Rolled-up Trousers

Michael White writes regarding Margaret Hodge's call for housing to be allocated to migrants after indigenous people, rather than on the current basis of need:

Last year the number of council and housing association units built in the borough fell from a very modest 572 to 230. What is true, as Jon Cruddas, Dagenham's Labour MP now running to be deputy leader, keeps saying is that social services in poor boroughs do feel the pressure of globalisation. So do falling local wage rates. "Racialising" problems will not help, better statistics leading to more Whitehall cash will, argues Cruddas whose local activists beat back the BNP. Labour in Barking did not, add Mrs Hodge's critics.

There's no point in beating the BNP by becoming the BNP. There can be no triangulation with them. But as White says, this strategy doesn't work anyway. If you make the far-right's rhetoric acceptable by aping it, why would you get the votes on that platform rather than the real deal?

Humanitarian intervention

Oxfam director Barbara Stocking said:

"Day in day out, Oxfam sees the human consequences of Britain's foreign policies at first hand, both good and bad. Labour's foreign policy has been at its best when it has been in tune with public opinion and international law. However it is now clear that the invasion of Iraq, and the government's failure to stand up to all governments when they break international law and harm innocent people, have seriously damaged Britain's capacity to be a force for good on the world stage.

"The Iraq war was a terrible misadventure. But it must not cause future Prime Ministers to return to the caution of the previous Conservative government. That administration stood by while the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda unfolded. We must say 'never again' as much to our failure to stop these atrocities, as to repeating Iraq."

£10,000

MPs have voted themselves an allowance of £10,000 a year for running websites. Why don't they just head down to Wordpress and get one for free?

Seems like some friendly web design company is going to be creaming £6.5m or so from this, when a basic blog would do the trick. MPs could keep us updated on their activities, give reasons for why they voted as they did, while people could leave comments and feedback.

In most European countries there is a party of the right whose basic definition is its attachment to the national interest of that country. Only here is there a Conservative party, and Tory press, largely in the hands of people whose basic commitment is to the national interest of another country, or countries.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft on the Conservative MPs whose allegiances lie with the US and Israel.

Trident

Can someone explain to me why the prime minister is telling us that Trident will be out-of-date by 2024, that we need to take a decision to renew it this year because it will take 17 years to build a new one, but we're also being told that Iran could potentially magic up a nuclear bomb that could imperil us more or less immediately?

David Cameron scripted by "pro-Arabs"

According to the New Statesman's Martin Bright. He reels off a list of supposed gaffes emanating from the Tories in late February 2006 (he means 2007). First among them is:

The week ended with a distinctly shaky performance from David Cameron in Israel where he had felt it necessary to assure Foreign Office officials that he would try not to “screw up”. Yet by sticking to the script provided by the pro-Arab mandarins he provoked the disdain of the Israeli government by suggesting that it is standing in the way of peace by continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel

His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can "bundle" small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact.

Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada

Nick Boles and Policy Exchange

I'm sure everyone has been following Tim Ireland's recent re-explosion back into the blogosphere. Not so much back with a bang but back with several. He's had a go at Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale and now the laser is fixed on Nick Boles of Policy Exchange.

I blogged quite a bit about Policy Exchange last week, so I particularly welcome Tim's expose of the think tank director's use of its resources to help his bid to be next Mayor of London. Even more rich because of fellow Tory and Policy Exchange colleague Iain Dale's scoop last week where he got media coverage for the Smith Institute's close links with Gordon Brown. Think tanks that benefit from charitable status shouldn't be politically partisan you see...

Mirror images of the BNP

When it comes to identifying mirror images of the BNP, you need to actually examine what the party are saying. Last month they complained that Tony Blair had stolen their clothes after his speech on multiculturalism. It was Blair who parked his tanks in the Tory garden but subsequently they have come to be influenced by the current prime minister in a spell only Margaret Thatcher could previously cast.

Outmanoeuvred on the right, Cameron played the party political game by condemning the ‘clunking’ initiatives from the Labour Party in the last few months, only to adopt a position more extreme than anything Labour have produced yet.

He said he would decouple the issues of terrorism and multiculturalism, despite the fact it was his national security policy review that was making the announcements regarding community cohesion and Britain’s Muslim organisations. In fact, in Monday’s speech he went further than any senior politician to date in fusing the two issues together.

Cameron: Muslims must be taught English, believers in shariah are like the BNP

David Cameron's managed to undo his good work in the space of 24 hours:

Likening Muslim extremism to the ideologies of the BNP, he stated: "We must mobilise the instruments of public policy to draw people away from supporting such ideologies. The BNP pretend to be respectable; but their creed is pure hate. And those who seek a sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP. They also want to divide people into us and them. And they too seek out grievances to exploit."

I've already blogged at length today so for commentary please refer to some of my previous comments on shariah here and here.

The press release goes onto the issue of language:

Warning that multiculturalism has been manipulated to favour a divisive idea - the right to difference - Mr Cameron stressed the need to bring people close together, and pressed for Muslims to be taught English. He said: "We've got to make sure that people learn English, and we've got to make sure that kids are taught British history properly at school. I believe that the Government should redirect some of the money it currently spends on translation into additional English classes. This would help people integrate into society and broaden their opportunities."

How many Muslims can't speak English? Apart from the elderly, In reality they do so -  with the appropriate regional accents. I can't understand why he's seriously raising this as a problem.

Islamists at the centre of government?

Today's Independent on the latest with cash for peerages:

The cabinet minister could not have been more adamant: "If Tony Blair is in the witness box it will be a disaster. Someone will call him as a witness if this goes to trial."

Crossing his fingers, he added: "It would be disastrous. Hopefully it won't happen. Inshallah!"

Wonder who this could be!

Cameron's Crusade

There was much to merit in David Cameron's Observer article looking forward to the announcements this week from his party's policy review on national security.

He decouples the issues of integration and terrorism (despite the fact its his policy commission on national security which will be making recommendations on community cohesion), and says he won't shy away from looking at the role of foreign policy on domestic affairs. He reminded us that it was not long ago that Britain questioned the loyalty of its Jewish and Irish citizens. I also liked this:

There is no easy short cut. Having tried to impose democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun, we must surely realise that we will never impose cohesion at home with the ping of a press release.

He condemns the "clunking" initiatives from the government recently such as asking Muslim parents to spy on their children.

A separate article in the Observer quotes him wanting to campaign for the rights of women, who he says are being held back not by Islam, but by culture. In this regard, I agree, but am not sure what he can do about it (Indigo Jo has some thoughts on this). I also do believe the problem is lessening as years go on.

Cameron caps this all off by saying he's going wage a "crusade for fairness". Just as with George Bush in 2001, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that he was silly rather deliberately provocative with his choice of words. I can't though understand the Western obsession with it. If you want to get something done, the crusades are hardly the model of best practice. Many, many people had their blood spilt, and ultimately they did not achieve what they set out to do. There was certainly nothing "fair" about it. The word should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

UPDATE: Cameron has compared Muslims who believe in shariah to the BNP.

HMD censors events

The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign have announced that the trustees of Holocaust Memorial Day have pulled off mention of their events from the HMD website.

The SPSC are showing the play Perdition this week in events they have organised to mark the occasion. The work highlights the role that Zionists in Hungary had in collaborating with the Nazis. HMD claims this is "anti-Semitic".

The SPSC had advocated that everyone should engage positively with HMD. Here's their announcement:

Is Blair pandering to Muslim sectarianism?

Tony Blair said in his Dubai speech, that in wanting to "pin back" Iran:

... we need the open and clear backing of the countries in this region who know better than we what is happening and why.

It's however an ambiguous statement and could mean any number of things, no matter how strange it seems on the face of it.

But on the back of the tour, Sky's Adam Boulton also said that the PM's people were forced to deny that the speech "amounts to calling for a Sunni Moslem alliance against Shia Iran".

Then yesterday, in responding to the Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the Iraq war, this:

'It's not the policies of the UK which are causing suffering for Christians in Iraq or the Middle East,' said a Foreign Office spokesman. 'It's the fact that there are intolerant extremists inflicting pain and suffering on people. These extremists are indiscriminately killing Christians, moderate Muslims, Sunnis and peoples of all faiths.'

Why the special emphasis for sunnis? After all the fuss made about rescuing shias in Iraq, now that the boot is being aimed at Iran, are the sunnis now in favour? The words don't mean much to a British audience, but are statements being carefully crafted for the anti-shia elements in the Arabian peninsula?

In conversation with Alex Salmond

A couple of months ago I bumped into Alex Salmond in Glasgow's George Square. He was recording some YouTube broadcasts, and was good enough to take the time out to recording something with me. You can view it here.

We talked about he state of community relations on the back of the Jack Straw niqab "debate".

For those outside of Scotland, Alex Salmond is the leader of the Scottish National Party, whom the polls show are on course for victory in next year's Scottish elections. If you're interested in moving to a country where the political leadership is as enlightened as this, please note that Scotland is welcoming of those wishing to bring their talent here.

Incidentally, Alex was nominated by the BBC Politics Show for their poll of political heroes - no mean achievement in a London based programme. You can vote among the final seven here.

Blair playing to "tabloid agenda" in terror fight

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust:

"The key to successfully combating terrorism lies in winning the trust and cooperation of the Muslim communities in the UK. However, the government’s counter terrorism legislation and rhetorical stance are between them creating serious losses in human rights and criminal justice protections…they are having a disproportionate effect on the Muslim communities in the UK and so are prejudicing the ability of the government and security forces to gain the very trust and cooperation from individuals in those communities that they require to combat terrorism.”

At virtually the same time, 90 days detention without charge is back on the agenda, thanks to Gordon Brown and Sir Ian Blair.

The Terrorism Act 2000 brought into law provisions enabling you to be held without charge for seven days. In 2003, this was increased to 14, and this year it went up to 28.

In times gone by, getting arrested was a big deal. Not something that the state could do while they built up a case against you. Arrests came on the basis of real suspicion and a body of evidence. I can't understand the argument that detention without charge is necessary in order to gather evidence against a suspect - how can you arrest someone if you haven't gathered evidence against them?

Difference between terrorism and fundamentalism

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, placed her own role in fighting terrorism as one of a package of measures. She concluded her speech this week by saying:

That brings me on to my final point. None of this can be tackled by my Service alone. Others have to address the causes, counter the radicalisation, assist in the rehabilitation of those affected, and work to protect our way of life.

(...)

My Service is dedicated to tackling the deadly manifestations of terrorism. Tackling its roots is the work of us all.

She also spoke about the role of foreign policy:

Labour MPs are enemies of democracy

If Labour are trying to install the kind of democracy they have at Westminster in Baghdad, then not only is the method wrong, but they are entirely the wrong people to do it.

To say, as the governnment have, that now is not the right time for an inquiry because it would give succour those fighting British troops in Iraq, is to accuse the Americans of doing exactly that. Over the Atlantic, the Baker commission is right this minute looking into the details pre and post invasion.

All Parliament was asked to do last night was set up an inquiry to look at the government's conduct around the Iraq war. Even the Tories, who supported the war, backed it. Labour MPs, in extremely twisted loyalty to Blair, refused. They claim it's all been a big success, but don't want anyone to ask any questions about it.

As Simon Jenkins says in today's Guardian: "The Commons has become little more than an electoral college for the prime minister."

Grant Thoms has got a list of 12 MPs who backed the original Early Day Motion that brought forward this debate, but who then miraculously changed their minds last night e.g. Neil Gerrard. This would have reduced the government majority to 1. BSSC also lists the further 9 EDM signing "toadies" that didn't turn up to vote at all (explanations for absenses may roll in - one reason all MPs should have blogs). This would have meant a government defeat of 8.

And then we have the converts to the war. Yesterday, people that claim to be anti-war voted with the government and couldn't bring themselves to back a simple inquiry. Step forward Sadiq Khan and Shahid Malik for example. Gordon Prentice and Mohammad Sarwar did not turn up. But I also reflect on the fact that 138 Labour MPs rebelled on that famous vote on the eve of war. Admittedly some aren't there after the 2005 elections. But that doesn't account for the fact there are only 12 rebels yesterday who aren't even saying they were against war - just that there should be an inquiry. Has Labour opinion come more in favour of the war despite everything that's happened?

Opportunity lost - for now. Blair hasn't heard the last of this though.

Blair impeached today?

Iraq is set to be debated today for the first time in Westminster since 2003.

You'd think given everything that had happened, that in our democracy it would have come up sometime. But Labour, despite claiming it's been a great succes, have been somewhat reluctant at letting MPs loose on it.

SNP leader Alex Salmond has secured the debate, but it's not any old debate. The terms of it is that Tony Blair should be impeached using arcane Parliamentary rules. Well, at least it calls for a select committee of 7 MPs to be set up to investigate the government's conduct in the meantime.

From what I hear it seems there is a pincer movement forming. If the Lib Dems and the Tories back it, which they should, any kind of rebellion on the Labour benches could be significant.

If you have a hotline to your MP you can use at the lastminute, would be worthwhile getting in touch. Make sure you take your veil off before you phone or email though.

Time for Muslims to start writing

Martin Bright is full of praise for Ruth Kelly's recent speeches about Muslims. He even claims that she was influenced by his pamphlet. He isn't so sure about Blair, Brown and Reid's ability to take on Muslims though:

There is no doubt that Blair understood the threat of Islamist ideology earlier than most in the government. But his stubborn refusal to recognise that British and American foreign policy has fuelled radicalisation, particularly through the war in Iraq, raises the suspicion that he is using the argument over Islamism as a smokescreen. Brown, meanwhile, has yet to engage his formidable mind with the problem.

It was only in June that the Chancellor spoke on a joint platform with the MCB celebrating the benefits of Islamic banking - just as his cabinet colleague at the DCLG was coming to the conclusion that she could not work with the organisation in its present incarnation. Reid is working closely with Kelly to develop the new approach. But it is difficult to see how a man who has questioned Britain's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the prohibition of torture can be seen to share "the values we all hold dear".

Kelly's calm reassertion of her position after an angry response from the MCB to her speech shows she has not come to her position lightly. I am told that she spent recent months reading widely on the history of modern political Islam and that she has become fascinated by the subject.

One publication she has read is a short pamphlet I wrote for the think-tank Policy Exchange, When Progressives Treat With Reactionaries. I argued that the government has spent too long engaging with the representatives of an austere form of political Islam forged in the sectarian politics of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The three most widely publicised works on Islam this year were by Bright, Michael Gove, and Melanie Phillips. We must question the authority with which these people write though. If similarly placed Arabs had written about the West with the kind of expertise and experience these people carry about Islam, they would be quite rightly dismissed.

It is though well overdue that we had weighty pieces of scholarship and indeed shorter pamphlets explaining what Muslims are all about, and what the vision is going forward. No doubt they are as influential as Bright claims. The shame is that it is a struggle to think what can be dished out to give the countervailing argument.

The one who doesn't write is no better than the one who can't write.

Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail

Thought I would just put up excerpts from this very important article, but proved impossible to be selective. So here's the whole thing, as I'm also not sure the Daily Mail website keeps things up permanantly:

Blair. The veil. And a new low in politics

Great sea changes of thought or opinion are rare in British public life, taking place perhaps only once or twice in a generation.

But there is abundant evidence that we are undergoing one now.

Until only a few months ago, mainstream British politicians were extremely cautious about articulating the fears and resentments felt by many ordinary people on the subject of mass immigration.

Those who spoke out publicly (Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech is the notorious example) were ostracised. Political parties which raised the issue were thrust beyond the outer margins of debate - the fate of the National Front and the BNP.

This self-restraint has now vanished. Practically every day for the past two weeks, another minister has insulted the customs, habits or religious beliefs of Britain's Muslim minority.

The most recent assault, which came just hours after the subject was discussed at a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, was launched by Hilary Armstrong on Question Time and came with the full authority of the Prime Minister.

Shameless political opportunism

Further evidence, if any was needed, of the dark heart at the centre of the government. Race relations minister, repeat race relations minister, Phil Woolas wades into the row over the suspended Muslim teaching assistant to say that she should be sacked.

To get the government to normally comment on matters pertaining to local authorities is not easy, there are protocols with this kind of thing. Sticking the boot further into Muslims allows it though.

Government attacks have left the Muslim community figuratively and literally battered and bruised. The adjacent picture is of the Glasgow imam who was attacked in a west end mosque on Friday. Falkirk mosque was deliberately set ablaze last week. The Independent catalogues an alarming number of other incidents. The bigots on the ground are taking their lead from the bully-boy antics of the government.

Personally I've got sympathy with Aishah Azmi when she complains that it is society that is now segregating her off when she is out there, holding down a job, helping bilingual kids. That she didn't wear the veil to her job interview has been reported as if it would have been legitimate grounds on which to not recruit her.

Woolas says that it's sexist of her to wear the veil in front of men. I presume he gets changed at the swimming baths in front of the ladies then. Don't know if they'd appreciate that equality of opportunity though.

Ruthless Kelly

If it wasn't abundantly clear before, it should be now. There is a concerted strategy by the government to bring forward weekly initiatives to say basically the same thing - that the Muslim community is full of terrorists, and they are being complacent about it.

Ever since Muslim leaders got together in August after the Heathrow alert to send a letter to the PM calling for a change in foreign policy to deal with the terror threat, the government has vowed never to be caught on the backfoot like that again. The narrative has to be about what Muslims must do, and how the government can "assist".

John Reid is seen as Blair's successor because of his putting of Muslims into their place. Jack Straw tried to get a piece of the action in his bid for the deputy leadership, and not to be outdone, Gordon Brown put the boot in a few days ago too. Now, up again has stepped Ruth Kelly.

These extremists that the government keep speaking about, won't they just be loving the way the government treat the Muslim community? Because the meanness isn't leading to keenness. But then we know that this government isn't too bothered about giving space to those who would cause mayhem.

A quick breakdown of yesterday's speech:

Straw doesn't know his head from his face

Managed to find Jack Straw's whole article. Reads like something colonial from the days of the Raj.

But he's also hopelessly ill-informed:

And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when in their Hajj – pilgrimage – in Mecca.

Head uncovered? I thought this was about the niqab, the veil covering the face. Because it's certainly not true - women do not uncover their heads during the Hajj.

There are other troubling parts to his argument:

The big debate

Spare a thought today for the poor women that Jack Straw exposed in more ways than one yesterday. They may wear the niqab for all sorts of reasons, but the minimum that will be happening to them within their families is a sense of embarrassment at Straw's revelation that he disrobed them, and maybe worse.

But Straw doesn't care, as long as he gets his "debate". It's absurd how these ministers keep popping up calling for a debate in their speeches and articles, only for them to slink back into their Westminster bubble after opening up a hornet's nest.

We do need a debate about a lot of things regarding the Muslim community, but not with Jack Straw choosing the topic and the timing. He's had thirty years to raise these points of advice with his Muslim constituents, but chooses now, in a newspaper article to do it.

We are witnessing a spiralling race to the bottom as to which party can malign the Muslim community the most. The Tories have professed reform on the environment, sexuality, racism and social justice, but their new found optimism does not extend to the Muslim community.

MPs must do the party funding

The past week has seen more calls from the Labour Party for them to receive state funding.

They should grow up and learn to manage themselves like any other institution in this country. Spend within your means. If you can't, then go out of business.

It's frankly stupid enough of them to have racked up millions of pounds of debt, but then to turn round to the taxpayer and ask us to foot the bill takes a consummately brass neck. As Davide says, next they'll be asking us to serve their jail terms on the back of the cash-for-peerages scandal.

The first thing these MPs must to do is get their own chequebooks out. The Scottish Socialist Party requires its Parliamentarians to donate half their salary to the party. If the 356 Labour MPs at Westminster were to donate even a sixth of their £59,000 salary (they get allowances and expenses on top of this), they would raise £3.5million this year. This is the amount they were getting from loans/donations out of General Election time anyway.

'Sexing up' the intelligence to ignoring it completely

Tony Blair's on terrorism at yesterday's conference speech:

"This is a struggle that will last a generation and more.  But this I believe passionately: we will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy, that somehow we are the ones responsible.

This terrorism isn't our fault.  We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life."

Virtually at the same time a US intelligence report has concluded:

"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement"

Reality: Muslim parents are clamping down on any political activity

Yesterday the Home Secretary could be accused of grandstanding when he used the Sun newspaper to tell Muslims to watch their children.

Today he stepped into a mosque. He was given a fairly heated reception during the Q&A, though Muslims really must learn about the art of questioning. Heckling came from the Anjum Chowdhury/Abu Izzadine axis. I do wonder who invited them. Visits like this are not publicised in advance. Who told them? George Galloway puts it thus:

The man who harangued you - Abu Izzadine - is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?

... There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.

Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.

Reid did take it all in his stride. He's a smooth public performer, and I doubt anyone else in the government would have been able to pull that off. Totally unflappable. What the headlines tomorrow will all be about though is the insinuation that Muslim youth are planning terror outrages, and their parents aren't doing anything about it. As such this is libellous.

Home Sec: Muslims must JOIN extremism fight

Regular visitors will know of my repeated requests to find out what more it is that Muslims can do to fight terror. As Atif Imtiaz has said, there are only really two things we can do, and are doing.

However, Home Secretary John Reid has finally added another. He has today proclaimed from his pulpit, The Sun, that Muslims need to be watching their children:

So I appeal to you to look for changes in your teenage sons — odd hours, dropping out of school or college, strange new friends. And if you are worried, talk to them before their hatred grows.

...

Terrorism can be defeated only when we all work together to defeat it. That’s why it is so important that Muslims join us in exiling extremism from our country — and from their communities.

Note the weaselly Muslim must "join us", implying ever so unsubtly that we're not doing enough. Our children are going to carry out bombings, but we do nothing about it.

Hat tip to the ever-excellent Islamophobia Watch

Blair not welcome in the Middle East

Tony Blair is in the Middle East trying to bring peace and stability to the region. Except he refuses to meet main players, and to be fair, they don't want to see him either.

As Tom at BlairWatch put it, he's talking about the Middle East but not to the Middle East. He's not going to Syria or Iran and won't be meeting the Palestinians (except Abbas). Instead he's trying to sort it all out with Olmert. Which would actually be fine, if he was willing to spell out some home truths. After all, he's got nothing to lose, he's going in a few months anyway.

Hundreds of Palestinians signed a letter in a newspaper saying that Blair was not welcome in Ramallah:

"[Blair is] completely unwelcome in our country because he was coming to wash the hands that are dripping Lebanese blood with Palestinian water."

Palestinian PM Ismail Haniyeh wrote in yesterday's Guardian that "last decade has witnessed the most unfair and one-sided British policy towards the region since the creation of the state of Israel in our homeland close to 60 years ago". Well worth reading the whole thing.