Anti-terrorist expert says British troops should leave Afghanistan

A week before the General Election a candidate’s leaflet came through my door. A certain Crispin Black MBE was offering himself as an Independent for the constituency where I live – West Wiltshire.  

I checked his biography. He had been commissioned in the Welsh Guards   in 1982, just in time for the Falklands War; just in time to be bombed in the Sir Galahad  by the Argentine air force. Speaking with the authority of someone who’d survived battle, he was contemptuous of generals who had not been shot at.

 He became an intelligence expert, and wrote a book called 7 – 7 The London Bombs – What Went Wrong.  As a lieutenant-colonel, he was seconded to the Cabinet Office 1999 – 2002, and prepared intelligence briefings for the Joint Intelligence Committee and COBRA.  

 This is part of his manifesto:

“Sadly, British troops in Afghanistan do not make us safer from terrorism in the UK. It’s time to withdraw them. The threat is here in the homeland.”

 The only reason ever given by any British politician for continuing to fight in Afghanistan is that fighting there protects us from terrorists. That always seemed extremely dubious.

 Now, there is no excuse whatsoever for sending British soldiers to die, and killing thousands of innocent Afghan civilians as ‘collateral damage.’ A top British terrorism expert has said the Afghan war is a useless waste of lives and money.

 Bring the troops home.  

—

Clegg’s ‘democracy’?

Nick Clegg  has just announced a programme of political reform ‘greater than anything since the Reform Bill of 1832,’

Many commentators have already questioned his claim. 1832 widened the suffrage only to 18% of adult males in England and Wales. Working class males did not get the vote until nearer the end of the century, and women were only given the same voting rights as men in 1928, living memory to those aged 82 and over.

Was the 1832 Reform Bill such a huge reform of poltics? How do the proposed Clegg reforms stand in relation to other extensions of franchise to ordinary British citizens?

Nick Clegg offers us, the citizens of Britain, the right to object to laws we don’t like. Well, do you believe this? I’m afraid I don’t.

Here are some decisions on which I should like to vote. They all require straightforward yes/no answers. They all involve questions of money.

Should British taxpayers fund the replacement for Trident, which may cost about £100 billion?

Should cannabis be legalized? Subsidiary question: should it be sold over the counter like cigarettes and taxed similarly?

Should all drugs – even heroin – be legalized? Subsidiary question: should it be sold over the counter like cigarettes and taxed similarly?

Should British soldiers be withdrawn from Afghanistan?

Should wars only be undertaken if the decision to go to war is confirmed by referendum?

In my capacity as an ordinary British citizen, I do not claim the right to decide complicated problems in the NHS, or Education, nor do I have the solution for controlling bankers. (Nor do the politicians, but that’s another issue.)

The five questions noted above could all be put to the citizen body. They are all important. They all involve cost. They all impinge on our lives. If Britain was a democracy, as opposed to being governed by representative oligarchy, we would all have a right to take part in these decisions.

Politicians who say it would be wrong to put these questions to the citizen body, should also acknowledge that they do not believe we should be a democracy.

Then of course the next question rears its head: Should Britain continue to be governed by representative oligarchy, or should it take the first steps towards becoming a democracy?

Ban All Political Parties

Ban All Political Parties. 

I popped in to my local filling station for a carton of milk, and asked the man at the cash desk whether he was ready to form a government. Without hesitation, he said “Obvious what we need: fixed term parliament for two years, and the best minds from all three parties working together to get us out of the mess.”

 I haven’t had deep conversations with him; he is no “homespun philosopher.” I guess he would be perfectly happy to describe himself as an ordinary working man.

 How infinitely preferable it would be to have him organising the political system rather than the puffed-up nonentities who claim leadership over us.

 This is the point. Anyone and everyone can see how to approach the problem: we have all got to do without a bit of what we’ve taken for granted over the last thirty years when we lived beyond our means. But that means all of us, not just nurses, teachers, and postmen; it means seriously taxing all incomes over £100,000. It means ordering the bankers to repay the money they have robbed from us under licence, and to surrender their passports so they are confined to this country for the next five years.  It means the armed forces coming home from Afghanistan; it means Britain not buying a replacement for Trident; it means politicians not strutting around as if they were leaders of a “Great Nation”, for we are no longer a “Great Nation.” It means members of Parliament willingly and eagerly taking a salary exactly the same as a teacher’s.

 There is, of course, one more thing. For the next two years all political parties must be dissolved; all party funds must be frozen; all party offices must be turned into temporary residences for the homeless. Members of Parliament must sit at random in the House of Commons. All ministerial offices will be held jointly by two, three, or four, people acting in concert.

Then there is a chance that the good old spirit of the good old British working man and working woman will rise to the occasion, and the jokes will be cracked, and the trousers patched, and once again the folk, the ordinary folk, will pull victory out of the defeat into which our self-serving, conceited, and supremely incompetent, leaders have led us.

—

Can a politician ever put country before party? No

Sir John Major came on the BBC Today Programme this morning May 10th, to appeal for politicians to put the interests of the country before those of the party.  This statement by Sir John Major,  ex-Tory Prime Minister, translates as follows:

 “Liberal-Democrats, agree to vote for David Cameron as Prime Minister without insisting on reform of the electoral system.”

 No politician will ever put the interests of the country before that of the party. His/her raison d’être is to secure the re-election of his/her party at the next election.

 To ask a politician to put the interests of the country before that of the party is like asking a fish to run around on land like a horse.

 Messrs Cameron  and Clegg  are having meetings. We know more or less what they are saying to each other. Although most recent governments have only secured a minority of the votes cast, Mr Clegg has, rashly, turned first to the Conservatives since they received the most votes.

 We know precisely what Mr Cameron is thinking. His plan is plain for us all to see.  If he can persuade Clegg to support him in some quickly devised plan to cover up the deficit enough to persuade the British people something is being done to reduce it, while promising Clegg he will consider electoral reform “as soon as possible”, then he has won. The “as soon as possible” will be a rhetorical – and meaningless – refrain. After all “as soon as possible” in geological time could mean within ten thousand years. After a month or two, the Lib-Dems will realise they have been tricked, and rise in fury against Clegg. Then the Liberal revival will be smashed for another generation, and Cameron will be hailed as the saviour of the Tory Party.

Tony Benn & Rory Bremner

On March 30th, 2010, Tony Benn appeared on stage in Sheffield City Hall,for the second half of a programme whose first act was Rory Bremner doing his comedy impersonations.

 I can imagine the sneering reaction of pompous politicians to the idea of Benn appearing on stage with a comedian.

 On October 4th 2007. BBC News contained an item about Tony Benn offering himself for re-selection as an MP for Kensington. But nothing more has been heard of Benn returning to the House of Commons. I wonder what the Kensington selection committee would think of him working alongside Rory Bremner.  

On February 28th, 2009, Rory Bremner gave a speech about how our liberty as citizens is in danger.

Bremner, Bird and Fortune, the Channel 4 satire show, used laughter to illuminate politics. Bremner, Bird and Fortune: the Last Show before the Recovery was a three-part series on Channel 4 in 2009, which gave the bankers a bit of the lambasting they deserved.

 Between Iraq and a Hard Place was a Channel 4 Bremer, Bird & Fortune show at the time of the Iraq invasion. Apart from making me laugh, I found it offered the clearest commentary on what was happening in the run-up to that illegal invasion. It was much more informative than the ordinary news.

 I’ve written in many other places about how Aristophanes   is a hero of mine. A poet, a master of silly farce, he was also passionate about politics, and devoted much of his huge energy to creating laughter in the cause of peace. Now, in the 21st century AD, as well as laughing with Aristophanes at the stupidity of the 5th century BC Athenian politicians and generals, we can also see the ordinary Athenians of the time brought to life by Aristophanes’ documentaries. How he would laugh at our scholars: but the fact is he now provides very important historical source material, and illuminates our understanding of the politics then. It is pitiful to see the destructive idiocy of Aristophanes’ contemporaries. It is even more pitiful to see how our contemporaries repeat the idiocy even more destructively.

 If important politicians and political commentators have, by some strange chance, happened upon this blog, they will no doubt have been appalled already by my ventures into fantasy and farce. But our situation is so appalling, we can only grasp how appalling it is through farce and fantasy.

 On March 17th, 2005 The Guardian contained an article by Tony Benn titled Not apathy, but anger.  

“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”

 As Tony Benn wrote in 2005, we are indeed very angry. But we are also flabbergasted at the insanity displayed by politicians.

 Often the only sensible reaction to contemporary politics is to assume there is a kind of Gadarene swine mentality which has taken possession of them, and they are just about to hurl themselves at speed down the steep slope into the lake and drown.

 —

Michael Foot and City Bankers

Michael Foot,who died on March 3rd, 2010, led the Labour Party in the 1983 election to Labour’s worst defeat since 1918.  His election manifesto was held to have made Labour unelectable. But this manifesto contained a promise to control the banks.  

On March 3rd, 2010, Michael Foot died, aged 96. Shambling about in a donkey jacket, he was mocked as the Labour leader who made the Labour Party unelectable. In the 1983 election, eight and a half million people voted Labour, and over thirteen million voted Conservative, the Tories securing 397 seats in the House of Commons, as against Labour’s 209. It was Labour’s worst performance since 1918.  

Michael Foot, then leading the Labour party, was blamed for the defeat, and resigned as leader soon after the election.  

Labour’s manifesto, which was judged to have made the party unelectable, contained a promise to control the banks.  

Before Michael Foot died, aged 96, he had witnessed the financial disaster caused by the uncontrolled banks gambling beyond their mean, and he should have been able to console himself with the thought he was right in 1983.  

Michael Foot did the worst thing a politician can possibly do: Michael Foot was right.

 Nothing can excuse a politician for being right.

—

Coalition Election: Neighbourhood and Family Values

This is A Manifesto for the Red, Yellow, & Blue, Party

One party above all deserves to lead the country. A party with the right attitude. A party that cares about People, that puts People First.  

These are the pledges of The Red, Yellow, & Blue, Party to You, to You personally, to You and Your Family,  to You and Your Neighbourhood.  

 We Pledge Action on the NHS.The NHS is The Red, Yellow, & Blue, Party’s Top Priority. We Pledge To Further Strengthen The NHS. We Will Ensure Frontline Services In The NHS Are Protected.

 We Pledge Transport For All. We Will Work To Improve Access To Transport. We Pledge Better Train Services From London. We Will Invest In Public Transport.

 We Pledge Action On Education, Fair School Funding, Raising Standards in Schools, Giving Schools The Extra Money They Need To Support Struggling Children.

 We  Pledge More Police;  We Will Put More Police On Patrol.

 How could anyone not vote for a party which pledges to do all this.

 Well, as you might guess this manifesto is composed of quotations from the three political brochures which have been put through my door by the Conservative, Labour, and Lib-Dem parties. There are a few minor differences: the Conservatives, surprisingly, do not mention the Police; Labour does not mention Education.

 They all believe in Fairness, Change, and Making a Difference. Why don’t we ask for three votes instead of one, so that we can vote for all three of them?

There is another thing these three brochures have in common:

None of them mention how they are going to pay for the wonderful promises they are making us.

Are we stupid? Well The Red, Yellow, & Blue, Party thinks we are.

 But how do we show them we’re not really stupid? That’s the problem.

 —

Internet Democracy is World Democracy

Barack Obama based his presidential campaign on using the internet to acquire supporters. But the internet is for everyone. Avaaz  has acquired 3.9 million members in 3 years, that is several million people who have signed up to receive Avaaz protest email petitions, some of which they will sign. 

The internet has made it possible for an industrialised nation like Britain to be a democracy. Even politicians recognise that the internet has changed our culture irrevocably. Barack Obama based his presidential campaign on using the internet to acquire supporters. Now every politician is trying to work out how best to use the internet to their advantage. But the internet is for everyone.

 The internet offers citizens a chance to gather virtually in huge numbers. And once it is possible to present a million signatures to a protest, the further possibility peeps out that governments might take notice. Avaaz  has acquired 3.9 million members in 3 years, that is several million people who have signed up to receive Avaaz protest email petitions, some of which they will sign. 

 On April 7th, 2010, Avaaz emailed all those of us who have signed their petitions with an update on the various successes which have been achieved. Policies have been changed.

 It is probably easier to gather signatures to protest an injustice than to make a pitch for a new technology.

Avaaz  –  “Avaaz” means “Voice” in many Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European languages” – has acquired 3.9 million members in 3 years, that is several million people who have signed up to receive Avaaz protest email petitions, some of which they will sign. 

 This is how Avaaz describes itself:

“Avaaz.org is a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want.

 “Across the world, most people want stronger protections for the environment, greater respect for human rights, and concerted efforts to end poverty, corruption and war. Yet globalization faces a huge democratic deficit as international decisions are shaped by political elites and unaccountable corporations — not the views and values of the world’s people.

”Technology and the internet have allowed citizens to connect and mobilize like never before. The rise of a new model of internet-driven, people-powered politics is changing countries from Australia to the Philippines to the United States. Avaaz takes this model global, connecting people across borders to bring people powered politics to international decision-making.

”Coming together in this way, Avaaz has become a wonderful community of people from all nations, backgrounds, and ages. Our diverse community is brought together by our care for the world, and a desire to do what we can to make it a better place.

 “The core of our model of organizing is our email list, operated in 13 languages.

 Avaaz is based in many countries – the United States, Britain, Brazil, etc. It is the beginnings of a world-wide group of concerned citizens. I am glad to have joined; Avaaz campaigns to save rain-forest, or endangered indigenous nations, to free political prisoners who have protested against tyrannical regimes.  

In September 2009 Avaaz managed to get 100,000 people to join a phone-in campaign for significant results at the Copenhagen conference on climate change. On December 9th, Avaaz arranged for its members throughout Europe to phone their leaders for a few seconds of persuasion,  a few seconds in which to emphasise how many European citizens wished their governments to take a lead in reducing carbon emissions.   Avaaz  protested with great virtual vigour.

President Obama arrived as the conference was ending. Frightened of oil lobbies,  motor lobbies, etc, Obama weakly concurred in an agreement drafted by him and the Chinese leader, which in effect bound no countries to reduce carbon emissions at all.  

 Avaaz points the way to world-wide citizen democracy

But we are a long way from seeing this come into being.