Is It Time To Get Out Of Iraq?

Background

History
Historically Iraq was called Mesopotamia, meaning ‘between the rivers’ in Greek. This was home to the world’s first civilization- the Sumerian, followed by the Akkadian, the Babylonian and Assyrian as early as 5000 BC. This was indeed, the Cradle of Civilization to which we all owe a debt as the first writing, science and mathematics made their appearances in this part of the world. The country was ruled in succession by Persians, Greeks, Parthians, and Persians again by the 7th century. Then Islam took over the area and Mohammed’s cousin and son in law, the 4th caliph, made Kufa his capital. Then in 13th Century(inevitably) the Mongols invaded followed by the Turks who held sway until the first world war when they backed the wrong side and lost out at the peace settlement.

The British Connection
According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916 Britain and France divided up the Middle East into zones of influence with UK having Jordan, Iraq and Haifa and France Syria, S.E. Turkey and Lebanon. The League of Nations made Iraq a British protectorate; it comprised three Ottoman Turk vilayets (regions) of Mosul, Basra and Bagdhad. These regions were very different in religious composition and economic potential but their cobbling together under the rubric if ‘Iraq’, went ahead anyway; British colonial administrators thereupon ruled the area and put down various rebellions against their authority. The king chosen to rule this invented kingdom was Faisal, a Hashemite descendant, rejected by Syria.

In 1932 Iraq was given its independence though the UK retained military bases. Faisal was succeeded by Ghazi but Rashid Ali as PM took the country close to Nazis Germany, possibly through opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine. Britain feared he might cut off oil supplies to the west so invaded in 1941. In 1947 the Hashemite dynasty was restored but in 1958 the 14 July Revolution saw the army stage a successful coup. By this the army saw Abdul Karim in power followed by Salem Arif in 1963. In 1968 his brother was overthrown by the Ba-athist Party- a form of Arab nationalist socialism, also powerful in Syria- and soon Saddam Hussein had risen, bloodily, to the top.

Iran-Iraq War 1980-88
USA, USSR and France supported Saddam in this bloody, pointless war which ended with neither side gaining any advantage,. In late 80s Saddam launched the al Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the north, gassing thousands with Ali Hassan Majid (Chemical Ali) in charge. 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait causing the Gulf War. UN sanctions in the wake of the war caused hardship, some calculate 4-800, 000 children died.

Impact of 9-11 Attacks
According to Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, Bush had resolved to ‘do something about Saddam, just five days after 9-11. Egged on by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld –who were apparently obsessed with Iraq-he ordered General Tommy Franks to prepare a war plan. Colin Powell, who was opposed to the idea, was sidelined; he did not speak to Condi Rice, his eventual successor, for some time after the decision was taken. Woodward’s record, based on scores of interviews with the principals including Bush, claims that once the CIA said they could not kill Saddam, he decided to invade. In early 2003 the Saudi ambassador was informed and, according to the author Blair too.

As US troops moved to the Gulf, various rationales were offered for the attack most people had assumed was in the offing: reputed links to al Quaeda; weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which were a danger to the west; and to bring democracy to Iraq. Of these, the first rationale, despite much effort by the White House, was proved to be false though the terrorist organization soon did move into the chaos of Iraq; the second proved false as exhaustive searches by Hans Blix and his UN team revealed nothing-even a Senate Committee on Intelligence confirmed this to be so; and the third has become an ongoing and tragic farce. In the USA over 70 per cent supported the invasion but in 41 countries the majority of people did not, even members of the eventual ‘Coalition of the Willing’. Massive numbers demonstrated against the war to no effect. In the UK accusations aired that: the Attorney general initially believed the war not to be legal under international law; the September 2002 ‘intelligence dossier’ claiming Saddam had WMD available at 45 minutes notice; and, by Clare Short, that Blair had decided to support Bush’s invasion whatever happened by summer 2002. Blair tried hard to assemble a UN resolution which would bolster the legality of the war but all his shuttle diplomacy, virtually on behalf of George Bush as a kind of surrogate Secretary of State, proved futile especially when France said they would in any event veto such a resolution. France soon became the scapegoat of the Iraq war hawks though Chirac’s position has been perhaps vindicated in retrospect.

Initially the invasion went well. 140,000 US-UK forces made rapid progress as Iraq’s central regions offered little resistance. In the end Baghdad was taken and Saddam’s resistance was symbolically broken when the huge statue of the dictator was hauled down by cheering crowds. However, George Bush’s May 1st 2003 appearance on USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner saying ‘Mission Accomplished’, proved woefully and embarassingly premature. It soon became clear that:
a) There was no well worked out plan for winning the ‘peace’ as opposed to the war.
b) There had been no welcome of a grateful nation in the wake of Saddam’s downfall, as some optimists in the White House had predicted.
c) There was an outbreak of looting and lawlessness in Iraq which scarcely recommended the US presence.
d) There was much evidence that the invading forces were being perceived as ‘occupiers’ of a colonial nature, intent on plundering Iraq’s plentiful oil supplies.
e) Insurgents comprising residual supporters of Saddam, assisted by Sunnis hostile to the Shia majority and, increasingly, terrorist elements from al Quaeda arriving from all over the Middle East and elsewhere.

Political Developments
In October 2005 63% of voters voted on a new constitution with 78% approving it. Kurds and Shias endorsed it heavily but the Sunnis rejected it. 15th December elections were held for a 275 seat assembly on a PR basis; 25% of seats were reserved for women. The Shia, United Iraq Alliance won 128 seats and Kurdish voters 53. Sunnis boycotted the election for the most part. After six months negotiation Nouri al- Maliki became PM. In theory Coalition troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraq government to help restore order. According to a leaked opinion poll, in August 2005 82% of Iraqis were opposed to the occupation and only 1% thought they assisted the search for security. Bush and Blair made much of the democratic constitution and elected government but any hope that this would provide a beacon of liberal values in the Middle East never really got started. The reasons?

a)The fact that daily life for most Iraqis has seldom improved beyond bare subsistence with little food, only a few hours of electricity every day.

b) The military situation on the ground which has made life in Iraq very insecure.

The Insurgency
To the politically warring Ba-athists and Sunnis- the initial civil combatants in the wake of the invasion- have been added a potent cocktail of new ingredients to the stew of violent insurgency: al Quaeda terrorists, initially under Al Zaquarwi; jihadists from all over the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere; nationalists who just want to expel the foreign invaders and the religion based militias. Of all of them these two last have become the major cause of killings. Sunni militias have formed to defend their areas of the big cities, especially Baghdad though other cities too, but they have also begun to make revenge raids after Shia militias have been raiding their suburban areas, abducting innocent civilians and then murdering them by the score and allowing their bodies, often showing signs of torture, to be found in the streets, rubbish dumps and rivers. This has become a form of ethnic cleansing in practice but the internecine blood-letting is now out of control. Even hairdressers have been targeted by extremists, as their function in shaving off beards has been seen as contrary to the spirit of Islam. Bakers have also been targeted, simply for providing a popular service. What makes the situation especially despairing is that the Iraqi police and army, on whom millions have been spent in training, are often members of the militia which make up the death squads which roam the suburbs each night.

The Flight from Iraq
The Independent on 23rd October reported UN figures saying that out of a population of 26 million, 1.6 m have fled with 1.5m displaced. There is constant intimidation- eg bullets sent in an envelope- and threats to relatives as well as murders just in case the message has not got home. This is the biggest exodus from a country since the late 40s when Palestinians fled abroad. Destinations tend to be other Arab countries like Syria, Jordan but also Kurd areas in the north. Often those who stay are squeezed into small hovels, 6-7 to a room. Sunni pilots suspected of bombing Shias or Iran under Saddam are often the object of death squads as are other occupations like translators or anyone working for the occupation forces. Particularly keen to vacate Baghdad are members of the Christian minorities. The capital is being fragmented into small ghettos eg the Shias into areas controlled by the Mehdi Army. To make matters even worse the state bureaucracy is very inefficient and o get anywhere bribes have to be paid. Policemen can often threaten punishments unless paid bribes too.

Death Tolls
The monthly death toll of US troops was as follows from May 2003: 34, 30, 48, 35, 31, 44, 82 and 40. During 2004 it varied from figures in the forties to 135 in April and 137 in November. In 2005 the toll averaged around 50-60 and so far in 2006 it has been 60-70 with a record 86 so far in October. Civilian deaths of course, have been running at a much higher figure- closer to 100 a day and often a good deal more, victims of assassinations, roadside and suicide bombings, etc. The Lancet recently calculated, very controversially, that since the start of the war some 650,000 civilians had lost their lives- that’s one in 1 in 40 Iraqis. The USA has lost 3000 servicemen and the UK, over 120. The naïve idea underlying the presence of foreign forces is that the Iraq government should eventually be able to manage its own security. US –UK training of Iraqis has been in train for some time yet it is hard to see the indigenous government being able to suppress its insurgency.

This was brought home graphically when the four month old campaign to secure the most dangerous parts of Baghdad, using beefed up resources, has clearly failed. The Observer commented 22/10/06:

‘With that failure the entire failure of Iraq and the US and British led occupation has been brought to a tipping point not simply for Iraq and the region but for the Bush and Blair administrations.’

Coalition Members which have withdrawn troops: Since the war started a number of members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ have pulled out, including Spain, Netherlands, Korea, Portugal, Italy, Canada and Japan. The only solidly substantial members left seem to be UK, USA, Australia and Poland.

Continuing Controversy About Origins of War: Bob Woodward, in Plan of Attack, based on high level interviews, has already been mentioned as providing evidence of a clear desire to invade after 9-11 come what may. In October 2006 the journalist told Andrew Marr that Blair must have known of these plans by very early on in 2003 too. On 1st May, 2005 The Sunday Times published a leaked memo written by number 10 aide Mathew Rycroft- now ambassador to Saravejo- which recorded the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, reporting to a Blair and others meeting that Washington was determined to invade and that the intelligence and evidence was being ‘fixed around the policy’. He also reported that the UN did not figure in these plans and that post invasion preparations were not a priority. At this time Blair was assuring British voters that no decision had been taken to invade one way or the other.

Recent Attacks on Bush-Blair Iraq Strategy: Several retired generals in the USA criticized the Iraq war as things began to go wrong but the most sensational departure from the agreed US-UK line was when Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British Army, launched a broadside against it in an interview with the Daily Mail. Despite the constitutional fact that generals have no right to set policy or indeed, criticize it, Dannatt criticized:
a) The original decision to invade and the presence of our troops as part of the problem.
b) The policy of introducing a functioning democracy as too ‘ambitious’
c) And argued resources should be redeployed to Afganistan where our troops had a valid reason to be and a chance of winning.
Faced with open revolt by a soldier prepared to say what all his colleagues were thinking, Blair, not strong enough to sack him, decided to say he ‘agreed with every word’ of the general. A clever attempt, but it didn’t fool anybody.

In the USA the most remarkable revolt has been within moderate republican circles, terrified the Mid –Term elections will turn out to be a referendum on ‘Bush’s Doctrine’, in Iraq and elsewhere. David Mack, a leading diplomat during the First Gulf war said: ‘any talk of victory is an illusion’. Even staunch republican senators now talk of siding with democrats unless a major shift occurs in policy. David Warner, respected republican senator, came back from a visit to Iraq to recommend a ‘change of course’. James Baker’s Iraq Study Group (ISG), was set up by Congress with Bush’s explicit support and seems to have been given the right to ‘think the unthinkable’. So far leaks have suggested it has proposed: a) a partition of the three regions; b) talks with Syria and Iran about the future of the country- despite both being part of the earlier demonized ‘axis of evil’. Dick Cheney, however, the Vice President, refuses to budge and still thinks victory is achievable.

Bush, clearly rattled by this opposition just before vital elections, has tried in his weekly radio broadcast to accept the case for change but only to ‘tactics’ not ‘strategy’. Earlier he appeared to accept columnist Thomas Friedman’s case for comparing the present state with Vietnam’s Tet offensive which presaged US defeat in that conflict. Richard Haas, formerly a Bush adviser, damned the situation by discerning a ‘tipping’ point whereby many factors combine to produce sudden change. He declared the ‘stable, democratic Iraq…virtually no chance of succeeding’. Former UK ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, described Iraq as a ‘failure’ and a ‘mess’, warning that ‘only bad options remain for the coalition’ and that a massive effort in regional diplomacy was needed to solve this problem. UK foreign minister Kim Howells, suggested British troops should be out of Iraq within a year.

Worst of all was the comment by Alberto Fernandez, the Director of Diplomacy at the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs:

‘We tried to do our best in Iraq but I think there is much room for criticism because there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq.’

On 21st October The Guardian’s coverage identified eight options available to decision-makers in Washington and London:

1. British Out Now- not being seriously considered yet.
2. US Coalition Out Now- early exit unlikely as would be seen as humiliation.
3. Phased Withdrawal- Baker has suggested this and it is the most likely strategy.
4. Talk to Syria and Iran- humiliating but may happen at clandestine level
5. Iraqi Strongman, eg Allawi- unlikely
6. Partition Iraq- to some extent it is inevitable anyway; even Margaret Beckett (remember her?) has suggested this might happen.
7. Re-deploy and Contain ie withdraw to bases outside Iraq and offer long distance support to Iraqi forces- not impossible.
8. One Last Push-a final gamble would seem a bit desperate.

Partition idea would encounter problems of: oil which is in Shia zone; integrated urban populations; resistance from nationalists. But it is happening via ethnic cleansing process in the cities and may well be tried as a solution. The ancient incompatibility of those Ottoman vilayets, may come to the fore once again.

Current Policy Directions
It seems as if both US and UK are banking on Maliki being able to impose his own security within 12-18 months. Then the troops could withdraw with some kind of order, if not honour. But, it’s hard for the weak Iraqi government to seize hold of the problem of law and order when 140,000 troops armed to the teeth have abjectly failed. The police and army together number over 300,000 but they are riddled by the militias and training is still rudimentary in many cases.

So what is my answer to the question posed by this briefing? Conveniently a poll was published in The Guardian, 24th October which canvassed national opinion on this question. 61% of respondents wished to see British troops out of Iraq by the end of the year; about the same proportion as in the USA. In The Guardian, the thoughtful Simon Tisdall suggests a federal solution to the problem –whilst very popular with a number of politicians- is fraught with problems and may lead to a patchwork pattern of warring nascent statelets. He thinks the Carnegie Endowment study is on surer ground when it urges a: ‘major international aid package could greatly reduce the potential level of violence and ethnic cleansing’ that might accompany federation of partition.

North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation

The news that North Korea had exploded an underground nuclear test on 9th October, directed attention to this weird little anachronism of a state, which, against all the odds, has survived the collapse of old style communist regimes.

History
Even before its creation in 1948, N. Korea’s earlier history had been dominated by China, though as part of a separate state. Korea was unified under the Shila dynasty in the 7th century. The Mongols invaded in 1231 but a period of stability under the Yi dynasty stretched from 1392 to 1910; Seoul was the capital and Confucianism the religion. Following the Russo-Japanese war 1904-5, Korea became a Japanese protectorate and was annexed in 1910, its enforced industrialization provoking much resentment. After Japan’s defeat in WWII, Korea was divided up into north and south zones of occupation, with Soviet forces north of the 38th parallel and US to the south. As with Germany, attempts are re-unification failed, and two separate states emerged in 1948: Republic of Korea in the south and Democratic People’s Republic (DPNK) in the north. In June 1950 the north invaded the south resulting in millions of deaths and much devastation 1950-53. A Demilitarized Zone separates the two countries to this day. Attempts to negotiate a formal peace have all failed and both states are theoretically still at war. Since those days, South Korea has prospered economically while the north has languished into extreme poverty. Much of the responsibility for this must go to the nature of the north’s political regime.

Political Background
From 1948 the north’s communist regime was led by Kim IL Sung along rigid Stalinist lines with complete state control of the economy: heavy industry nationalized and agriculture collectivized. After the Korean War Kim introduced his personal philosophy of ‘Juche’ or self reliance which was intended as a guide for the nation as a whole. Kim built up an extreme cult of personality, which after his death has been followed by his son, Kim Jong-il who became Secretary General of the Korean Workers Party 8th October 1997. He became effective dictator, in place of his father a year later. It seems odd that NK should have been so insulated from events in other communist countries but, rather, this is a measure of how effective the leadership has been at keeping some 20million people ignorant of the outside world- just as Stalin did the USSR. Ostensibly NK used to be Marxist-Leninist but during the 70s most such references were replaced by Jouche ones.
A professor at the American Strategic Studies Institute has characterized NK as
"highly repressive, heavily militarized, strongly resistant to reform, and ruled by a dynastic dictatorship that adheres to a hybrid ideology. While distinctive, North Korea is an orthodox communist party-state best classified as an eroding totalitarian regime."
A parliament of 687 representatrives is elected for fiv year terms but in every district voters are offered only one candidate. Most observers see it as a rubber stamp for the KWP’s decisions.

Kim il Sung (1912-94)
Kim belonged to a Soviet battalion comnprising exiles from China and Korea; he returned to NK in 1945 and became prime minister in 1948, of what soon became a Stalinist regime. He ruthlessly purged his opponents and invented a cult of personality, insisting on being called The Great Leader and having almost supernatural powers attributed to him. During the Vietnam War he tried, without success to inflitrate South Korea to subvert it. Gradually his regime became isolated and regarded as eccentric even by allies. But he was careful to baalnce support for China with support for USSR, shifting to the atter during the Cultural Revolution. Once the economy of China freed up after Mao China had less reason to be involved economically with NK. Towards the end of his life he developed a large growth on the back of his neck which he did not allow to be shown in photographs, but he died of a heart attack in 1994

Kim Jong-il(1942-)
Was born in Siberia- his birth foretold, according to his official biography by: a swallow, two rainbows and new star in the heavens. Graduated in political economy in 1964 from Kim il Sung University; he learnt English while at Malta University during the 70s. His brother Kim Pyong was sent by his father as ambassador to eastern Europe to avoid power struggles with the favoured son. Kim is known to be vain-viz bouffant hair- and not unaddicted to western dissipations like girls, fast cars and cognac.

Media
This cult is buttressed by the media; radios and TVs receive only two pre-tuned official stations, which constantly laud and praise the astonishing qualities of the nation’s Great Leader. The regime has been dubbed the world’s worst violator of press freedom by Reporters Without Frontiers. Anyone caught listening to foreign broadcasts risk heavy prison sentences with forced labour. Only the most senior military and party cadres are allowed to access the internet; but news of the outside world is filtering in via the Chinese border and this puts the regime at risk as NK citizens begin to realize how desperately poorly they are living.

Economy
Despite the fact that over 80 per cent of its land is mountainous, NK is rich in mineral resources including coal, copper, iron, lead, tin, tungsten and zinc. Agriculture employs 40 per cent of the population-with rice the main crop- but food and energy still has to be imported, mostly from China. The economy is characterized by strong central control of the kind which made communist countries so vulnerable to implosion in the late eighties. In 1992 GDP was calculated at $3, 026, which compared with £9,250 for its southern neighbour. Industry includes textiles, chemicals, iron and steel and processed foods. Natural disasters, including disastrous floods in the 90s, revealed how inefficient the economy, with its obsolete infrastructure really was and during one period 2-3 million died from starvation. Between 1999 and 2000 USA provided half a million tons of food via charitable organizations. From the early 70s onwards NK became a debtor nation which defaulted on what it owed to the IMF, Japan and the then USSR. It now owes some $10-12 billion. GDP per person slumped to a third of the south’s. Most of this disparity is explained by the disproportionate amount of resources channeled into the military: about 25 per cent of annual spending. Paradoxically NK does not levy taxes.
Since 2004 links with the south began to multiply and trade increased substantially. Daewoo and Hynundai set up businesses in NK while rail and road links were established. NK’s low living standards puts the regime seriously at risk of collapse.

Illegal Activities
Western governments frequently accuse NK of illegal activities like kidnapping South Koreans and Japanese; drug manufacture and trafficking; counterfeit cigarettes, forging very good versions of US dollars, weapons technology and maybe even selling weapons to terrorist groups. It was alleged, for example, that NK sold Scud missiles to Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. All this foreign currency is used to keep the elite living in luxury, especially the Great Leader who has a weakness for young girls, Mercedes cars, Rolexes and cognac. The army in particular benefits from these illegal activities as part of Kim’s attempts to keep it on side.

Military
Huge expenditures have been funneled into the military so that the DPNK has the highest percentage of its population enlisted of any country in the world: 50 per 1000. The armed forces comprise 1.1 million personnel. Whilst the navy is not especially modern or effective, the air-force numbers 1620 aircraft, twice the size of the south. The regime also commands a fair stockpile of short, medium range and long range surface to surface missiles including Scuds, Nodongs and Taepodongs, all capable of carrying nuclear war heads.

Foreign Relations
As already mentioned, China and USSR were the great sponsors of NK and Kim was wary of antagonizing either source of support. China looks with some envy, according to some, at NK’s rich mineral resources and favours closer economic ties up to a point. Japan also tries to balance relations with China and now Russia but is worried lest NK become too powerful with such unpredictable leadership. A Nuclear armed NK would be especially worrisome. China worries lest refugees from NK increase in great numbers. Already some one third of a million have fled into China and the fear is that demands might grow for re-drawings of boundaries near the border.NK leadership views of China has changed since the post Mao reforms which have welcomed in overseas trade and influences. This is inimical to the traditions of Stalinist NK. China has responded to the less warm attitude by reducing food aid, a crucial measure as NK cannot feed its 20 million people.USA has long regarded NK as a ‘rogue state’ supplying terrorists with weapons to earn foreign currency. In 2002 George Bush made a speech in which he said states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea:

‘and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.’

Such a statement alarmed NK and Kim has been concerned to improve his bargaining strength with the USA. The USA was keen on Six Power talks involving Russia, japan, China and South korea as well as US and NK. But NK preferred bilateral talks to this more regional assembly of power centres.

Nuclear Weapons Programme
Kim Jong-il was placed in charge of a programme to produce nuclear weapons by his father, so the ambition to become nuclear is longstanding. It has been known for a while NK could produce plutonium through its nuclear reactors acquired in late 80s. In 1994 an Agreed Framework was established between NK and USA whereby the former agreed to dismantle plutonium capacity in exchange for other forms of nuclear energy capacity plus additional aid. However, relations did not improve and after Iraq, NK began to fear Bush would order a unilateral attack on its territory or installations, either by aerial bombardment or via its proxy, South Korea. This fear no doubt led Kim to calculate that if he already had nuclear weapons, such an attack would be less likely as the US would surely shrink from a possible nuclear war, even with a tiny impoverished country like North Korea. In 2003 came NK’s decision to leave the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on top of its earlier refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into its territory. This game of high stakes poker of NK threatening to go nuclear with USA counter-threatening to bomb installations, had been going on for a number of years. But the factor which perhaps ‘threw the switch’ was unconnected with the military but concerned domestic banking.

Banco Delta Asia
As Simon Tisdall in he Guardian 16th October reported, some twelve months ago on 15th September, 2005, it seemed as if the NK nuclear problem had been solved. Kim pledged to give up his nukes and abandon his nuclear programme before joining the NPT he had left in 2003. In exchange the US promised to recognize NK’s territorial integrity and to cease any hostile activities; in other words, the implicit threat of regime change embodied in the ‘axis of evil’ speech was made null and void. Other economic aid was in the pipeline too and a ‘triumph of US foreign policy was tentatively being praised. Too late.
For no good apparent reason, the US Treasury chose to make its move right then into the Macau based Banco Delta Asia (BDA) on the grounds that it was being used by NK for money laundering, counterfeiting and other of NK’s ‘criminal activities’.

Other regional banks took fright and terminated dealings with NK. Macau took over the bank to investigate and closed down all accounts related to NK; 11 NK banks and 9 individuals were affected. Millions of dollars were frozen. This had huge implications and repercussions for NK’s economy which desperately needed loans and aid. Without realizing the US treasury had dealt NK a body blow; ‘we didn’t expect to hit a major artery like this’ said one official. Tisdall argues that this was the trigger to the test; NK had to up the stakes, make US realize there was real danger here and set up the old poker game once again.


NK has said it will boycott further nuclear talks until US relinquished financial sanctions. US officials insist the financial measures were not connected to the nuclear talks but obviously NK thinks otherwise. It could also be the case that the corrupt official and military elite fear their source of foreign currency might be drying up and are desperate to secure their status and positions.

The Test and its Repercussions
The 9th October test, 70 miles from the Chinese border, presaged merely by a 20 minute warning, caused a sensation but its authenticity was initially doubted until tests on 16th confirmed it as genuine; nevertheless, its minuscule size- about one megaton- led some to doubt whether it was wholly successful. China was somewhat outraged and called it ‘brazen’- after all, China sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives in 1950-53 war and has provided much material and diplomatic assistance over the years. It was especially annoyed that its patient support fro six party talks has been sabotaged It may even scrap its ‘treaty of friendship’ with NK signed in 1961 which commits China to defend NK if attacked. Bush condemned it as ‘unacceptable’ and ‘provocative’. South Korea began to strengthen its defences and Japan to re-examine its pacifist constitution.

However, China is not keen to provoke instability in the country with which it shares a 1400 km border. 20 million starving people so close by would create a whole range of difficult problems; already it has received hundreds of thousands refugees and now sends them back where they are imprisoned or executed. In the event of a collapse or civil war, would China invade? Would it take control? Even annex? What would this do to relations with Japan, which are currently improving rapidly? Would South Korea and USA stand by and watch or intervene? At the same time China worries that a Korea united from the south would be awkward to deal with, despite much loser economic ties with the south which channels billions of investment into China. Japan reacted toughly to the test, banning NK ships from its ports and cutting off all imports; as NK’s third biggest trading partner, this measure will hurt.

UN Action
On 15th October the Security Council passed unanimously a resolution imposing sanctions on NK in response to its test which it described as a ‘clear threat to international security’. The resolution demands the elimination of all its nuclear weapons but explicitly rules out military sanctions, in deference to China and Russia’s insistence. Imports and export of material useful for the construction of nuclear weapons is also banned and the world is asked to freeze NK assets and ban travel for those connected to the weapons programme. Bush, backed up by the combative John Bolton US ambassador to the UN, warned of even tougher measures if NK does not comply but also offered the possibility of economic assistance if it did. NK bluntly rejected the UN demands, accusing it of ‘double standards’ and caving in to US demands. However, China and ohers are still unsure about endorsing inspections of shipping entering and leaving NK.

Implications for Nuclear Proliferation
In his State of the Union message 2002 Bush aimed to prevent rogue regimes acquiring nuclear weapons. But his invasion of Iraq produced none, he has been unable to prevent Iran from forging ahead with its own programme and then North Korea thumbed its nose at him on 9th October. In the early 60s John Kennedy predicted that by the end of the decade there would be 25 nuclear powers. That there are only nine almost half a century later is a sign of how successful the NPT has been But the treaty has been eroded badly:
a) Israel, India and Pakistan did not sign the treaty and acquired their own weapons with consequent effects on regional instability in the sub continent.
b) Nuclear physics is now pretty well known and now, according to the Economist 14th October some 40 countries have the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. Japan could probably do so in a matter of months.
c) Under the old NPT the nuclear powers promised to work towards getting rid of their weapons and in exchange the rest of the signatories promised to limit themselves to peaceful usage. As the ‘Nuclear Club’ seems to have made no move in the direction of abolition this has not encouraged others to maintain the purity of intention required by the NPT.
d) Inspections are vital to ensure treaty terms are being kept yet nations suspected of transgressing can delay and disguise or even deny. Iraq’s nuclear preparations for example were not picked up in the 1980s.
e) The US itself has ended sanctions against India, imposed in 1998 after its test, so other nations might believe the NPT can be broached with impunity. Now a nuclear cooperation deal has been signed between the US and India. If Congress approves this deal, this would legitimize a clear breech of the NPT.

NK nuclear weapons will cause a flurry of concern in South East Asia with South Korea, Japan and even Taiwan casting their eyes on possible nuclear weapons capacity. The world has suddenly become an even more dangerous place.

Bill Jones
http://skipper59.blogspot.com/
http://heatonnorris.blogsot.com/
17/10/06

Can Cameron Win the Next Election?

Introduction
Since David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservatives by a landslide last December, some have assumed he will be the next prime minister. After dominating politics for 18 years 1979-1997, the party had not looked like doing anything but losing once again in September 2005 when Labour still led by 9 points in the polls. And this despite an unpopular government beset by manifold problems. A succession of leaders from John Major, after 1992 when his government was bundled out of the ERM, followed by Hague, Duncan-Smith and then Michael Howard, had all tried to swing the party to the centre ground but had reverted to Thatcherite policies once again when their core vote threatened to crumble. Cameron seemed to be a revelation- young, smart, articulate and with a sprinkling, perhaps, of that stardust which had eluded the party since the days of Maggie. Nine months on Cameron has done so well, Conservatives have dared to hope the long cold spell dominated by the near political genius of Tony Blair, is coming to an end.

Why do Conservatives feel they have grounds for optimism?

1. End of Blair’s reign
There can be little doubt that Tony Blair has infuriated the Conservatives by his political dominance just as Maggie Thatcher did for Labour supporters. But now the feud at the heart of his government has caused him to stand down before the next election and probably in six months time. Voters eventually tire of even the most charismatic leaders and it has been clear for some time that Blair’s magic as a speaker and policy-maker has all but disappeared. It is obvious, from his speeches, even at conference, that Cameron admires Blair greatly and has modeled his style, if not his future career, upon him. So Tories are probably relieved and a bit mystified why he is going as, even in his weakened state, if May 2005 is any indication, he can still win elections.

2. Labour Splits
The alleged ‘coup’ orchestrated by Gordon Brown in September this year, highlighted deep divisions in the governing party. Voters do not like a divided party; as Lloyd George said: ‘You can’t make a policy out of an argument’. Regular revolts by Labour MPs on a variety of issues from foreign policy to anti-terrorism measures and ID cards, has exacerbated this impression.

3. Labour Sleaze
Ever since Blair came to power there were stories of rich men seeking Labour favours from Bernie Ecclestone to Rupert Murdoch and Lahksmi Mittal. But the scandals involving John Prescott this summer have reinforced the impression that this is a more than slightly corrupt government well past its sell-by date. Prescott’s lavish entertainment at the expense of Philip Anshutz- the casino billionaire with an interest in obtaining a licence to build a super casino on the Millennium Dome site- was a highly damaging news story.


4. Foreign Policy
While Blair’s domestic record has been generally pretty good, his forays into foreign policy have proved his undoing, especially: the ‘special relationship’ which he has made into a subordinate one for UK; Iraq where the situation has descended into chaos and continues to get worse. The Lebanon War acted as a lightning rod for the multifarious dissatisfactions with Blair in his party a month ago producing the alleged ‘coup’. And Afghanistan continues to fester as a conflict/peace-keeping operation Britain is unlikely to win given the failure of the USSR to tame the country with the full weight of its massive army. An ICM poll in the Sunday Telgraph 8th October showed over half of respondents urging withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is not to say that the Conservatives do not have problems in this area. By supporting the close alliance with America and the political stance of George Bush, the party cannot easily condemn Blair for his foreign policy. But at the same time Cameron is not directly implicated in the shambles of Iraq and has also nimbly sought to establish some distance from the USA in a recent speech.

5. Welfare Issues
Traditionally these have been solid Labour territory and indeed, in the Daily Telegraph on 3rd October, a Yougov poll showed only 42 per cent thinking the party could be ‘trusted to run public services such as schools and hospitals’. However, at the recent conference Cameron summed up his message to voters in ‘not three words, but three letters: N-H-S’. The Sunday Telegraph poll of 8th October showed-on a question relating specifically to the NHS- the Conservatives narrowly in the lead at 19 points to Labour’s 18(though 25 said ‘both and 34 ‘neither’).

6. Wasting Taxpayers’ Money
Polls also show that voters are very grudging about improvements in public services since Labour came to power, seldom registering approval. This suggests that adverse publicity regarding failures and ward closings signify highly but also that consumers have not experienced significant improvements. Indeed:
i) figures show that even though waiting lists have come down sharply, productivity in the public sector has not increased anything like at the same rate as funding suggesting significant wastage of investment.
ii) David Craig’s book, Plundering the Public Sector, (Constable, 2006), suggests £70bn has been spent, to little effect, by government on consultants fees.
iii) Several high profile policy failures have questioned the ability of the Labour government to govern efficiently: NHS IT project, costing billions, has proved a turkey; Treasury overpaid tax credits by £2bn which recipients were then asked tom repay; and millions in EU subsidies to farmers went unpaid. On top of all this came the foreign prisoners scandal in the summer whereby assigned deportations failed to take place.

7. Opinion Polls Show Cameron Succeeding
a) Party preference: A year ago Labour still maintained a 9 point lead over the Tories but than Cameron was elected leader in December 2005 and a dramatic change has occurred. After the debacle of the ‘coup’ Conservatives registered a nine point lead of their own in early September. While this soon leveled off and saw a deficit after Labour’s conference ‘bounce’, the ICM poll in the 8th October Sunday Telegraph, showed the Tories on 38 points with Labour on 32.

b) Cameron V Brown: on 22nd September, The Guardian led with poll figures showing that on: ‘potential as PM’, Cameron led by 35-32; ‘right direction for Britain’, Cameron led by 31-26; ‘able to work with cabinet collegues’ Cameron 39-22; ‘most honest’ Cameron 27-19 and ‘more pleasant personality’ Cameron by a crunching 52-17. But… best in crisis, Brown 32-25.

c) Lib-Dems: currently the polls indicate the Conservatives would still be short of an overall majority by 22 seats as a ‘hung parliament’ would be the result. The support for the Lib Dems might prove crucial. At the last election they took more seats from Labour than the Conservatives and could do so again if Labour choose a rightwing direction.

Conservative Grounds for Pessimism

1. The Economy’s Sustained Vigour
Since the humiliating expulsion of the UK from the ERM, and the giving of independence by Labour to the Bank of England to set ‘politics-free’ interest rates, the economy has maintained constant growth of some 2-3 per cent a year. Much of the credit must go to Gordon Brown for managing something unknown in the postwar period, though, ironically, voters do not allow him any, according to polls (a point which should be in the above category, of course). However, economic well being is usually of key importance in determining votes and once in the privacy of the polling cubicle, who knows how economic contentment might eventually cause crosses to be made?

2. Brown is a Tough Politician
The poll results quoted above under 7a) suggest there is not going to be a contest between the likely next Labour leader and the old Etonian Tory leader. But he served his apprenticeship in the brutal world of Scottish Labour politics and has managed to dominate the domestic agenda of his own government against the desire of his politically gifted colleague. He is not likely to roll over and allow Cameron to win serious and vigorous resistance. Cameron should not underestimate him.

3. Built in Pro-Labour Bias of the Electoral System
In May 2005 the Electoral reform Society calculated that even if Labour and Conservatives had polled the same amount of votes, Labour would have won 336 seats and Conservatives only 220. For the Tories to draw level with Labour in 2009, they will need to establish a lead of 7.5 per cent in their share of the vote and 9 per cent to achieve an overall majority. The irony is that the Conservatives vehemently oppose PR as they hope the electoral system will eventually swing to them and in any case advantage them once their vote rises above a critical point. But why is there such a bias?

a) Conservative support is more unevenly distributed over the country while Labour’s is more efficiently focused. For example between 1992 and 2001 Labour’s vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000 but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire however, Labour’s vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.

b) Population movements occur as families move from city centres to suburbs, and every ten years the Boundary Commission redraws the constituency boundaries. However the 2006 revisions are based on 2001 figures so are already out of date.

c) The review process is essentially political with parties arguing their corners to maintain or gain advantage. Despite predictions Tories would benefit from the changes in the 90s by up to 27 seats, Labour officials fought tenaciously behind the scenes. Professor Pippa Norris commented: ‘The Tories were just dozy; they did not understand the significance of the changes. By 2009 more boundary changes will come into force and will do something to mitigate the bias but it will still remain overall.

d) Tactical voting: as long as voters are aware of the standing of the other parties they can cast their votes tactically to frustrate their main rival. In 1997 many Lib Dem voters voted Labour to keep out the Tory but in the last two lections this has not been so marked a tendency.


4. Cameron has more to do than Blair in 1994
It’s true that Blair had to overcome a historical tradition while Cameron only has to neutralize Thatcherism but Blair faced a job half done by Kinnock- who did much of the ‘heavy lifting’ required during the late eighties- when he became leader in 1994. Cameron came to power after a genuine Thatcherite, Howard, had stood down and so had to start his re-education of his party from scratch. Perhaps this is why he has followed the model of Blair’s handling of the problem so closely so far.

5. Threat from Lib Dems
Cameron has to wary of this possible ‘inside-track’ threat. If the Lib Dems decide to follow the logic of their Orange Book contributors, they may swing further to the right and usurp Tory territory. Both parties are competing already on their Green agendas. Also the third party has to be kept reasonably onside in case negotiations are needed in the event of a hung parliament, though such an alliance is not likely to be acceptable to Lib Dem rank and file members.

6. Threat from other rightwing parties
The most obvious threat here is from UKIP; already more vocal now that Cameron has calmed the anti-EU frenzy. A tranche of rightwing members might decide Cameron’s refusal to promote euro-scepticism requires them to migrate to a party which is closer to their instincts. The same might even be true, on the issue of immigration, in respect of the BNP.

7. Lack of policies deters some support.
The Economist 29th September led with the question, ‘Who is David Cameron?’ Polls show voters are still unsure of what the new, shiny caring Conservative Party is really all about. Thatcher’s approach may have been ‘nasty’ from some points of view but it was clear and everyone understood it. So far Cameron has only produced nice calming mood music while holding back from specific policy commitments. So far this has been acceptable but voters and party alike will want the various party groups tasked with policy formulation to come up with the goods within something like six to nine months.

8. Party still carries negative image.
The poll in the Daily Telegraph, 3rd October, also carried a diagram showing voter perceptions of where certain politicians stood on the political spectrum. While Cameron was seen as reasonably close to the centre his party was well to the right. In contrast Blair was almost dead centre and Lib Dems, plus Brown closer to the centre than either Dave or his party. This shows Cameron has much to do in countering of drastic tax cutting and small statism of characters like Tebbitt, Redwood and Edward Leigh. Commentators have noted that the quite loud arguments with these Thatcherite figures at the recent party conference was good for emphasizing the young leader’s efforts to invent a ‘new’ version of his party.

9. Poll Lead not Big Enough
To be on track for victory Cameron needs to be closer to 10 points ahead in the polls. A few months before the 1992 election Labour were 25 points ahead and still did not win, so great is the advantage of the incumbent party.

Conclusion
There is still some time to go before the next election which must take place before May 2010 but will probably be in 2009. Brown seems the most likely candidate to take over from Blair yet at the moment seems to be running behind Cameron in the polls and the ‘momentum’ stakes. But with two and a half years to go until the election, it is far too early to make predictions with any reliability.

B J 9/10/06

Labour's Power Tansition

‘The public will let you have what you deserve but seldom what you really, really want.’

(Lord) Cecil Parkinson on his personal version of Parkinson’s Law,
Interview with author, 2001).


The Alleged ‘Coup’ and its Provenance
It was alleged in the autumn of 2006 that Gordon Brown, frustrated after years of waiting to inherit the premiership, had instigated a ‘coup’ to bring Tony Blair down. The details were briefly as follows: on Tuesday 5th September, a letter signed by 15 Labour MPs led by Sion Simon and Chris Bryant, formerly bywords for slavish loyalty to their leader, asked him to step down. It seems their letter had been sparked off by an interview Blair gave to The Times in which he refused to be specific about when he was going to go. The Guardian reported that another letter, signed by 80 Labour MPs was in the process of being sent. The next day seven of the signatories resigned their unpaid positions as parliamentary private secretaries, the lowest rung on the ministerial ladder but one for which ambitious politicians vigorously compete in order to show their paces and progress higher. The apparently timed nature of their going- one every thirty minutes- made some commentators suspect choreography by some guiding hand; as Brown kept eloquently silent during a period of intense media activity, many suspected that hand was his. Why was Labour, only elected for its third term just over a year earlier, suffering a nervous breakdown over its most successful ever leader? The reasons are complex and go back to the very beginnings of New Labour’s provenance.

1. The Granita ‘Agreement’: In 1994, shortly after John Smith, the previous Labour leader died, the two leading ‘modernizers’ in the party and obvious candidates for Smith’s crown, met to discuss the situation in the(now defunct) Granita restaurant in Islington. No notes were kept from this meeting so much speculation surrounds its content but clearly the subject of the succession was on the agenda. Supporters of Brown claim while Brown agreed not to stand Blair agreed that, if becoming PM, he would step down after a while to allow Brown, the then ‘senior partner’ in the young tyros’ friendship, to take his turn. Blair was brilliant as a communicator but tended to defer to Brown on policy questions. What does seem to have been decided was that, as Blair’s Chancellor, Brown would have virtual free rein over the domestic agenda. In practice of course Blair did not stand down though, rumour has it, Brown constantly reminded him of his obligation and came to bear him considerable ill-will. The resultant ‘feud’ between the two men is said to have caused many internal problems with ‘the most economically illiterate prime minister since Alec Douglas Home’ according to Simon Jenkins, (Sunday Times, 17th September 2006) and a man who transformed Treasury control into a kind of de facto domestic premiership. Blair, not to mention his wife Cherie, was said to have hated the peremptory way Brown treated him in front of colleagues and maybe this helps explain why he kept Brown hanging on for so long. The brooding Scot was said to have been incensed when Blair apparently reneged on an agreement to go at the end of 2004 in the autumn of which, possibly as a compensatory sop to Brown, Blair announced that he would not contest the next election expected in 2009. However, this placatory move did not stop the sniping or the rumblings among supporters of both men, especially when Labour began to plummet in the polls during 2006. Most commentators assumed this meant he would go well before that date and he later agreed in 2006 that he would leave ‘ample’ time for his successor to establish himself before fighting the coming election. But there were many reasons why elements in the party wanted him to go earlier or at least to state a timetable for his departure.

2. David Cameron Makes Conservatives Electable Again: In December 2005 David Cameron won the contest to lead the Conservatives on a ‘centrist’, reforming ticket. Dealing in generalities rather than policy specifics, he shifted the direction of policy away from traditional Tory concerns like tough approaches to law and order and immigration and towards a more liberal attitude to issues like gay rights and ethnic minorities as well as a concern for the disadvantaged. By September 2006 his party had established a lead of 9 points according to one ICM poll. The older Labour MPs had seen the Conservatives fall 25 points behind Labour in 1992 yet still come through to win the election but more recent recruits to the chamber began to worry their seats might be at risk and that their prime minister was no longer the magician who had won three elections for Labour in succession but a serious liability. Several of the 2001 intake were to sign the Simon-Bryant letter while arguably wiser heads desisted.

3. John Prescott Related Scandals:

a) John Prescott was at the centre of an unlikely scandal in April 2006, when it transpired he had been engaged in a two year affair with his diary secretary, Tracey Temple. The details of assignations, illicit couplings behind office doors and sundry betrayals of his wife and family, were assiduously relayed to the public who pored over them, mostly with delighted disbelief. It was reminiscent of the last days of John Major when it seemed every Conservative MP was having an affair with his secretary. But politically the publicity was harmful in that it held the government up to ridicule.

b) The second scandal was less entertaining but more serious. While on a trip to the US in July 2005, the deputy Prime Minister, with his civil servants, stayed at the ranch of billionaire casino owner, Philip Anshutz, and received various gifts. Not declaring the stay was bad enough but the fact that Prescott could have conceivably assisted his host in obtaining UK government approval to open a controversial mega-casino on the site of the Millennium Dome, bought by Anshutz some years before, ratcheted up the affair to a resignation issue. Tony Blair refused to sack one of his very few working class Labour ministers because, asserted most commentators, his post of deputy leader of the party was an elected one and would raise the vexed issue of when Blair was going to stand down too. However, the two scandals attracted much odium which naturally attached themselves to the government and damaged its standing.

4. Foreign Prisoners Scandal: Again in April 2006 it became known that some thousand foreign criminals-some of them rapists and murderers- had been allowed to finish their sentences and re-enter society instead of being deported as intended. Home Secretary Charles Clarke, struggled to explain such astonishing inefficiency and eventually resigned, with marked ill grace. Together with related rows about immigration running way ahead of predictions and others related to failings of government agencies like the Child Support Agency (June 2006), Clarke’s departure seemed to reinforce an impression that Labour was not skilled at the business of government. The new Home Secretary John Reid, scarcely helped matters by declaring that the department was ‘not fit for purpose’, an implicit criticism of his previous colleagues in the post.

5. Loans for Peerages Scandal: On top of all these other woes, in July 2006, it became known that Labour’s election funding in May 2005 had been raised substantially through loans from rich businessmen whose names turned up later recommended for honours, including peerages. It seemed this was strictly a Downing St affair and the Treasurer of the party was astonished and angry when he found out about it. According to a 1925 law the selling of peerages is against the law and the police were called in. Asst Chief Commissioner Yates was placed in charge of the investigations and soon prominent people were questioned and in some cases- for example Lord Levy, Blair’s tennis partner and fund raiser-arrested. It seems natural that such activities would involve the person at the head of the party and at the time of writing it is still not known if Tony Blair will be questioned, implicated or even tried for breaking the law. It is still possible Blair will be questioned- or even arrested- but even though most people assume he tacitly approved such behaviour, it is likely tracks have been efficiently covered by his staff.

6. Tony Blair’s Foreign Policy: this issue had been a running sore within the Labour Party ever since Blair’s decision to follow the lead of George Bush, hugely unpopular in the party, in his over the top responses to the 9-11 attacks. Blair pledged to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Bush. He sent forces into Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban but much more controversial was Iraq which Britain jointly invaded with the US on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Blair’s attempts to win a legitimizing resolution from the UN, failed and when to the dubious legality of the war was added the total absence of WMD, Blair’s position and credibility was fatally undermined. His alleged deference to Bush was hilariously reinforced when a private conversation with Bush at a conference in July 2006 was recorded and published. His subordinate status-Bush greeted him with the words ‘Yo Blair’- was palpable and his offer of diplomatic help with problems in the Middle -East was humiliatingly dismissed.

The Lebanon War: This happened slightly later in July. This was set in motion when the guerilla force based in Lebanon, Hezbullah, widely believed to be an instrument if Iranian foreign policy, breached the Israeli border to kill some soldiers and kidnap a further two. When they were not returned Israel began a fearsome aerial bombardment of suspected Hezbullah positions as well as Lebanese infrastructure to impede possible rearmament via Syria. It soon became clear that Israel, which also initiated a land invasion, was seeking to destroy what it saw as a centre of terrorism close to its borders. Most EU nations condemned the response as a brutal over-reaction and called for an instant cease-fire but Blair stuck rigidly to the Bush line, to the fury of his party critics who believed he was complicit in a delay designed to allow Israel time to destroy completely an enemy which was raining rockets on Israeli cities. This issue of Lebanon, with hundreds of innocent civilians killed via the heartless realpolitik of US backed Israeli policy, acted as a lightning rod to elements in the Labour Party and helped crystalize inchoate discontent into action- hence the letter sent on 5th September.

7. Brown and the ‘Coup’.
When Blair’s response was brusquely negative, the PPSs resigned, during the afternoon of 6thSeptember and the Labour Party lurched to the brink of civil war. Brown and Blair had two rancorous meetings in which Brown demanded conditions-including a joint premiership for Blair’s remaining months and an endorsement of Brown by the PM- which Blair rejected. For a while it seemed as if Blair might be gone in matter of days not several months as he had intimated, but in the end the party backed off from ditching its three times election victor in the kind bloodbath of recrimination which had attended Thatcher’s departure in 1990. Some suspected that Brown, who had refused to speak during the fraught period of the attempted coup, eventually weighed in and instructed his many supporters in the party to back off on the grounds that he had no interest in inheriting a party close to self destruction. Blair eventually accepted he would go earlier than he would have wished-maybe February 2007- with a new leader in place by the summer- but some echoes of the febrile atmosphere remained at the Labour conference in Manchester. Speculation continued that Gordon Brown knew of the plot and, while not actively sponsoring it, was tacitly, and treachorously, supportive.

The irony was that Brown’s suspected role and his refusal publicly to disavow the plotters, probably left him as much if not more damaged than Blair by the feuding. Former Home Secretary bruiser, Charles Clarke, weighed in on 8th September with a withering attack on the Chancellor accusing him of being ‘stupid’ to come out of a crucial meeting with Blair grinning in triumph while also accusing him of being ‘un-collegiate’, ‘autistic’ and poor at managing colleagues. While Clarke was no Blairite, he was clearly paying off some old scores with someone who had not been the easiest colleague. Clarke’s outburst was criticized by those who wanted to maximize Labour unity but few denied that the Chancellor suffered from handicaps likely to make his role as premier more problematic than easy. In consequence Alan Johnson, the Education secretary, with a ‘back story’ of overcoming a poverty stricken orphaned childhood, suddenly was thrust into the limelight. He admitted being interested in the Deputy leader post but was soon being fancied for the leader’s job, as: Blairites preferred him to Brown as someone easy to work with; his communication skills were said to be superior to Brown’s; and his Englishness was held to play better with English middle class voters than the dour and somewhat charmless Scot. On 19th September Brown’s hopes for a free run at the top job once Blair stood down were further dashed when Home Secretary John Reid, no friend of his fellow Scot, made signals that he might well stand as well. However, the excellent extended Economist article on the subject-16th September 2006- predicted the ingrained loyalty of the party, combined with a sense of gratitude to someone who had maintained such astonishing economic growth since 1997, would eventually see Brown installed in Downing St.

The Impact of the Manchester Conference 2006
Throughout the week long conference, held in the G-Mex building central Manchester, the issue of the transition rumbled beneath the surface. While it did not break out on the conference floor the watching media made much of it in comment and discussion:

a) Brown’s speech 25th September: Brown’s speech had been much anticipated and needed to be both a taste of what was to come and something which healed divisions. In the event it was not stand out but was not a failure either. He praised Tony Blair as a friend and partner who had made a great contribution but few were persuaded by his efforts to sound sincere. Cherie Blair was damagingly overheard to comment ‘that’s a lie’ when Brown claimed it had ‘been a privilege to work with Tony Blair’. She later denied the remark but it rang all too true to party members and the public at large.

b) Blair’s speech 26th September: Blair’s swansong speech was one of his best and made many in the party consider ruefully that a man who had won three successive elections and was still at the height of his powers, had been forced out prematurely. He seemed to confirm Cherie’s comment by quipping cleverly that ‘at least I don’t have to worry about Cherie running off with the bloke next door.’

c) Newsnight, 26th September: Frank Luntz, a US pollster assembled 30 members of a focus group- the majority Labour supporters- and asked them questions about possible candidates for the leadership. Apart from Brown, only John Reid had any significant public recognition. Once printed CVs were circlulated, Johnson attracted support but when clips of them speaking were shown, this subsided. At the end of the process Johnson and David Miliband, another fancied possible runner were nowhere; Brown himself-still clearly damaged by his assumed role in the ‘coup’- attracted only a few votes while 17 of the 30 plumped for the tough former heavy drinking, heavy smoking tough guy John Reid.

d) Reid’s Speech, 28th September: This was a mixture of tough assertion of tough measures against terrorism and defiance of criticism from civil rights advocates and British Muslims. It was well received and interpreted as a bid to be a possible contender for the leadership should Gordon lose support before the vote next year. Leadership contests usually go to the favourites for Labour but John major came from nowhere to win in 1990 and David Davis was a secure as Brown seems now just over a year ago but lost the vote to Cameron when it came to it.

However, after all these runes and tea-leaves had been interpreted, most watchers of the political game thought Brown still the most likely person to inherit the crown from Tony Blair sometime spring or
summer 2007. But Brown’s position has been severely weakened by his role in the attempted coup which he could have stopped with a word any time during its progress. Much can happen in the six months or so left before the party votes on its next prime minister. What seems clear, however, is that Blair is not prepared to endorse Brown as his successor and this absence might be felt keenly when it really matters. Brown might live to regret being such a difficult and rancorous colleague for Blair ever since 1994 when he agreed not to stand for the leadership; his eventual career might also prove the truth of Cecil Parkinson’s eponymous law.

BJ, 2nd October 2006