Michael Meacher MP

The debate last week on Iraq and the wider Middle East was covered fairly extensively in the media but a crucial issue went mostly unremarked: it was an adjournment debate put forward by MPs, not a full debate of the House. It’s not surprising that it happened in that way, given the immense reluctance of the government to have the decision to go to war in Iraq and that the consequences of that decision formally examined in a Parliamentary debate.

At a time when public trust in politicians is at a low ebb, refusing to take part in the debate and hiding from it (as well as Tony Blair’s absence from the chamber, the government did not appoint tellers, so there could be no vote and presumably, to their way of thinking, no awkward headlines) is a poor tactic to pursue.
All this underlines the thinking behind my decision to propose a Waging War (Parliament’s Role and Responsibility) Bill when I found that – for the first time in 30 years – I had actually got a place in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. I don’t expect my Bill to become law – I came 18th in the ballot and the chances of such a bill getting through the required stages would be slim even if a government were supportive. But if we are to restore some belief in the political system, this wouldn’t be a bad place to start.
Image: © Parliamentary copyright.

A debate in Forest of Dean, where I, Bruce Kent from CND and the local MP Mark Harper – who is also the Tory spokesman on Defence – were the speakers, came down decisively against Trident renewal. A vote at the end of the debate showed 125 people against renewal with only 15 in favour.
The debate was chaired by Ian Mean, the editor of the local newspaper, the Gloucester Citizen and they had done a good job of running articles in the days leading up to the debate so that people were aware it was taking place. CND had also sent down copies of their Alternative White Paper for distribution. None the less, despite its proximity to Gloucester, Forest of Dean is generally a rural constituency.
Such meetings can often be sparsely attended, to add to which, the trains had not recovered from the blockages caused by Thursday’s storms. I have to admit that I was concerned whether the meeting would be a success.
So when I arrived and found the hall packed with at least 150 people, it was the strongest possible indication that people want a debate to take place – and a thorough refutation of the idea that the UK population are somehow bored of politics. They may be bored of spin, and mistrustful of some politicians, but when they have an opportunity to take part in a debate, voice their opinion, they are eager to do so.
Having such an emphatic margin of victory was simply the icing on the cake of a very positive evening.

So Tony Blair, to judge by his latest speech, is worried that the leadership/deputy leadership elections are prompting a drift back to a left wing agenda. Even before any real debate has actually begun, he’s terrified that, given half a chance, we might just jettison the New Labour mantra foisted on us since 1997. He obviously can’t bring himself to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Movement never wanted New Labour – as it has developed – and now want to drop New Labour if we’re to have the best chance of winning the next election.

Nobody is remotely suggesting going back to the 1980s. But New Labour is just one variant of modern Labour politics, and a distinctly unprogressive one at that. What we should be doing is promoting a real progressive Labour model that genuinely champions Labour values in today’s current setting, not using the Labour name to cover over what are often virtually identikit Tory policies. Labour, real Labour, does not stand for privatisation, deregulation, growing inequality, lack of democratic accountability, poodle-dom to Washington, undermining of civil rights and liberties, abandonment of the Labour trade union link or extension of means testing. We stand for the opposite.
Tony Blair is bewildered. “I’ve yet to work out how,” he said, “if the public wants more traditional left wing policies, they vote right.” Tony, they didn’t vote right. In 1997, they voted left, to get rid of the Tories at any cost, not for any ideological understanding of, or commitment to, New Labour. In 2001, they voted left again because they were determined not to let the Tories back in again, not for any enthusiasm for New Labour. In 2005, yes, we did win – but only at the cost of losing four million voters since 1997, plus losing over half of our party membership – hardly a clarion call to man the barricades for Blairism.
This party of ours has never needed a debate about our fundamental values and the direction of travel as we need now. I say, let the debate proceed, let our people speak.

(From Comment is Free)

The report last Sunday about a likely Israeli/US bombing raid on nuclear installations in Iran, plus the news that the Pentagon is proposing to send a second aircraft carrier to increase the huge US naval build-up in the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, increasingly suggests that Bush’s last throw in the Middle East is not the extra 21,500 US troops to try to stabilise Iraq, but a settling of scores with the real enemy, Iran. Indeed recent events are eerily reminiscent of the path to war in Iraq four years ago. The news this morning of a US military raid on an Iranian consulate in the Iraqi town of Irbil will only stoke tensions more.
It is said that US military planners believe that after five nights of bombing, the nuclear targets could be destroyed. However, because of the gaps in US intelligence on Iran, there can be no certainty about how much of the Iranian nuclear programme might survive. Furthermore, to limit likely retaliation, the target range would have to be substantially expanded. Iran’s medium-range ballistic missiles that have recently been moved closer to Iraq would have be hit, as well as 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. And in order to protect Gulf shipping, Iranian cruise missile sites, diesel submarines, and other naval assets would need to be targeted. In addition, Iran’s two chemical weapons production plants would no doubt be added to the hit list.
Whether sustained air bombardment along these lines would destabilise, let alone overthrow, the regime is however quite a different question. If this is the real US goal, as Colonel Sam Gardiner, USAF (retired) former Pentagon war games planner, has recently been declaring, the far more likely result is that such strikes will strengthen rather than weaken the clerical leadership and harden resistance even of a recalcitrant nation behind them. Air blitzes never succeeded with their objectives in the Second World War, nor in Korea or Vietnam, nor most recently in Lebanon. There is no reason to expect any different result in Iran. Even if all the military targets could be put out of action, which is highly unlikely, Iran also has millions of fellow Shia supporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, who would very likely rise in revolt, and it must be very doubtful if American forces in the region could contain such a heightened and widespread insurgency. As an Iranian general recently commented to the US, “you can start a war, but it won’t be you who finishes it”.

(more…)

From Sunday Telegraph, 24 December 2006
Britain is now one of the most unequal countries in the world. A recent report on boardroom pay reveals that the average salary of chief executives of the top FTSE 100 companies is now a staggering £46,154 a week. That is 115 times the average wage in Britain today, 249 times the national minimum wage, and 519 times the basic state pension.

(more…)