Sorry Miss. Won't Do it Again.

There have been several entries in this blog over previous months about the pernicious treatment of the Gurkhas by UK Border Agency. I fear without Joanna Lumley's extraordinary media campaign, the issue would still be languishing at the bottom of page nine in most broadsheets. Although, the Opposition won the vote last week, it was in no way binding and these matters invariably slide inexorably back to the previous policy. Officials and Ministers know the might of Departmental inertia is very hard to overcome twice.
So Ms Lumley deserves immense praise for her tenacity in pushing PM into a corner on Wednesday then ambushing and de-bagging the hapless Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas yesterday. His sullen nodding to her every demand reduced Woolas to a schoolboy sobbing before an imperious and unforgiving school Ma'am.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8037181.stm

The Governmnent is now unable to offer Gurkhas anything less than full settlement rights without resuming the "cartwheel of emotion" as JL put it. Brown used Woolas's massively inflated figures of £1.6Bn settlement costs at PMQs last week to justify the block on Gurkhas moving to the UK. The total was based on the assumption all 36,000 Gurkhas plus at least three members of their family would re-settle here. Many are very elderly and too frail to start a new life. All would struggle to find the (non-refundable) cost of £585 for processing an application for residency plus air fares out of £150 a month pension.

David Blunkett warned Ministers had lost their political antennae on this issue thinking illiberal and tough-sounding immigration policies were always popular. But even the dim-witted Woolas should have realised it was time to reverse a policy which put a Labour Government to the right politically of the Mail and Telegraph.

Cracking Under the Strain

President Obama has made a bold and impressive start to his tenure in the White House. He has had to address some glaring national and international injustices and imbalances - many economic, several strategic and a few simply moral. The last of these has centred most recently on the release of legal memos from 2002 which the Bush Administration used to permit the CIA and military to carry out 'advanced interrogation techniques' - that's Orwellian code for torture. (Incidentally the FBI instantly recognised what these brutal tactics amounted to and refused to follow them).

The lead figures in the Republican Party had the opportunity to disown this dispreputable and criminal episode. But Rove, Cheney (left) and Limbaugh have not only justified the techniques as 'effective' they often also deny, contrary to all evidence, they amount to torture at all. The memos themselves acknowledge the general style of interrogation sanctioned derives from Chinese techniques used during the Korean War which at time Eisenhower and Nixon called 'brainwashing.' During 1945-7 the US authorities prosecuted and imprisoned several Japanese commanders for allowing these exact methods of torture.

The Al-Quaida terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed was given waterboarding 183 times in a month, so on average six times daily. The reason given for such intensive 'questioning' was the failure of these 'operatives' to admit the (blindingly false) link between Al-Quaida and Sadam Hussein.

Former Judge Advocate General Wallach said, "waterboarding is often described as 'simulated drowning'... it is usually real drowning simulating death". Here Vanity Fair, journalist Christopher Hitchens, gets a taste for what it feels like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&feature=fvst

Dick 'Lon' Cheney has been wandering the TV studios to declare the release of the memos can only be understood in two ways. First, the Obama administration believes the torture methods were ineffective; naturally he can show that's not the case. Alternatively, he says Obama and Clinton must believe the US is no longer be under threat, which makes them naive, stupid or perhaps sympathetic to the enemy's cause.

There is of course a third possiblity which is that Obama knows torture is morally wrong, is contrary to International Conventions and amounts to a serious criminal offence. Some of it, like in Abu Gharaib prison, wasn't even used for interrogation and can only be seen as an example of "recreational sadism" as Hitchens himself puts it.

Many of the right's commentators, like Fox News, have tried to take the traditional political opposition against anything advocated by those pinko liberals, but for some it is become a tense internal battle. These guys are invariably proud patriots and at times can't stop themselves revealing how dismayed they are about this obvious moral degradation of American values.

Sheperd Smith has been a news anchor on Fox since the channel was launched in 1996. In the clip below (includes expletives) he can be seen at first wrestling mentally with the justification of torture - then his usual geniality suddenly breaks with spectacular results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEtFMj6ZiHM&feature=related

Smith's colleague on Fox, Sean Hannity, has no such qualms and last week even volunteered to be waterboarded for charity, the money going to Army families. Those charities would be under huge pressure not to accept funds tainted by this shameful enterprise.

But clearly there is still plenty of room for breathtaking arrogance and crass insenstivity on the right even when the issue is torture. But for a few the moral principle is regaining prominence over the endless political gainsay.

Ooh, Shouldn't be Allowed

To the House of Commons to observe the Members' Allowances debate. Gordon Brown had initiated this event following his excrutiating venture into Youtubeland last week. If all things were equal, he would have been in the chamber himself. Yet, after the previous day's defeat over the Gurkhas right to settle in the UK, he must have thought, only more misery would coalesce around his presence.

So Harriet Harman opened, supported by her keen deputy Chris 'Underpants' Bryant. Opposing was the twinkle-toed and self-satisfied Alan 'Ewing' Duncan (left). Alan fancies himself as a bit of a gag-meister and impressionist and regularly makes a damn fool of himself on HIGNFY. (On last week's show, he said he would like to kill a particular homophobic campaigner - only he forgot to make a joke about it and Paul Merton just eyed him tensely). In the debate, Duncan looked under instruction to adopt a more dignified approach and so left his 1970s jokebook at home.

HH tried unsuccessfully to 'make progress' under a welter of interventions. The Government had set out a series of resolutions but before they could be debated effectively the House had to consider the amendment put down by the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is certainly very rare for an entire Committee to lay an amendment, but these are strange times. Essentially it said, ' it is this committee's role to continue its review into allowances: let us finish the job.'

Hattie then said, she was "minded to accept the amendment." In other words, complete capitulation. Brown's assertion, only eight day's before, there would be a flat rate attendance allowance, was stone dead.

But then a pall of confusion descended on the Opposition benches. Surely it meant all the resolutions and votes on receipts and staffing et al, were not needed now? Speaker Martin said no, even if it were inconsistent, the resolutions would stand for a vote. Duncan said gravely that, "we are entering the realm of lunacy...this is now a feverish shambles."

Brown's revised tactic was to be able to say at the end of the day's business, 'we have voted to make big changes'. So it went on. Most resolutions were quite straightforward; all receipts being recorded is unanswerable and could not cut across the Standards and Privileges Committee inquiry. But there were other more complex and strategic questions, such as whether all MPs' staff should be employed centrally by a new Commons HR Department. The issue involved about 2,500 staff, presumably their future administration would require determining common policies on pay, pensions, grading, terms and conditions. So much for the objective of saving money. They would also be expected to be 'politically neutral' like the Civil Service. No-one explained why.

Backbencher Meg Munn asked, so politely, what discussions had taken place with lawyers on the status of current contracts and the employees' rights. Lawyers, I am sure, would insist staff were at least consulted on the changes. Clearly that had not happened either.

The bearded David Heath, staked out the Lib-Dems objections. Heath, resembling a slightly batey gamesmaster, pointed out there was one matter which the whole house agreed needed reforming immediately - curtailing Ministers' ability to claim second home allowances when they were already provided with 'grace and favour' homes. Yet that point was not to be voted on; Brown decided the Ministerial Code should be amended accordingly - meaning the scope of the change remained in the PM's power.

Brown just couldn't get anything right. At present the PM is acting like a inebriated passenger, shouting directions at the driver as they hurtle unerringly into the darkness.

I Was Born with a Scowl on My Face

In a pitiful attempt to appear 'down wit de Yout' the Prime Minister anounced his latest plan on reforming MPs' expenses on Youtube, rather than explaining himself to Parliament. I am not sure who is advising the PM on communications after the recent beheading of Damian McBride but this was a very avoidable error. He has obviously been ordered to accentuate that sickly and almost randomly applied grin. See how much of this you can bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBXj5l6ShpA.

Simon Hoggart in the Guardian, as ever with 'le bon mot', described it as "the smile a 50-year-old man might use on the parents of the 23-year-old woman he is dating, in a doomed attempt to reassure them."

Brown's intentions were about as genuine as that smile. He announced a vote next week on moving to an attendence allowance from the current second home payments system. All MPs know this is a highly party political matter and throwing in the (reasonable) requirement of full declaration of other jobs was obviously meant to entrap the Tories. In the interests of balance here is Tory Chief Whip, Eric 'Donut' Pickles making a damn fool of himself on Question Time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYl6WW5ypRE&feature=related

It is nonsense on stilts to think PM will get a vote through in a week. It would be just about possible if there were a close to unanimous view of what should replace the current arrangements. But it is far from clear how the introduction an Euro Parliament style £150 per day tax-free allowance, on top of a fair salary, will gain anything like popular support.

Brown said the main objective would be to, "save money." But there is no chance the relevant sums can be done in time to prove that point. Even if they arrived at a figure of £150 and an MP attended for 160 days out of 365 then (s)he would be entitled to £23,000 or exactly the same as the current second home allowance.

The unanswered questions on how it would work in practice are legion. For example, Ministers (and their shadows) are often away from Parliament on official business. Will those days count? Will that principle apply to backbenchers? How much of a day will count as one day? What about sick leave? How will the Fees Offices with only five staff cope? What are the equivalent situations in other countries? What assessments have been made on their fairness, value for money or public support? Of course, Brown may have timed his announcement before the apocalypse of public opinion descends when a million MPs' receipts are published.

The one area where all parties are agreed is the abolition of second home allowance for Cabinet ministers who take a 'Grace and Favour' home. Geoff 'Mogadon' Hoon could not believe his luck when the Fees Office confirmed he could get his full allowance, rent out the property and then live in luxury for nowt. Not all in the Cabinet have the same brass neck as Hoon but when a Government has been in power too long the inner cries of a Minister's conscience seem to get fainter and fainter.

Life: But Not As We Know It

Damian Green's (left) revelation that the police had threatened him with a life sentence for receiving leaked immigration statistics was greeted by Labour members with a mixture of incredulity and embarrassment. PC Plod's attempts to intimidate an experienced MP with such ludicrous threats takes the farce of this inquiry to new levels. (It reminded me of the CIA's heavy-handedness with Monica Lewinsky who said both she and her mother were looking at 20 years in jug for mere possession of a stained dress.)

Jacqui Smith now says it was just an operational matter, as she attempts she take giant strides out of the spotlight. But she made a fierce defence of the police operation at the time as, "necessary" to halt the "systematic leaking" of "secret" material from her Department.
The DPP declared this week, "the information leaked was not secret information or information affecting national security, it did not relate to military, policing or intelligence matters. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. Nor, in many respects, was it highly confidential." Clearly the police are not able to deploy sufficient intelligence to assess whether there were national security issues. They should have taken a cursory look at the 'evidence' and told officials to sort out their own mess. To proceed with an arrest of an MP and search his offices without first consulting DPP or anyone in Government, who could realise the immense political fallout from such action, was a crass error.
Of course, the Home Secretary has insisted she was not party to any of the correspondence between officials and police. The original letter from Director of Security in Cabinet Office, Chris Wright, which initiated the police action was also copied to Jon Evans of MI5. It is pretty much unheard of for that level of exchange to be carried out without any Ministerial knowledge. If she is not lying then there is no better evidence to show she does not control her Department. Either way she is close to the exit door.
Monday afternoon should see her Waterloo when she reads statements on Bob Quick's resignation (Sun headline next day was, 'You can't quit quicker than a thick Quick quitter') and on the current policy on the issuing of student visas. Her refusal to address the Damian Green arrest, this highest of profile cases, will be self-defeating. She is handing political ammo to her opponent, the tenacious Chris Grayling. Oppostion members will not find it hard to turn questions on Bob Quick to the arrest of an MP. Speaker Martin will struggle to rule these questions 'out of order' when he himself was compelled to make an extra-ordinary statement to the House to explain why his office let Sargeant Thick tramp his size 12s all over Parliament. Smith's stonewalling of questions on Green promises to be a humiliating spectacle for terminally anxious Labour bankbenchers. It won't be long now.

Quick, Quick Slow

I had a feeling the 8.10 slot on Radio 4's Today show was going to be good this morning. Jim Naughtie's focus was, naturally, on the previous day's huge counter-terrorism operation in NW England. But first, they had deal with top plod, Bob Quick's accidental leaking of the secret operational plans to No.10 photographers, as he disembarked from one of the Met's gas guzzlers.

In a dismal attempt at finding 'news balance', the Beeb rolled in Labour's David Winnick whose Radio 4 media role is simply to steady the ship, and implore us to stay calm and carry on as normal. (Stephen Pound MP performs a similar function but always with good humour). But before Winnick could set out why, "this is not a resigning matter," Bonkers Jonkers came on the line to announce Quick had fallen on his sword.

In present day politics, this was a pretty rapid resignation but it was clear last night BQ was as much use to the Met as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest. He is notoriously short-tempered as he displayed amply by calling the Tories "wholly corrupt" for accusing them (falsely) of feeding the Mail stories about his wife's business. I could never really take him seriously in such a senstive role and considered his surname as some kind of ironic soubriquet.

Jacqui Smith is probably quite happy to see him go as the findings of Damian Green MP arrest investigation are to be revealed this month. Quick was the flatfoot who decided to escalate an internal disciplinary matter for the Home Office to a constitutional crisis by arresting an opposition spokesman and searching his House of Commons office without a warrant.

I expected the outcome of the Green affair to be a finger-pointing exercise between Ministers and the fuzz. Quick can now be Jacqui's scapegoat.

Unless of course they insist on making a defense of their indefensible actions. That course of action would be perverse, idiotic, putting party before principle and ultimately self-defeating. So, I guess, no real reason why it won't happen.

Tabloid Tyranny

Michael Parkinson seems to be the sole public figure who has the moral courage to speak about Jade Goody as she was. The 'lad from Barnsley' had clearly had his fill of the intense media hypocrisy over the recent veneration of Ms Goody. "Her death is as sad as the death of any young person, but it’s not the passing of a martyr or a saint, or, God help us, Princess Di," said Mike.

By stating this simple truism guarantees him some highly negative press - I am sure he can take it. But Parky had a wider point to make by describing the tabloids' elevation of a once vilified non-entity as, "all that’s paltry and wretched about Britain today”.

I saw the Observer's take on the funeral last Saturday and it read like a pretty well-written Private Eye sketch. Did Max Clifford really describe it as a "perfect funeral?" Did legions of fans wear the Goody perfume as their own personal tribute? Did the floral tributes include the words "Minging" and "East Angular"? Did the funeral director (http://www.albins.co.uk/) start selling Jade Memorial candles? Did her tagged husband have to back home by 7 because of his recent conviction for assault?

All true, I'm afraid.

Tabloid editors, helped by publicists such as Max Clifford, can now create a parallel reality where a person's worth is to be judged exclusively on their level of fame. No-one now dares repeat the bullying racism Jade dished out on Big Brother to Shilpa Shetty.

It certainly feels like a new low for tabloid journalism. OK magazine cannot be beaten for most ludicrous exaggeration of the impact of Jade's death, "A nation mourns its brightest star." And the Sun's plea for the family to left alone was pure double-think. The media backlash against Parkinson for speaking his mind promises to be equally absurd. More evidence, as if it were needed, that we live in a post-ironic age.