Finally, there is always a possibility of Brown standing down before the election

No there isn't. Believe me on this one. The man hasn't got it in him.

Nothing befitted him as the manner of his going. With grace and humility and thoughts of others above his own career. In your dreams.

Ian: If I were to approach this question as a piece of social research design, there would be a number of hypotheses I would want to test.

One of the most important is whether a large enough percentage of voters are convinced that by holding the Chilcot Inquiry, Brown is opening the door to a just and impartial outcome...ie that he is leaving the final verdict on Blair to a transparent and open inquiry. Those who believe this wont see Labour as inextricably tied to Blair.

The second issue is what would have to happen (for example, like Blair's recent confessions, or attacks from law professors) to change the minds of those who saw Chilcot as open, fair, and transparent.

Thirdly, what percent of people who regard Chilcot as a waste of money are actually Blair supporters but know its not a good idea to say so.

Fourthly, what percent of people believe that when the Government decides to classify material (including evidence against Blair) for security reasons, it would do so ONLY if there were genuine security risks

Fifthly, at what level of public recognition would a public figure have to be, and what would he have to say for his negative opinion of Blair's motives to influence public opinion ? Ainsworth, a member of the cabinet, has pretty well said he wouldnt have voted for war if he knew that WMDs was just one of the arguments that Blair was ready to use. But no one even knows who Ainsworth is. Macdonald has made a brilliant, virtuoso attack, but most people dont know who he is either.

Sixthly, if things get really bad for Blair and the shit seems to be sticking to Labour, are there diversions sufficiently distracting that Brown could organise or take advantage of so that people would stop worrying about Blair (in America, these are called "October Surprises" because they are organised one month before the early November election date). Such diversions are always risky so we would have to ask the chances that they would blow up in Brown's face.

Finally, there is always a possibility of Brown standing down before the election. If the Blair factor were really getting damaging, what impact would follow if Brown were to say, sort of in passing, that there are many aspects about the Iraq invasion that he finds very troubling and he hopes Chilcot will discover the full truth, and that his successor should make as many secret documents available as possible. (I am sure Mandelson has a note just like this in his waistcoat pocket)

'But I invite you to join me at a convenient vantage point where we can observe the two trajectories, their speed and direction, and decide the most likely outcome.'

I happy to accept this while all along trying to ensure that 'progressives'
and the 'left' ingeneral don't repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.
Because as you say this 'strategy is unsound.'

Lee, a couple of points occur to me on your latest thoughts. One is that Brown is adept at kicking things into the long grass. Look back at all the crises he has weathered and survived! I don't rate survival in itself as a respectable attribute, we (that is the whole of the UK) would have been better off with min not surviving one of the many earlier storms. Secondly, in the public eye do you think Blair is seen as attached to Labour (nu or otherwise)? It may be that they will sacifice him to save their bacon and even being the Popes right hand man will not be enough.

Where is this all going you ask? For one I just don't believe those opinion polls. Who on earth are they asking for an opinion. Looking at the commentary generally Labour are dispised from both ends of the political spectrum. More so from the left I would guess. Some folk on CiF pre-mod their repliesbecause (literally) words fail them (at least words that can be shown in public ;-).

Cheers

Jon:

Well, I have always argued with Neal that a really big tent may actually attract more of an unruly crowd than a workable alliance. I didnt agree with John Smith's big tent either. I believe that it is the job of political movements to have a big following, and this is best organised by a relatively small and coherent tent with some carefully chosen alliances. So I agree that Compass's fundamental strategy is unsound.

On Blair, there are different "breaking points". The breaking point for the public is reached when the disgust with Blair becomes so profound that it will determine the way they vote. For the Newlabour leadership, the "breaking point" is the point where saving their bums is best accomplished by jettisoning Blair rather than continuing to try to protect him.

These two "breaking points" are not travelling on the same trajectory and at the same speed. The public disgust with Blair and the untenability of Blair's position is accelerating quite fast. If the Telegraph decides to make this a major issue, it could speed up even quicker. I imagine the majority of voters have already decided (whether for good reason or not) that Chilcot is a whitewash.

The Newlabour government trajectory on Blair still appears to be based on a belief that Chilcot will successfully keep things covered up, that Brown will be able to classify the vital evidence against Blair (and Straw, himself, and Beckett), and that it will all blow over and will therefore not be an issue for the election.

Now, we know that in life, almost nothing is impossible. But I invite you to join me at a convenient vantage point where we can observe the two trajectories, their speed and direction, and decide the most likely outcome.

Lee - as you will see from my comments on the PBR thread I believe that any 'big tent' strategy is almost certainly doomed to failure (either due to
a disintegration from infighting because of a fundamental disagreement over policy direction beyond vague aspirations - or through a highjacking
of the agenda by a clique such as the Blairites etc).

Your suggestion that Lawson et al are just attempting to keep their own views secret (which you believe to be contrary to Blair etc) for strategic reasons - if true would just reinforce my view. I don't think you can retain
any credibility by being so conspicuously silent on such a crucial subject
(an illegal war which has killed at least 650,000 people).

I think the lack of comment on this is more to do with trying to protect the
'reputation' and 'integrity' of Cruddas - who they see as 'their' MP and as
a possible key influence in Labour after the next election. They've put so much energy and work into trying to push him as the obvious focus point
for the 'centre left' that they're terrified that any mention of the illegal war, just highlights how absurd it is to claim him as being able to unite the left and 'progressive' voters in general.

Ian: Isnt it interesting how in the last couple of years, the Daily Telegraph, a paper I used to dislike enormously, has become the leading edge of investigative journalism ? The Herald and the Independent who used to be able to make this claim, have become soft by comparison. Having set the standard, it is hard to believe that the Telegraph will allow Blair to escape. Whether their editor is willing to go to prison for publishing classified material (most of which everyone already knows)is unknown at present. But I think you are right. I cant imagine a bumbling fool like Brown being able to keep things bottled up. I also hope that the British people are not in the mood to allow Chilcot to achieve its purpose of indemnity for Blair. Brown showed what a strategic dufus he truly is, by holding this inquiry as the country is going into an election.

I know what you mean about the people who have just discovered there were no WMDs...where do they keep their brains..somewhere where the sun dont shine.

Jon:

Compass is dedicated to a big church, consensus from the right of center through to the left of center. Its credibility is that it has access to the Brown administration. There are many members of that administration deeply implicated in Blair's war crimes, and the general sentiment of the Cabinet is "never admit we were wrong...just admit to some mistakes". The last thing Compass wants to do is to blow its access to certain senior Blairites, whom Compass considers may be susceptible to some mild conversion, and Compass knows that the moment it even mentions Iraq and Blair, its the Pandora's Box thingie. So its best to pretend it never happened and avoid all reference to Chilcot. Privately, I would bet that many Compass chiefs would love to see Blair burn in hell.

Now, of course, the position is changing. With Macdonald's crucifixion of Blair this morning, and with more to come, it is going to be increasingly unpopular and stupid for Brown to be seen as protecting Blair, especially at election time. Brown has perfect control over Chilcot, who will do whatever he is told, but he does not have control over really angry and respectable people, like Macdonald (and more will emerge) or the media, or the public mood. He also cant stop Blair gloating on TV like a serial murderer over his victims' corpses.

Right now, there are private meetings in the cabinet, with Mandelson in the chair, trying to decide what the fuck they do if it goes on like this. If going to the wall for Tony means some of them being implicated, that will be too far. So these top secret cabinet sessions are debating whether it is possible to devise a bum-covering strategy that will protect Straw and Brown, and allow them to abandon Blair to his fate; and how all of that should play out at election time. If they come up with a strategy (and you will know because in his tight Wonder Woman costume, Brown's ample bum will become distinctly larger)then the orders to Chilcot will change, and the vultures will be allowed their meal. Mandelson will be chosen to explain to the nation how the Government has always wanted a perfectly open inquiry, and the fact that its been a whitewash so far is an optical illusion. Having its finger on the pulse, Compass will know this is coming and we will be treated to a spate of articles on Iraq, Blair, and war crimes.

Of course, it will all be too late. Amen.

Is Compass so silent about the Chilcot Inquiry because:

1) Those who devised it were so complicit in the creation of Blairism?

2) They're still desperate to form alliances with Blairite apologists such as the dispicable Purnell etc and targeting the warmonger Blair will upset too many 'allies' and plans being made in secret?

3) They really can't see the point in pursuing war criminals when there
are 'more important matters'?

Or maybe a mixture of the above?

Hi Lee, Great stuff you digged out there for us all, not read it in detail but will do later time permitting. I was about to post that although it seemed cut and dried for TB in that he was covered by his cronies, there is a) always the prostect of leaks as with the MPs expences scandal. Somebody will be so discusted that they will break the law. And b) surely the Tories will jump at any chance to discredit and thereofre distance themselves from Nu Labour? We all know they are one and the same thing but who knows what could happen in the future?

Another point in general. I am not indicating present company who are very perceptive, but there seems to be a lot of comment generally (not here of course) about the surprise about the lying of WMD. Now, at the time, even as I was sitting in my armchair in Southern Endland I could see that there were no WMD. Loads of others saw that as well so where was the critical analysis by the MSM? So I get a little angry when they now come out saying 'what a surprise!'.

Ken Macdonald on Blair in today's Times
**********************************************************
From The Times December 14, 2009

Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war
The members of the Chilcot Inquiry have a choice: they can be loyal to the Establishment or they can expose the subterfuge

Ken Macdonald

The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?

Hindsight is a great temptress. But we needn’t trouble her on the way to a confident conclusion that Mr Blair’s fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards power. Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn’t resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that “hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right”. But this is a narcissist’s defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death. “Yo, Blair”, perhaps, was his truest measure.

How effectively the Chilcot Inquiry, to which Mr Blair will give evidence in the new year, can expose any of this remains to be seen. Ominously for the former Prime Minister, his growing distance from power appears to be loosening some well-placed Whitehall tongues. It seems that the contempt felt by some mandarins for his fancier footwork around the weapons of mass destruction is finally showing in a belated settling of scores. Discretion is fading like toothache and the feast of revenge is as tempting as it is cold.

Yet the position of the inquiry panel is uncertain. So far, apart from some interventions by Sir Roderic Lyne, the former ambassador in Moscow, its questioning has been unchallenging. If this is born of a belief that it creates an atmosphere more conducive to truth, it seems naive. The truth doesn’t always glide out so compliantly; sometimes it struggles to be heard. Sometimes it takes cover in a shelter that is entirely self-serving.

Sir John Chilcot himself, a distinguished former Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office during the Troubles and finely tuned for years to the security services, will be key. Perhaps a great and brave struggle against instinct will be necessary. In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It’s the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward. Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure. So which way will our heroes jump?

We must hope in the right direction — for it is precisely this privately arranged nature of British Establishment power, stubborn beyond sympathy for years in the face of the modern world, that has brought our politics so low. If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt. This would be a serious blow to the integrity of the State. It would not restore trust.

For so many years this would not have mattered. Questions sufficiently critical and grand were decided at an elevated level, and in air more refined than most people would ever inhale. A besotted king could be skewered in the shadows and depart, or an illustrious commission twist and turn from any finding of government fault. And if the cost of the reasoning was ermine splashed in whitewash, the price would be willingly paid.

But it’s harder today and the tax on dishonesty is rising. Now our system has to prove itself again and again, it has to persuade people that it deserves their loyalty and support. Citizens believe deeply in a democratic right to know and they no longer acknowledge their unworthiness to enjoy its nourishment. Naturally, this is a less comfortable world for people in power, but it’s a much better world for everyone else. The real tragedy of Iraq, beyond all the danger and the terrible loss, is that it rendered any affair of the heart between government and people no more than a wisp, like a lie in the wind. It broke faith.

This is the gravity of Chilcot, and its broader meaning. A few months of their deliberations will tell us how well, through the solemn work of these illustrious individuals, each one of us, and therefore our country, measures up to a compromised past.

We have seen enormous acts of courage on the part of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most heart-rending sacrifices have been made; many of them will become poetry and song in future years. But none of this sprinkles, as he might once have hoped it would, any starlight on Tony Blair. On the contrary, it is entirely the work of warriors thrust carelessly into death’s way by a Prime Minister lost in self-aggrandisement and a governing class too closed to speak truth to power.

Ken Macdonald QC practises at Matrix Chambers and is a visiting professor of law at the London School of Economics. He was Director of Public Prosecutions, 2003-2008

I'm very glad that you have confirmed what I thought Lee - that there is no lacking in determination to bring Blair to justice for his crimes against humanity. Even if much of it originates from outside these islands.

And it is very important to remember that Britain's reputation will never recover until this happens - this is about far more than trying to bring a single man to account. He may not have caused so much harm, damage and death 'in our name' but this will remain an empty phrase while this country collectively continues to look the other way, while Blair still goes unpunished.

What a great article on the war crimes tribunal. I knew that instinctively but great to see it all written out so meticulously. Thanks.

Ian: since your post and my response, I have been researching the issues you raised and discovered facts I didnt know, but should have known.

There is a group called the War Crimes Foundation which is building the case against Blair. Here are some facts:
*****************************************************************
The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq - “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”
****************************************************************

Blair and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others. Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention.
***************************************************************
In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”
*****************************************************************
Giovanni di Stefano, representing former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz, wrote to the British government's chief legal adviser on Saturday with a "request for consent to prosecute" former British prime minister Blair.
**************************************************************
Tony Blair is facing a growing clamour that he should appear before a war crimes trial for backing the invasion of Iraq.
A 3,500-strong petition demanding that he stand trial was sent to the United Nations last month. Campaigners want him to join a list of international ogres who have been put in the dock, including Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, Liberian butcher Charles Taylor and Bosnian-Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. They believe Mr Blair is guilty of initiating a 'war of aggression' because they claim he knew that Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction were no threat to Britain, which would have given the UK a self-defence justification. The problem for campaigners is that the International Criminal Court, based in the Dutch city of The Hague, does not have jurisdiction to rule that unlawful aggression was a war crime because 'war of aggression' has not been properly defined by the signatories who set up the court.
But critics say Mr Blair could be tried under the much older Geneva Conventions. They believe he could also be liable under ICC rules for failing to prosecute the war in a 'proportionate manner', as cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons were used. They are known to cause birth defects and cancer, the incidence of which has been rising in Iraq.

Ian:

Here is an interesting analysis of the war crimes tribunal and the way it is kept under control by the US:

http[dot]//www[dot]thirdworldtraveler[dot]com/International_War_Crimes/ImpartialTribunal_Hague[dot]html

frances
on 13 December 2009, 7:08:44 PM
Why can't Blair play himself. He always was foremost an actor and only came to politics as a later option. I guarantee when it comes to the bit where he is so misunderstood he will have us all in tears!
**********************************************************

O, that will happen when they bring out "Blair: the Musical" a year after the film is released. Blair will tap-dance his way through the Iraq invasion to music written by Andrew Lloyd Weber. Charlotte Church will sing the role of Cherie

Ian (South Beds)
on 13 December 2009, 7:09:56 PM
Lee, thanks for opening my eyes to that fact about the way inquiries work. I have zero knowledge of law but I read elsewhere that the bit about the Hague and war crimes only gives you immunity whilst the said enquiry is in session or the duration. When it is over then you can surely press charges? If the defence is that it is already dealt with by the inquiry the answer is surely that this inquiry is not a court - they said so at the outset.

Am I making sense here?
*******************************************************************
As I understand it, the war crimes tribunal does not have a police force or an open method of pressing charges. The system is rather like the Italian or Greek justice system, where there are investigating prosecutors working for the Office of the Prosecutor, under Serge Brammertz. This office combines expertise in international law, with an openly political role. By and large, they have to follow the signals given by the UN Security Council, and even although the US is not a member of the tribunal, it uses its veto and power in the UN to control the agenda that the tribunal follows.

The situation has become worse under Obama. When Bush was in power, and the alien replicant, John Bolton, was UN ambassador to the UN, those in the Security Council who opposed the US agenda had some international respectability. Now, because of the misplaced adoration of Obama, the Security Council is less likely to seek a confrontation with America. That means Obama can effectively block the tribunal investigating and issuing an indictment against Blair, something Obama would fiercely oppose (after all, he is protecting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and proven torturers in the US).

**********************************************************

What will the Inquiry do if it receives evidence or information about criminal offences?

If the Inquiry receives credible evidence that criminal offences have been committed that has not previously been referred to the investigating authorities, it would be obliged to refer that evidence to the appropriate investigating authority.
************************

It will ensure that the evidence is heard in private, report back to Jack Straw, and all the evidence will be classified as secret, which means it cannot be used in any court of law or given to the war crimes tribunal, and will remain secret for thirty years at least. That is the plan.

**********************************************************

Will the Inquiry say whether anybody involved in the Iraq conflict should face criminal charges? Will it be able to apportion blame?

The Inquiry is not a court of law. The members of the Committee are not judges, and nobody is on trial. But if the Committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, it will say so.
**********************************
Yes, Chilcot has already stated quite clearly that the inquiry is concerned ONLY with "lessons learnt", not with apportioning blame or speculating about the legality of actions. So all it will do is say "mistakes were made and lessons need to be learnt". Their findings will have zero judicial implications. The inquiry has been set up to ensure that such implications cannot happen.
****************************************************************

In theory, the Crown Prosecution could bring a case against Blair, but we saw what happened in the "cash for honours" scandal. The Crown Prosecution is a deeply politicised body and will not do anything the Prime Minister disapproves of. Spain or Belgium (or I think, Germany) could demand Blair's extradition, and when that is refused, try him in absentia. Jim Sillars could renew his effort to have Blair tried for murder in Scotland. He has already been tried and found guilty by the World Tribunal On Iraq in 2005, made up of some of the world's foremost international jurists and lawyers. Everyone ignored that.

Lee, thanks for opening my eyes to that fact about the way inquiries work. I have zero knowledge of law but I read elsewhere that the bit about the Hague and war crimes only gives you immunity whilst the said enquiry is in session or the duration. When it is over then you can surely press charges? If the defence is that it is already dealt with by the inquiry the answer is surely that this inquiry is not a court - they said so at the outset.

Am I making sense here?

They say:

=============================================
What will the Inquiry do if it receives evidence or information about criminal offences?

If the Inquiry receives credible evidence that criminal offences have been committed that has not previously been referred to the investigating authorities, it would be obliged to refer that evidence to the appropriate investigating authority.
=============================================
I know I know there are many get-out weasel words in that like 'credible'.

And also:
=============================================
Will the Inquiry say whether anybody involved in the Iraq conflict should face criminal charges? Will it be able to apportion blame?

The Inquiry is not a court of law. The members of the Committee are not judges, and nobody is on trial. But if the Committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, it will say so.
=============================================

As for the film...I can only say if I ever had the misfortune to watch it, ....Pass the sick bag Alice!

Why can't Blair play himself. He always was foremost an actor and only came to politics as a later option. I guarantee when it comes to the bit where he is so misunderstood he will have us all in tears!

Dugsie: My immediate instinct in casting Blair in the Hollywood film, characteritically entitled : Blair: the Movie, was someone as fake and nauseating as Blair himself. Mt insant favourite therefore was Tom Cruise, who like Blair is an awful actor and in love with himself.

But Cruise has no talent other than his narcisism; we need someone who can prortray the arrogant swagger, someone who can turn on the fake morality, and is talented enough to show that its fake. So I finally decided on John Barrowman who plays Jack in Torchwood. I think he could do a memorable portrayal.

I cant think of anyone sufficiently nauseating to play Cherie. Maybe David Mitchell in wig could pull that one off. The only actor I can imagine would have the skill to portray the deep, tragic delusions of world hero, Gordon Brown, would be Daniel Day Lewis, with lots of padding and molded masks. I would let Scott Ritter, Rose Gentle and Cindy Sheehan play themselves; Alistair Campbell by Ian McKellan, Jack Straw by John Cleese, George Bush by Kevin Klein, Con-job Rice by John Walliams, and Hans Blix by Mat Lucas. Dugsie would be played by Warren Beatty.

Lee,allegations of corruption of town hall bureacracy offended the mayor most.
He came over as a lion defending his cubs.
Of course allegations of bureaucratic faults are almost impossible to substantiate because they control the records of events and procedure compliance (or non-compliance!).
The only route is external cicumstancial evidence,e.g. the fact that the Valencian regional government took over the previous town hall administration's planning competencies,almost unheard of here,would suggest an immense problem.
However this is further complicated by the visceral political hatred between the ex-mayor and Valencia central.It's a bit like Clochemerle without the laughs. And the buros and politicos claim to serve us!

And after pointing out that people's admiration for wealthy is beginning to change I have just find this by chance on MSN dot com (not known for
their leftist credentials microsoft are they!?):

'Whack-a-banker game is a hit

Recession-hit Britons are getting their own back on banks by playing one of the country's newest amusement arcade games.

Inventor Tim Hunkin says the "Whack A Banker" machine at his pier arcade in Southwold, Suffolk, is proving a great investment.

Punters are promised a "truly rewarding banking experience" and use a mallet to hit as many bald pop-up figures as they can in a limited time.

"You pay 40p to hit as many bankers as you can in 30 seconds as their heads pop up. It's based on an older game called 'Whack a Mole'," said Mr Hunkin.

"It's proving very popular. I keep having to replace worn-out mallets."

He added: "And, of course, the bankers never really lose. If you win the game a banker's voice says: 'You win. We retire. Thank you very much to the taxpayer for paying our pensions'." '

And yes the irony that this is indeed making money out of people's dislike
of Bankers has not escaped me!

"Nominations for an actor to play Tony Blair in an adulatory Hollywood film ? "
How about Matthew McConnachie, he is almost as nauseating. Its a pity that the Marx brothers are gone, they could have done a stunner on Bush,Blair,Cheney and Rumsfeldt. Groucho had of course more intellegence in one little finger, than the above bunch put together.

Lee and Frances are right of course to point out that the Chilcot and all post war tribunals are a sham. As are almost all Public Enquiries. 'Yes Minister' used this fact to great comic effect where Sir Humphrey Appleby often in conclusion with his erstwhile opponent the Jim Hacker M.P. knew that if you wanted to be certain to bury any embarassing information be sure to hold an 'enquiry'.

Frances you're right about large sections of the population's attititude to earned and unearned wealth. But as I suggest on another thread - this sentiment has to a large degree grwon in influence due to the social engineering policies (particulalrly in home ownership) since 1979.

But this mindset and the economic policies underpinning it (known by many as neo-liberalism) has been very much compromised and brought into disrepute over the last two years or so. This may take years to filter through the population (as did the Thatcherite influence itself) but I think that a return to 'business as usual' is not a realistic prospect. This will be even more true if the recent retail recovery bombs after Christmas as many economic commentators now predict. The superficial and insincere celebrity culture you highlight was built on an unsustainable boom and if these economic factors turn on their head - millions of people will have to try and struggle with the resulting implosion.

And people who are contributing very little to society will no longer be feted in the way they are still are now. Quite the opposite I suggest.

Lee

'He will continue to be honoured, given lucrative directorships, and will soon be subject of a adulatory Hollywood film.'

Nominations for an actor to play Tony Blair in an adulatory Hollywood film ?

People only get tried for war crimes when their enemies are in power. I'm dubious about war crime trials because of that. At the first hint of trouble Blair will be off to the US.

I don't even know why this is being discussed. It was obvious that Blair was doing everything he could to get a further UN resolution havign already decided the date to go (because of the summer coming) All the troops were already on their way. It was obvious that he wanted a vote in Parliament to make them all complicit and it was obvious he was using a phony dossier and daring them to ignore a manufactured threat of which they didn't have sight.

This was all obvious as it was happening. They still all went along with it. The LibDems didn't. Robin Cook didn't. What is Chilcot supposed to be discovering that we didn't know at the time.

Lewis: if the purpose of bureaucracy were to enforce positions that are fair, just and morally defensible, bureaucracy would be obsolete and unnecessary. It doesnt matter where the bureaucracy is located and who its members are, its universal role is to discover in any situation the most unfair and undeserved interpretation of a situation, and use rules and procedures to support such a determination.

Ian: I argued from the outset, and even posted it here, that the primary reason for Chilcot is to cram all the indictable evidence about Blair into a short private session, which the Government will classify, placing Blair permanently beyond the reach of the law because the evidence could never be used in a court of law or made available to the Hague. That is the core purpose, and unless there is massive public action (and I dont think that will make any difference ultimately), that is exactly what will happen and Chilcot will have achieved its purpose. All the Chilcot stuff about the inquiry taking place in public, was a bluff. He doesnt need more than twenty minutes in private with Blair to condense all the vital evidence and have it classified.

Chilcot will, of course, rubbish Blair a bit more, and he will come out stinking. But Blair doesnt care. His future enrichment and status doesnt depend on what the British public thinks. He is in the vicinity right now ONLY to ensure that the danger of ever being indicted, is permanently removed. Its Brown's final debt to Tony, and helps safeguard Brown, Straw, and Beckett too. In the US and the Gulf States, Blair's status as a hero will continue to soar. He will continue to be honoured, given lucrative directorships, and will soon be subject of a adulatory Hollywood film.

The issue to me is how anyone could consider voting for a Newlabour administration that has behaved in this fashion. That is why Compass does not discuss or even raise this issue, because Compass knows it doesnt have a moral leg to stand on, so its best just to keep quiet.

Blair must be getting a little jumpy about Clegg, who seems finally, to have discovered that Chilcot is a conspiracy to protect Blair, and seems quite exercised about the planned private session to classify the evidence. This is particularly so as Brown is making noises about a snap election because Labour is only 9 points behind the Tories in the polls. I am pretty sure there are missives from Blair to Brown that he must not hold the election until the private session with Chilcot is held. I am sure Straw will make sure Brown remembers his obligation and the timetable.

So, given that we can now see how all of this is going to end, is that OK for all of you ? Do we just "get over it" ?

All winter and no Christmas for Catral pensioners.
The Mayor fronted up to our demo,invited the ring
leaders inside,and lectured them in front of the media
on how his tax imposition is the only way to resolve
the illegality situation.
The positives were extensive media (Spanish & English)
coverage,reasonable turn out,150-200,and further meetings
one of which the property councillor will address possibly.
Interesting to meet a few union veterans (NGA|SOGAT,
Woodworkers etc.).
Quite sensitive really as the youngish reform mayor is
understandably conscious of his dignity,and not the root
of the scandal which occurred under his predecessor.

Jon - you can't get anywhere while the public think some people are entitled to great wealth because 'they earned' it and people who say they aren't are just jealous.

Greens managed to promote a sense that the planet needed looking after.

Unless you can promote the idea that very rich people aren't something to admire you can't democratically limit them. It's a moral question. The eye of the needle.

Who do you want to want to win X factor? Bought a lottery ticket this week? Euro lottery is up to 58 million.

Lee - I doubt my suggested 'campaign' would even be allowed under the European Convention of Human Rights - because it would be seen as an act of discrimination - no matter how much popular support it got. In the same way - the Queen would have to be given compensation if voters decided to remove the Crown Estate and/or Duchy of Lancaster from her.

But of course your general point about Compass and MPs is still correct. Which all goes to show that the political establishment and the legal systems of the UK and EU are all very much on the side of the venal rich and powerful. Ian's post about the Chilcot Enquiry demonstates another
clear example of this. SG's point about our libel Laws in the UK is yet another.

The question of course still remains as relevant as ever - what is the genuninely democratic response to such an unfair state of affairs? How can we begin to put right such a systematic defence of wealth and power?

Probably a little off topic but the Indie today reports:


"Key parts of Tony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in secret, sources close to the hearings revealed last night.

His conversations with President George Bush when he was prime minister, and crucial details of the decision-making process that led Britain into war, will fall under the scope of national security and the protection of Britain's relations with the US.

But there are also suggestions by well-placed sources that anything "interesting" will also be shrouded in secrecy, leaving his public appearance containing little more than is already known. "

No surprise there really but how is the decision making process that happened 6 years ago anything to do with national security? As someone said in that paper he should be speaking to Britain not Britton.

Of course I support your campaign, Jon, but you will have to sell it to the Tories and the Lib-Dems. You know you would be lucky to get 10 Labour MPs would endorse it. And that, as far as I am concerned, says it all. I also know that your chances of getting a Compass campaign on this is...what is the metaphor about a snowball's change in hell ? It is true that Compass played an important role in ridding us of Blair, but once gone, Compass has protected him. There isnt even any coverage of Chilcot here. Its almost as if Compass has never heard of Iraq. Dont you find that strange ? Is that some thing we should just happily accept ?

I am now officially launching the campaign for a Tony Blair Windfall Tax at a %99.9 rate. All proceeds are to be given as reparation to the people of Iraqi. I make no apology for any symbolism which may be attributed to this gesture and hope that all opaque Pressure Groups will lend their support (even if their originators have helped create Blairism and failed to oppose the Imperialist Wars with any conviction).

Dugsie (Yorks)
on 12 December 2009, 9:31:20 AM
Tony Blair is now saying that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether he thought that they had weapons of mass destruction or not. Of course he would. It just took him a while to fully comprehend his instructions from Washington. When was the last time the UK had a foreign policy of its own ?

If we had one would we do any good in the world, in voluntary association with like-minded countries ? Do we have a world policy record to be proud of ? Are we glad to be British, or just embarrassed ?
**************************************************************
Magnificent questions from Dugsie ! And unusually existential...unusual because I dont see Dugsie as a Sartrist.

We allowed a spiv not only to rape our party, but to become Prime Minister, and then to use our army, our parliament, to engage in an action (the invasion of Iraq) to advance his own personal fortune, which is now many millions of US dollars reaped from the war profiteers who made billions out of this invasion.

Now he sits, protected on a high perch, beyond the reach of us and the law, laughing at us, and admitting openly that he would have done what Bush demanded even if it was illegal, and admitting to us all, that WMDs were a pretext. He is safe on his perch because he knows that Chilcot's terms of reference clearly state that the inquiry can go no further than discovering mistakes, and that at the end of the inquiry, the evidence against Blair will be classified and he will be forever safe from prosecution.

So how do we feel about allowing someone who has all but destroyed our party, laughing at us because we cant trap him, despite the fact that during his premiership, we allowed him to use the state apparatus and resources, as his own private possession to invest in a wealthy personal future by doing exactly what George Bush dictated. There is no point asking what we think about him. The real question is "what do we think of ourselves ?" Some of us marched against him, but as a body we allowed him to do this to our country, to our parliament, to our armed forces, and to our party and the traditions we hold so dear, so that he could personally enrich himself. So what do we think of ourselves ? What do we feel about a Labour Party that has not only never apologised or distanced itself from Blair's crimes and lies, but is currently actively trying to protect him through the Chilcot whitewash. Will it feel good to you to give your vote to that party in a few months time ? Do you feel the slightest bit betrayed ? In which case are you going to just live with it or do something to regain your personal sense of honour ? What does it mean to you that a Labour Prime Minister betrayed his country and is responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people so that he could become rich and influential ? How do you feel about the fact that ever since the Iraq invasion, Compass has not once, other than my article in which I was left out to dry, called attention to Blair's war crimes ? Does that sit well with you ?

Dugsie (Yorks)
on 12 December 2009, 9:31:20 AM
Tony Blair is now saying that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether he thought that they had weapons of mass destruction or not. Of course he would. It just took him a while to fully comprehend his instructions from Washington. When was the last time the UK had a foreign policy of its own ?

If we had one would we do any good in the world, in voluntary association with like-minded countries ? Do we have a world policy record to be proud of ? Are we glad to be British, or just embarrassed ?
**************************************************************
Magnificent questions from Dugsie ! And unusually existential...unusual because I dont see Dugsie as a Sartrist.

We allowed a spiv not only to rape our party, but to become Prime Minister, and then to use our army, our parliament, to engage in an action (the invasion of Iraq) to advance his own personal fortune, which is now many millions of US dollars reaped from the war profiteers who made billions out of this invasion.

Now he sits, protected on a high perch, beyond the reach of us and the law, laughing at us, and admitting openly that he would have done what Bush demanded even if it was illegal, and admitting to us all, that WMDs were a pretext. He is safe on his perch because he knows that Chilcot's terms of reference clearly state that the inquiry can go no further than discovering mistakes, and that at the end of the inquiry, the evidence against Blair will be classified and he will be forever safe from prosecution.

So how do we feel about allowing someone who has all but destroyed our party, laughing at us because we cant trap him, despite the fact that during his premiership, we allowed him to use the state apparatus and resources, as his own private possession to invest in a wealthy personal future by doing exactly what George Bush dictated. There is no point asking what we think about him. The real question is "what do we think of ourselves ?" Some of us marched against him, but as a body we allowed him to do this to our country, to our parliament, to our armed forces, and to our party and the traditions we hold so dear, so that he could personally enrich himself. So what do we think of ourselves ? What do we feel about a Labour Party that has not only never apologised or distanced itself from Blair's crimes and lies, but is currently actively trying to protect him through the Chilcot whitewash. Will it feel good to you to give your vote to that party in a few months time ? Do you feel the slightest bit betrayed ? In which case are you going to just live with it or do something to regain your personal sense of honour ? What does it mean to you that a Labour Prime Minister betrayed his country and is responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people so that he could become rich and influential ? How do you feel about the fact that ever since the Iraq invasion, Compass has not once, other than my article in which I was left out to dry, called attention to Blair's war crimes ? Does that sit well with you ?

As SG, Frances and Paul make it very clear - the body politic of the UK is rotten to the core. Any serious alternatives or suggestions need to keep this very firmly in mind to be of any relevance and worth.

(And SG - just because I agree with your point about 'feudalism' doesn't mean you shouldn't expand on this interesting point).

Dear Sir,

Is Cherie Blair's statement that she will never have enough money for security despite her 12 million pound fortune be the reasoning behind all the new labour elites greed and collusion with big business and the banks.
Some cannot claim poverty in childhold, but like Tony's new excuses for IRAQ they will think of something.

Paul

Thye are the pair that just keep giving.

Tony braved it out with Fern! He's building a position.

Cherie Blair says she has £12 million but she will never have enough to feel safe. Bless. Such socialist conviction. Is Compass going to run a collection for her? I'm going to make her some soup.
Or perhaps she should eat cake.

Tony Blair is now saying that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether he thought that they had weapons of mass destruction or not. Of course he would. It just took him a while to fully comprehend his instructions from Washington. When was the last time the UK had a foreign policy of its own ?

If we had one would we do any good in the world, in voluntary association with like-minded countries ? Do we have a world policy record to be proud of ? Are we glad to be British, or just embarrassed ?

I'm bedazzled at the fact that the astonishingly perverse Tiger Woods is bringing the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's Court into greater disrepute than even the finest minds can boggle. It really does bring the nature of our political and legal systems into perspective. A firm of English solicitors, Schillings, is actually threatening the American press in an English law court.

Hasn't our legal system adapted well to the age of the internet and instantaneous global communication by establishing a vehicle to extend its tentacles with imperial aggression into the legal systems of other sovereign states to protect the powerful and privileged from any degree of transparency, however small, when their own states deem it inappropriate?

Bit like our invasion of Iraq and our cackhanded "administration" of Afghanistan. Bit like all the PFIs, mostly owned by banks or by parties acting at one or, at most, two removes from banks and other organisations from the money sector, which are going to eat into what little we have left from New Labour's attempt to protect the bloated edifice of the City's banking Triffid.

Still, if it wasn't for the PFIs, education and Health would have to suffer really heavy cuts and because of the PFIs' contractual bases they won't, but they also won't have as much to put into patient care, or anything else for that matter. Good for banks and their shareholders, including the taxpayer, apart from those taxpayers who are also patients.

Maybe, if we can gain a victory for transparency by altering our feudal (if anyone wishes me to go into detail on my use of that word, I am more than happy too) laws of libel and defamation to bring them a little more in line with the realities of the world today, perhaps we will develop enough courage to be able to win a further victory by bringing the City and its morally corrupt apparatchiks to heel.

Saying it's Xmas, we might form a group of carol singers from those amongst us who have already downloaded the non-existent injunction from any one of thousands of US, Canadian, Mexican and Germany websites, to Wassail Compass supporters as they graciously enter The Offside Bar & Gallery, 271 City Road London EC1, but only if potential singers are able to show a full copy of the Honourable Mr Justice Eady's Injunction PLUS a copy of Schillings' covering letter, "to whom it may concern", to demonstrate seriousness of intent. Photos are also invited to contribute to the detritus of the evening.

Yet more news for Compass to 'celebrate' next week as this article from the Independent shows, all those hundred of thousands of people didn't die in vain - because a handful of shareholders and Corporate lackeys are going to make themselves even richer.

Anyone who supported the Imperialist rape of Iraq can now say that the
mission to impose Western values by wholesale slaughter and murder has been a complete success. Job done!

Shell wins historic Iraq oil contract

By Paul Donovan, Press Association

Friday, 11 December 2009

Royal Dutch Shell today landed one of only two deals in the latest auction of Iraqi oil assets.

The Anglo-Dutch oil giant, in partnership with Malaysia's state-run Petronas Carigali, secured rights to the Manjoon field in the Basra region.

The joint venture beat a consortium of France's Total and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), to develop what is one of the largest oil fields in the world.

The Shell-Petronas consortium will receive 1.39 US dollars a barrel produced from the field. The companies said they would raise production from the current 45,900 barrels per day to 1.8 million barrels per day over a 10-year period.

The auctions are being staged 30 years after Saddam Hussein nationalised the oil sector and kicked out foreign firms.

The inaugural auction in June flopped as Iraq secured just one deal with BP out of eight oil and gas fields put out to tender.

A total of 15 fields were up for grabs today and tomorrow, representing about one third of the country's reserves. However, five of those in troubled parts of the country have been withdrawn and another attracted a single bid.

At the start of today's auction Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, looked to allay concerns about bombings and other incidents that have plagued the oil-rich nation since the 2003 US-led invasion.

It was clear, though, that the significance of a wave of attacks across Baghdad earlier this week, which killed at least 127 people, was not lost on executives from the 44 companies participating in the auction.

"We were expecting that some companies would consider the security situation in Diyala and Ninevah provinces," said Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani.

The Manjoon oil field is the biggest of the fields on offer. A second consortium led by CNPC won the rights to the Halfaya field, also in the south of the country.

In the June auction, a BP-led consortium secured rights to one of Iraq's biggest oil fields.

The oil major teamed up with CNPC for the bid to land the contract for the Rumaila oil field, which holds 17.8 billion barrels in crude reserves.

Frances: Just waiting for a government spokesperson to go on the beeb and announce: "We are very proud of what we have achieved and believe we are doing the right thing." Where is Hazel Blears when you need her to do the pantomime curtsy.

Let's be seasonal - letter in Guardian. Most people have no idea how rude and hostile these letters from the DWP and DHS are. No other organisations treat all clients/customers as potential criminals. (Except perhaps airport security.) We get so many of them and as carers we have to go off and start fighting another bureaucratic system that treats us like nobody and nothing. How do vulnerable sick people with no family helping them cope.

• It's ironic that the day the government announced a blitz on benefit fraud, our 39-year-old severely disabled daughter who has very high support needs received a summons for fraud, with a substantial penalty charge levied, in threatening language, from our local NHS Fraud Office for a prescription from April. The prescription was ticked in the appropriate box as free, as she has always been in receipt of free medication, as disabled from birth. She has lived at the same address for 13 years, has not changed her GP and, unfortunately, is reliant on several medications that require constant repeat prescriptions that are ongoing.

Fortunately we, as parents, are able to challenge this inexcusable action, that was seemingly made without any checks on who she was or her status. Now the "blitz" is being rolled out, how many other of our most vulnerable and poorest citizens are going to be treated in such a way, and traumatised in the run up to Christmas?

Name and address supplied

America is America is Rome... do they give a toss? Do they heck.

How much of the world will sink before America gets its act together? As much as sinks before America itself is seriously affected?

'Meanwhile Britain, which is somehow trying to deny its involvement in the Circle of Commitment, is keeping head well below parapet.'

That's just not good enough. Open government. I want to know if I am in the Circle of Commitment or not. Am I in the group plotting to fillet the others or am I in the lot being filleted. How do I find out? Do they have funny handshakes?

Sadly the Ed Miliband/climate change page has vanished to page two an with it all the work I did on the Circle of Commitment. Compass really needs to fix the format of this site. Personally, I am much more concerned about what is happening in Copenhagen than I am in Darling's pathetic pre-budget report.

Here is a great quote from Copenhagen today following the turmoil over the Circle of Commitment's Copenhagen Agreement scam.

Todd Stern, the US chief negotiator, rejected any “notion of debt”. "We absolutely recognise our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere, up there, but the sense of guilt or culpability or reparations, I just categorically reject that," he said.

Isnt that amazing, at a time when the G77 are talking about walking out, that this yoyo is so stupid as to make a comment like that ? Meanwhile Britain, which is somehow trying to deny its involvement in the Circle of Commitment, is keeping head well below parapet.

We need about 43% by 2020 and over 80%, possibly 90%, by 2050.

James Hansen of Nasa claimed that it would be better if Copenhagen fails as anything that does result from Copanhagen will do more harm than good.

What will Compass be celebrating? Not Copenhagen - that's for sure.

The rich countries are ab/using the collapse of the USSR 20 years a go(which was an environmental disaster both in terms of pollution and carbon emissions) to try to conceal the fact that the developed world's emissions have contiuned to rise despite all the rhetoric and lies.

Which will conveniently leave the scam of 'carbon offsetting' as the only take-or-leave-it deal on the table.

By repeating the aim of keeping global warming to no more than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels - the idea is to just impose a world reduction target of 50% by 2050, with 80% coming from the developed world. One estimate suggests that this would allow the rich developed nations to continue to 'out pollute' the rest of the world (i.e. the overwhelming majority!) by a factor of 3:5.

When this leaked out members of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance strated marching through the Bella Centre chanting: 'Two degrees is suicide, One Africa, one degree.'

Just something to help wash your mince pies down with...

Frances, read the same report on ESA, absolutely scandalous, yet more inequality. Proof positive that this policy was not thought out or implemented properly. No comment of course from the government, who are no doubt scrambling for spinning metaphors. When Yvette Cooper et al finally have to react to the charities. Purnell must be really proud of himself, this policy will be in pride of place in his right wing CV. Another case for left wing policies and socialism returning to our politics, if any further proof were needed.

Happy Christmas all - nice to see a charity speaking out. Perhaps it will give encouragement to the others to JUST SAY NO to this

Benefits cruelty of cancer patients, Guardian Sunday December 6 2009

Seriously ill cancer patients are being forced to undergo "cruel" back-to-work interviews despite the fact they should be exempt, charities have warned.

Those who are terminally ill or undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy are being threatened with benefit cuts if they do not attend the meetings, according to Macmillan Cancer Support and Citizens Advice.

The "fit for work" interviews are for people seeking the employment and support allowance (ESA), which replaced incapacity benefit and income support in October 2008.

The drive behind ESA is to focus on what people can do rather than what they cannot do, as a means of getting them back to work.

However, cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy or who are terminally ill are automatically exempt from the interviews.

Macmillan and Citizens Advice condemned the ESA process, saying it was "failing seriously ill and disabled people". Macmillan's benefits helpline has taken more than 600 calls about the issue since May.

A joint report - Failed by the System - found evidence of cancer patients with just months to live being told they had to undergo medical examinations and be questioned. Others having radiotherapy and people in hospital have also been refused ESA when they should automatically get it, the study found.

It also noted examples of people with cancer being told they are fit for work even when they are suffering from the long-term effects of the disease.

The charities said poor knowledge of ESA rules among Jobcentre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions medical staff is resulting in claims being handled badly. Poor administration systems and a lack of understanding about cancer are fuelling the problem, they said.

Mike Hobday, head of campaigns at Macmillan, said: "It's cruel and completely unacceptable that people who are terminally ill or going through gruelling treatment are being made to jump through hoops to get money they should receive automatically. The safeguards to protect cancer patients clearly aren't working, and the ESA system is riddled with problems."