship. The conundrum that one of the things liberals have to tolerate is intolerance hasn't needed to be at the forefront of debates on free expression before. It is now, and it should be."
The rest of this aricle is pretty much what i think. And I'm not a "liberal". However a conundrum - and that is what this quote accurately describes - is not a principle, or even a policy. It is exactly a conundrum: a paradox, a riddle, even a fanciful question.
In reality, being tolerant means refusing to tolerate intolerance. When my kids refuse to share their toys, their intolerance is not tolerated.
The rest of this aricle is pretty much what i think. And I'm not a "liberal". However a conundrum - and that is what this quote accurately describes - is not a principle, or even a policy. It is exactly a conundrum: a paradox, a riddle, even a fanciful question.
In reality, being tolerant means refusing to tolerate intolerance. When my kids refuse to share their toys, their intolerance is not tolerated.
Tuesday, 10 October 2006
Juche = rubbish
North Korea's nuclear policy is not irrational at all: "The background to North Korea's test is that, since the end of the cold war, the nuclear states have tried to impose a double standard, hanging on to nuclear weapons for themselves and their friends while denying them to others. Like alcoholics condemning teenage drinking, the nuclear powers have made the spread of nuclear weapons the terror of our age, distracting attention from their own behaviour. Western leaders refuse to accept that our own actions encourage others to follow suit."
Er... this I agree with largely.
North Korea's foreign policy is rational, at least in that one can see why they have done what they are doing. But...
But... the DPRK makes everything pretty hard for socialists to defend. When I learned about the Juche idea - the supposed ideology of Kim Il Sung - I found it hard not to laugh. In fact, I laughed. It's patent rubbish. Self reliance is no ideology. But some of the romantic rubbish - like how a Juche football team can win, if I remember right it's about attacking them down the wings - was truly pathetic.
(Well, who knows, if we regard Juche as being a meaningless PR construct like "the third way" then i guess it might be something Tony could use try and put some ideological foundation into New Labour.)
What kind of socialist country has a dynasty in charge? Bush to Bush, Clinton to Clinton, I can understand. Kim to Kim to Kim III? That is a monarchy.
And my own view is they should demilitarise, rather than push on with nukes. They can't use them. If they did it would be a genocidal crime. And what is the point of running a military economy forever. I don't think you can build socialism in that way - even if that's what they are trying to do - which i doubt.
Er... this I agree with largely.
North Korea's foreign policy is rational, at least in that one can see why they have done what they are doing. But...
But... the DPRK makes everything pretty hard for socialists to defend. When I learned about the Juche idea - the supposed ideology of Kim Il Sung - I found it hard not to laugh. In fact, I laughed. It's patent rubbish. Self reliance is no ideology. But some of the romantic rubbish - like how a Juche football team can win, if I remember right it's about attacking them down the wings - was truly pathetic.
(Well, who knows, if we regard Juche as being a meaningless PR construct like "the third way" then i guess it might be something Tony could use try and put some ideological foundation into New Labour.)
What kind of socialist country has a dynasty in charge? Bush to Bush, Clinton to Clinton, I can understand. Kim to Kim to Kim III? That is a monarchy.
And my own view is they should demilitarise, rather than push on with nukes. They can't use them. If they did it would be a genocidal crime. And what is the point of running a military economy forever. I don't think you can build socialism in that way - even if that's what they are trying to do - which i doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
