http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/europe/la-fg-britain-coalition-20100513,0,2032771.story
Britain's coalition leaders hail new era of politics
Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg, set about putting together a governme
Henry Chu
May 12, 2010
Reporting from London
Britain watched in fascination Wednesday as perhaps the most momentous marriage since Charles and Diana unfolded before their eyes, a political union that will determine this country's direction for the next few years.
It wasn't a match either suitor had expected. But David Cameron, who became prime minister Tuesday, and Nick Clegg, his deputy, extolled their alliance as a new way of doing politics and set about putting together a team to run the nation.
The government that began to take shape is Britain's first attempt at coalition rule in 65 years, combining Cameron's dominant Conservatives and Clegg's smaller center-left party, the Liberal Democrats. Their partnership brings to an end the Labor Party's 13-year hold on power.
Never mind that Cameron, when once asked what his favorite political joke was, responded, "Nick Clegg." Or that Clegg recently described his new political bedfellow as a man of "breathtaking arrogance."
Their inaugural news conference Wednesday afternoon was more of a love-in. The two men — both 43, privately educated, of similar height and build, both novices in government — said their common purpose was to make Britain a freer, fairer, more responsible country.
"We are announcing a new politics, a new politics where the national interest is more important than the party interest, where cooperation wins out over confrontation," Cameron said in the garden of his new residence, 10 Downing St. "It can be a historic and seismic shift in our political landscape."
The contours of that shift were evident in the composition of Cameron's Cabinet. Although the plum posts went to his fellow Tories, the Cabinet also includes five Liberal Democrats, including Clegg.
Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne will work with Vince Cable, the new business secretary, a Liberal Democrat who is one of the country's most admired politicians because of his grasp of economics and his straight talk.
Among the coalition's first orders of business is a Tory pledge to slash $9 billion from the budget this year. The Liberal Democrats agreed to back that plan, despite having campaigned for a go-slow approach.
The "Lib Dems" also swallowed their support for an amnesty for some illegal immigrants, more integration with the rest of Europe and the elimination of Britain's submarine-based nuclear deterrent.
But some analysts said the small party that landed just 57 seats in the 650-member House of Commons had gained more than they lost.
In concessions that have angered some on the Conservative right, Cameron agreed to make tax changes to help low-income people, keep the inheritance tax and, most crucially, hold a referendum on overhauling Britain's voting system, which could cost the Conservatives seats in Parliament.
Skeptics are already predicting that this marriage will dissolve long before the end of the five years Cameron and Clegg say they will stick together. Between them, they have only 14 years of experience in Parliament and zero in government. (By contrast, Gordon Brown, the Labor prime minister who resigned Tuesday, racked up 27 years in Parliament, 13 of those in government.)
On the grass-roots level, Tory and Liberal Democrat activists often loathe each other. Unhappy members have already taken to grumbling about the new "Con-Dem Nation."
And the machinery of government, used to single-party rule, will no doubt creak for a while. For instance, how much information will the parties share with each other?
But practical problems were eclipsed Wednesday by a sense of novelty. Even habitually cynical pundits kept repeating words like "remarkable" and "unprecedented."
"I'm happier to have the Tories in with a moderating Liberal element rather than Tories on their own," said Henrietta Otley, 41, a student midwife in the city of Bath, who voted Liberal Democrat. "It's time we had a challenge to our old system."
The choreography of coalition began with a much-photographed handshake between Cameron and Clegg outside 10 Downing St.
At their news conference about five hours later, they were all smiles, virtually indistinguishable (one commentator said) but for the colors of their ties: blue for Conservative, yellow for the Liberal Democrats.
They arrived and left side by side. They called each other "David" and "Nick." They laughed at each other's jokes. The chemistry prevailed even when a journalist asked Cameron about having once referred to Clegg as a joke.
"Did you say that?" Clegg asked his new partner.
"I'm afraid I did," Cameron replied with a grimace.
"I'm off," Clegg declared, walking away from his podium.
"Come back!" Cameron said.
He did.
henry.chu@latimes.com
Times staff writer Janet Stobart contributed to this report.
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6831459.ece
September 12, 2009
Vladimir Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia until 2024
Richard Beeston in Moscow
Vladimir Putin has given his strongest hint yet that he is considering a return to the Kremlin, a move that could allow the combative Russian leader to stay in power until 2024.
Speaking at the Novo-Ogaryovo official residence outside Moscow, Mr Putin insisted that swapping places with Dimitri Medvedev, the President, was no more sinister than the Labour leadership agreement in which Gordon Brown took Tony Blair’s job.
Mr Putin, who turns 57 next month, expounded on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues that left few in doubt that he remains Russia’s paramount leader, even though he officially occupies the number two position as Prime Minister.
Asked whether he would run again for the presidency, Mr Putin said that he would come to an accommodation with Mr Medvedev, just as the two men had done when Mr Putin stepped down in 2008.
“We will come to an agreement because we are people of the same blood and of the same political views,” he told foreign journalists and academics at the annual Valdai Discussion Club.
“According to the reality of the moment, we will make an analysis and take a decision. Did we compete in 2008? No. So we will not compete in 2012,” Mr Putin said.
This is the strongest hint he has given so far that he is considering returning to the Kremlin. Mr Putin stepped down after serving a maximum two terms as President and allowed Mr Medvedev to run largely unopposed in presidential elections last year.
His term ends in 2012 when new constitutional provisions will allow the next president to serve two six-year terms.
If the men complete this revolving-door manoeuvre Mr Putin could, in theory, be in power until 2024, when he would be 72. Although that is a decade older than most Russian men live, Mr Putin looked fit, alert and certainly confirmed what everyone in the country already knew — that he remains the real power in the land.
When asked who was in charge in Russia, Mr Putin insisted that Mr Medvedev was in control.
“We have nothing to prove to anyone,” he said. “If someone lives in a dream he needs to wake up, take a shower and look at reality. If you want to co-operate with Russia you need to know that it is the President who heads Russia.”
Anatol Lieven, a Russian expert at King’s College London, said that it did not matter whether Mr Putin or Mr Medvedev were president or prime minister. “What he is saying is that the political establishment will remain united and in power,” he said.
The prospect of Mr Putin dominating politics for another decade and a half will shock the liberal minority in the country where, under his rule, human rights and freedom of speech have been curtailed.
It would cause concern across Russia’s borders, where the Kremlin is in open dispute with Ukraine and Georgia, which is still suffering the effects of its war with Russian forces last year.
Many Russians, however, would be delighted with the prospect of having the most popular post-communist politician leading the country. Mr Putin is credited with restoring self-respect, rehabilitating the economy and restoring order after the chaos of the 1990s.
Relations between Russia and the US remain pivotal. Mr Putin said that a visit to Moscow in July by President Obama had improved the atmosphere.
He provided a long list of complaints about outstanding disputes with the Bush Administration regarding Russia’s failed attempt to join the World Trade Organisation and high-handed treatment by Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State.
Although Russia should be pleased that the Obama Administration is planning to shelve a plan by the former President Bush to base a missile defence system in Eastern Europe, there is still no sign that the two sides will complete a strategic nuclear weapons treaty by the end of the year, when the existing agreement expires.
Relations between Washington and Moscow could come under strain this month over Russia’s relationship with Iran. Russia is helping Iran to build a civilian nuclear reactor and has agreed to sell Tehran sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.
The US, Britain and France fear that Iran is building a nuclear bomb secretly and are pressing for sanctions at the United Nations. Israel has warned that it may attack the nuclear facilities before Iran builds a nuclear weapon.
Mr Putin deflected questions about whether he had met Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, on a secret visit to Moscow on Monday.
He warned that any attacks against Iran would be counter-productive. “This would be very dangerous, unacceptable, this would lead to an explosion of terrorism, increase the influence of extremists,” he said, adding that he doubted airstrikes would achieve their objective.
Mr Putin added, however: “The Iranians should show restraint in their nuclear programme. We have told Iran that it has the right to a civilian nuclear programme but that it should understand what region of the world it is in.
“This is a dangerous region and Iran should show responsibility, especially by taking into account Israel’s concerns, all the more so after the absolutely unacceptable statements [by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President] about the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Judo and spying
— Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Born October 7, 1952, in Leningrad
— Putin did well at school despite an impoverished upbringing. He became interested in judo and spy stories
— He applied to the KGB at the age of 17 but was told that he could not be considered until he had a degree. He graduated from Leningrad State University with a law degree in 1975
— He was a KGB agent in East Germany between 1985 and 1990
— He became Prime Minister in August 1999 and President in March 2000, standing down to become Prime Minister again in 2008
Sources: Times database, Reuters
September 12, 2009
Vladimir Putin hints that he could return to lead Russia until 2024
Richard Beeston in Moscow
Vladimir Putin has given his strongest hint yet that he is considering a return to the Kremlin, a move that could allow the combative Russian leader to stay in power until 2024.
Speaking at the Novo-Ogaryovo official residence outside Moscow, Mr Putin insisted that swapping places with Dimitri Medvedev, the President, was no more sinister than the Labour leadership agreement in which Gordon Brown took Tony Blair’s job.
Mr Putin, who turns 57 next month, expounded on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues that left few in doubt that he remains Russia’s paramount leader, even though he officially occupies the number two position as Prime Minister.
Asked whether he would run again for the presidency, Mr Putin said that he would come to an accommodation with Mr Medvedev, just as the two men had done when Mr Putin stepped down in 2008.
“We will come to an agreement because we are people of the same blood and of the same political views,” he told foreign journalists and academics at the annual Valdai Discussion Club.
“According to the reality of the moment, we will make an analysis and take a decision. Did we compete in 2008? No. So we will not compete in 2012,” Mr Putin said.
This is the strongest hint he has given so far that he is considering returning to the Kremlin. Mr Putin stepped down after serving a maximum two terms as President and allowed Mr Medvedev to run largely unopposed in presidential elections last year.
His term ends in 2012 when new constitutional provisions will allow the next president to serve two six-year terms.
If the men complete this revolving-door manoeuvre Mr Putin could, in theory, be in power until 2024, when he would be 72. Although that is a decade older than most Russian men live, Mr Putin looked fit, alert and certainly confirmed what everyone in the country already knew — that he remains the real power in the land.
When asked who was in charge in Russia, Mr Putin insisted that Mr Medvedev was in control.
“We have nothing to prove to anyone,” he said. “If someone lives in a dream he needs to wake up, take a shower and look at reality. If you want to co-operate with Russia you need to know that it is the President who heads Russia.”
Anatol Lieven, a Russian expert at King’s College London, said that it did not matter whether Mr Putin or Mr Medvedev were president or prime minister. “What he is saying is that the political establishment will remain united and in power,” he said.
The prospect of Mr Putin dominating politics for another decade and a half will shock the liberal minority in the country where, under his rule, human rights and freedom of speech have been curtailed.
It would cause concern across Russia’s borders, where the Kremlin is in open dispute with Ukraine and Georgia, which is still suffering the effects of its war with Russian forces last year.
Many Russians, however, would be delighted with the prospect of having the most popular post-communist politician leading the country. Mr Putin is credited with restoring self-respect, rehabilitating the economy and restoring order after the chaos of the 1990s.
Relations between Russia and the US remain pivotal. Mr Putin said that a visit to Moscow in July by President Obama had improved the atmosphere.
He provided a long list of complaints about outstanding disputes with the Bush Administration regarding Russia’s failed attempt to join the World Trade Organisation and high-handed treatment by Condoleezza Rice, the former US Secretary of State.
Although Russia should be pleased that the Obama Administration is planning to shelve a plan by the former President Bush to base a missile defence system in Eastern Europe, there is still no sign that the two sides will complete a strategic nuclear weapons treaty by the end of the year, when the existing agreement expires.
Relations between Washington and Moscow could come under strain this month over Russia’s relationship with Iran. Russia is helping Iran to build a civilian nuclear reactor and has agreed to sell Tehran sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.
The US, Britain and France fear that Iran is building a nuclear bomb secretly and are pressing for sanctions at the United Nations. Israel has warned that it may attack the nuclear facilities before Iran builds a nuclear weapon.
Mr Putin deflected questions about whether he had met Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, on a secret visit to Moscow on Monday.
He warned that any attacks against Iran would be counter-productive. “This would be very dangerous, unacceptable, this would lead to an explosion of terrorism, increase the influence of extremists,” he said, adding that he doubted airstrikes would achieve their objective.
Mr Putin added, however: “The Iranians should show restraint in their nuclear programme. We have told Iran that it has the right to a civilian nuclear programme but that it should understand what region of the world it is in.
“This is a dangerous region and Iran should show responsibility, especially by taking into account Israel’s concerns, all the more so after the absolutely unacceptable statements [by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President] about the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Judo and spying
— Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Born October 7, 1952, in Leningrad
— Putin did well at school despite an impoverished upbringing. He became interested in judo and spy stories
— He applied to the KGB at the age of 17 but was told that he could not be considered until he had a degree. He graduated from Leningrad State University with a law degree in 1975
— He was a KGB agent in East Germany between 1985 and 1990
— He became Prime Minister in August 1999 and President in March 2000, standing down to become Prime Minister again in 2008
Sources: Times database, Reuters
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Megrahi was framed
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/pilger-megrahi-justice
Megrahi was framed
John Pilger
03 September 2009
The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence
The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"
Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.
The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bullshit". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.
No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".
“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.
The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.
A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.
Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)
Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".
Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.
In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
The words "miscarriage of justice" are entirely missing from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that "higher power". What a disgrace.
Megrahi was framed
John Pilger
03 September 2009
The trial of the “Lockerbie bomber” was worse than a travesty of justice. Evidence that never came to court proves his innocence
The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown's "repulsion" to Barack Obama's "outrage", the theatre of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"
Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power". Amen.
The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bullshit". Such eloquence summarises the circus of Megrahi's release.
No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests".
“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.
The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.
A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.
Megrahi was convicted by three Scottish judges sitting in a courtroom in "neutral" Holland. There was no jury. One of the few reporters to sit through the long and often farcical proceedings was the late Paul Foot, whose landmark investigation in Private Eye exposed it as a cacophony of blunders, deceptions and lies: a whitewash. The Scottish judges, while admitting a "mass of conflicting evidence" and rejecting the fantasies of the CIA informer, found Megrahi guilty on hearsay and unproven circumstance. Their 90-page "opinion", wrote Foot, "is a remarkable document that claims an honoured place in the history of British miscarriages of justice". (His report, Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice, can be downloaded from www.private-eye.co.uk for £5.)
Foot reported that most of the staff of the US embassy in Moscow who had reserved seats on Pan Am flights from Frankfurt cancelled their bookings when they were alerted by US intelligence that a terrorist attack was planned. He named Margaret Thatcher the "architect" of the cover-up after revealing that she killed the independent inquiry her transport secretary Cecil Parkinson had promised the Lockerbie families; and in a phone call to President George Bush Sr on 11 January 1990, she agreed to "low-key" the disaster after their intelligence services had reported "beyond doubt" that the Lockerbie bomb had been placed by a Palestinian group, contracted by Tehran, as a reprisal for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by a US warship in Iranian territorial waters. Among the 290 dead were 66 children. In 1990, the ship's captain was awarded the Legion of Merit by Bush Sr "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer".
Perversely, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, Bush needed Iran's support as he built a "coalition" to expel his wayward client from an American oil colony. The only country that defied Bush and backed Iraq was Libya. "Like lazy and overfed fish," wrote Foot, "the British media jumped to the bait. In almost unanimous chorus, they engaged in furious vilification and open warmongering against Libya." The framing of Libya for the Lockerbie crime was inevitable. Since then, a US defence intelligence agency report, obtained under Freedom of Information, has confirmed these truths and identified the likely bomber; it was to be the centrepiece of Megrahi's defence.
In 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Megrahi's case for appeal. "The commission is of the view," said its chairman, Graham Forbes, "based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
The words "miscarriage of justice" are entirely missing from the current furore, with Kenny MacAskill reassuring the baying mob that the scapegoat will soon face justice from that "higher power". What a disgrace.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
G20 moves world a step closer to global currency
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html
The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency
The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
03 Apr 2009
A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.
"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity," it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.
In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.
It has been a good summit for the IMF. Its fighting fund for crises is to be tripled overnight to $750bn. This is real money.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director, said in February that the world was "already in Depression" and risked a slide into social disorder and military conflict unless political leaders resorted to massive stimulus.
He has not won everything he wanted. The spending plan was fudged. While Gordon Brown talked of $5 trillion in global stimulus by 2010, this is mostly made up of packages already under way.
But Mr Strauss-Kahn at least has resources fit for his own task. He will need them. The IMF is already bailing out Pakistan, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania. This week Mexico became the first G20 state to ask for help. It has secured a precautionary credit line of $47bn.
Gordon Brown said it took 15 years for the world to grasp the nettle after Great Crash in 1929. "This time I think people will agree that it has been different," he said.
President Barack Obama was less dramatic. "I think we did OK," he said. Bretton Woods in 1944 was a simpler affair. "Just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easy negotiation, but that's not the world we live in."
There will be $250bn in trade finance to kick-start shipping after lenders cut back on Letters of Credit after September's heart attack in the banking system. Global trade volumes fell at annual rate of 41pc from November to January, according to Holland's CPB institute – the steepest peacetime fall on record.
Euphoria swept emerging markets yesterday as the first reports of the IMF boost circulated. Investors now know that countries like Mexico can arrange a credit facility able to cope with major shocks – and do so on supportive terms, rather than the hair-shirt deflation policies of the old IMF. Fear is receding again.
The Russians had hoped their idea to develop SDRs as a full reserve currency to challenge the dollar would make its way on to the agenda, but at least they got a foot in the door.
There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China. Beijing's moves this week to offer $95bn in yuan currency swaps to developing economies show how fast China aims to break dollar dependence.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the summit had achieved more than he ever thought possible, and praised Gordon Brown for pursuing the collective interest as host rather than defending "Anglo-Saxon" interests. This has a double-edged ring, for it suggests that Mr Brown may have traded pockets of the British financial industry to satisfy Franco-German demands. The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator. The devil is in the details.
Hedge funds deemed "systemically important" will come under draconian restraints. How this is enforced will determine whether Mayfair's hedge-fund industry – 80pc of all European funds are there – will continue to flourish.
It seems that hedge funds have been designated for ritual sacrifice, even though they played no more than a cameo role in the genesis of this crisis. It was not they who took on extreme debt leverage: it was the banks – up to 30 times in the US and nearer 60 times for some in Europe that used off-books "conduits" to increase their bets. The market process itself is sorting this out in any case – brutally – forcing banks to wind down their leverage. The problem right now is that this is happening too fast.
But to the extent that this G20 accord makes it impossible for the "shadow banking" to resurrect itself in the next inevitable cycle of risk appetite, it may prevent another disaster of this kind.
The key phrase is "new rules aimed at avoiding excessive leverage and forcing banks to put more money aside during good times." This is more or less what the authorities agreed after the Depression. Complacency chipped away at the rules as the decades passed. It is the human condition, and we can't change that.
The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency
The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
03 Apr 2009
A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.
"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity," it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.
In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.
It has been a good summit for the IMF. Its fighting fund for crises is to be tripled overnight to $750bn. This is real money.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director, said in February that the world was "already in Depression" and risked a slide into social disorder and military conflict unless political leaders resorted to massive stimulus.
He has not won everything he wanted. The spending plan was fudged. While Gordon Brown talked of $5 trillion in global stimulus by 2010, this is mostly made up of packages already under way.
But Mr Strauss-Kahn at least has resources fit for his own task. He will need them. The IMF is already bailing out Pakistan, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania. This week Mexico became the first G20 state to ask for help. It has secured a precautionary credit line of $47bn.
Gordon Brown said it took 15 years for the world to grasp the nettle after Great Crash in 1929. "This time I think people will agree that it has been different," he said.
President Barack Obama was less dramatic. "I think we did OK," he said. Bretton Woods in 1944 was a simpler affair. "Just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easy negotiation, but that's not the world we live in."
There will be $250bn in trade finance to kick-start shipping after lenders cut back on Letters of Credit after September's heart attack in the banking system. Global trade volumes fell at annual rate of 41pc from November to January, according to Holland's CPB institute – the steepest peacetime fall on record.
Euphoria swept emerging markets yesterday as the first reports of the IMF boost circulated. Investors now know that countries like Mexico can arrange a credit facility able to cope with major shocks – and do so on supportive terms, rather than the hair-shirt deflation policies of the old IMF. Fear is receding again.
The Russians had hoped their idea to develop SDRs as a full reserve currency to challenge the dollar would make its way on to the agenda, but at least they got a foot in the door.
There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China. Beijing's moves this week to offer $95bn in yuan currency swaps to developing economies show how fast China aims to break dollar dependence.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the summit had achieved more than he ever thought possible, and praised Gordon Brown for pursuing the collective interest as host rather than defending "Anglo-Saxon" interests. This has a double-edged ring, for it suggests that Mr Brown may have traded pockets of the British financial industry to satisfy Franco-German demands. The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator. The devil is in the details.
Hedge funds deemed "systemically important" will come under draconian restraints. How this is enforced will determine whether Mayfair's hedge-fund industry – 80pc of all European funds are there – will continue to flourish.
It seems that hedge funds have been designated for ritual sacrifice, even though they played no more than a cameo role in the genesis of this crisis. It was not they who took on extreme debt leverage: it was the banks – up to 30 times in the US and nearer 60 times for some in Europe that used off-books "conduits" to increase their bets. The market process itself is sorting this out in any case – brutally – forcing banks to wind down their leverage. The problem right now is that this is happening too fast.
But to the extent that this G20 accord makes it impossible for the "shadow banking" to resurrect itself in the next inevitable cycle of risk appetite, it may prevent another disaster of this kind.
The key phrase is "new rules aimed at avoiding excessive leverage and forcing banks to put more money aside during good times." This is more or less what the authorities agreed after the Depression. Complacency chipped away at the rules as the decades passed. It is the human condition, and we can't change that.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
MPS WARNED OVER HYBRID EMBRYOS
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/45023/MPs-warned-over-hybrid-embryos
MPS WARNED OVER HYBRID EMBRYOS
Monday May 19,2008
Allowing the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos would make the UK a scientific "rogue state", MPs have been warned as a fierce debate opened on highly-controversial new laws.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both firmly backed the ground-breaking technique as a means to develop treatments for common conditions that could potentially save millions of lives.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader also support the creation of "saviour siblings" selected by parents in order to provide tissue material for seriously ill children.
Mr Brown has hailed both innovations as "an inherently moral endeavour". But opponents from all parties hope to unite to axe both from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in crunch Commons votes on Monday evening.
And with MPs allowed to vote according to personal conscience, not the party line, on the most contentious elements of the Bill, the result is not predictable.
Leading the fight against so-called "admixed embryos", Tory MP Edward Leigh said the technique, which involves implanting a human nucleus inside an animal cell, was "a step too far".
Scientists believe that stem cells harvested from these embryos could provide the key to breakthroughs in the treatment of conditions such as Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. Research is currently being held up by the shortage of human eggs to create stem cells.
But critics of hybrids have branded them "Frankenstein science", saying it is obscene to combine human and animal genetics. They also question the benefits, insisting other methods are more effective.
But Mr Leigh said 21 other countries had banned the creation of hybrids. "In terms of embryonic research we will almost be like a rogue state," he warned.
But Labour MP Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, compared Mr Leigh's arguments to those used by church leaders against the smallpox vaccine. He said: "They were wrong and I think you are wrong today."
MPS WARNED OVER HYBRID EMBRYOS
Monday May 19,2008
Allowing the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos would make the UK a scientific "rogue state", MPs have been warned as a fierce debate opened on highly-controversial new laws.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both firmly backed the ground-breaking technique as a means to develop treatments for common conditions that could potentially save millions of lives.
The Prime Minister and Tory leader also support the creation of "saviour siblings" selected by parents in order to provide tissue material for seriously ill children.
Mr Brown has hailed both innovations as "an inherently moral endeavour". But opponents from all parties hope to unite to axe both from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in crunch Commons votes on Monday evening.
And with MPs allowed to vote according to personal conscience, not the party line, on the most contentious elements of the Bill, the result is not predictable.
Leading the fight against so-called "admixed embryos", Tory MP Edward Leigh said the technique, which involves implanting a human nucleus inside an animal cell, was "a step too far".
Scientists believe that stem cells harvested from these embryos could provide the key to breakthroughs in the treatment of conditions such as Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. Research is currently being held up by the shortage of human eggs to create stem cells.
But critics of hybrids have branded them "Frankenstein science", saying it is obscene to combine human and animal genetics. They also question the benefits, insisting other methods are more effective.
But Mr Leigh said 21 other countries had banned the creation of hybrids. "In terms of embryonic research we will almost be like a rogue state," he warned.
But Labour MP Chris Bryant, a former Anglican curate, compared Mr Leigh's arguments to those used by church leaders against the smallpox vaccine. He said: "They were wrong and I think you are wrong today."
Friday, March 28, 2008
E.U. weighs Olympic boycott over Tibet
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0327/p04s01-woeu.html
from the March 27, 2008 edition
E.U. weighs Olympic boycott over Tibet
The European Union meets Friday to discuss ties to China after the unrest in Tibet.
By Robert Marquand Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Paris
If the government of China hopes the world will go for its line on Tibet and the nefarious Dalai Lama and his purported "clique" – Europe isn't buying it.
The response to the Tibetan crisis in London, Paris, and Berlin, rather, is a call for "dialogue" between China and the exiled Tibetan leader, and"restraint" by Beijing.
A boycott of the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games is being discussed as a leverage point in Austria, Belgium, Britain, and France – to be determined by how China handles the frustrations of its Tibetan minority.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has "left open the option" of boycotting the ceremony, Germany has blocked talks with China on economic development, and Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, says that Tibet demonstrations will be authorized as the Olympic torch is carried through London on April 6.
Prince Charles, a friend of the Dalai Lama, had already decided in January not to attend the opening ceremony, he said, in a letter to a human rights group.
Europeans have long had a fascination with and sympathy for the Himalayan region and its Buddhist spiritual traditions – and the Dalai Lama is a frequent visitor to the Continent.
This Friday, Europe's foreign ministers meet in Slovenia, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU, to adopt a common position on relations with Beijing and "the suffering of Tibet," as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner describes it.
The question in Slovenia is how to balance appreciation for the progress China has made with concern about the heavy handed tactics of an unelected government that has long eschewed any dialogue with those disagreeing with it. Most European states also have significant business interests in China.
While no European Union state is preparing to boycott the 2008 Games – "Let's not be more Tibetan than the Dalai Lama," who did not advocate boycott, says Mr. Kouchner – there is a general revulsion at the scenes out of Tibet, and at what is seen as an overheated Chinese propaganda effort to demonize the Dalai Lama and hold him responsible for violence.
In a clear rebuke to the Chinese position on Dalai Lama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to meet the spiritual leader in May, and the Dalai Lama was invited to speak at a conference in Nantes, France, during the games in August.
As the British Foreign Office issued a human rights report critical of China this week, Mr. Miliband said, "There needs to be mutual respect between all communities and sustained dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities."
On May 22, the Dalai Lama will give a speech at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
On Wednesday Robert Menard, general secretary of Reporters Sans Frontières in Paris, the journalistic watchdog group, stated that Mr. Sarkozy should boycott the opening if China does not release 30 political prisoners who are on the lists of nearly every human rights group, and if foreign correspondents are continued to be banned from working in Tibet.
Mr. Menard's group raced to unfurl a Tibetan flag at the opening ceremony of the games in Athens this week while a Chinese official was speaking – an act widely criticized in the journalistic community, which has depended on RSF to report on press violations.
Prior to the China-Tibet dissatisfaction in Europe, many protest groups here demanded that China stop its support of the Sudanese government, widely regarded as a main culprit in the starvation and chaos in Darfur. The phrase "Genocide Olympics" has been used in Europe among human rights groups to describe the twinning of the Games with China's policy toward Sudan.
from the March 27, 2008 edition
E.U. weighs Olympic boycott over Tibet
The European Union meets Friday to discuss ties to China after the unrest in Tibet.
By Robert Marquand Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Paris
If the government of China hopes the world will go for its line on Tibet and the nefarious Dalai Lama and his purported "clique" – Europe isn't buying it.
The response to the Tibetan crisis in London, Paris, and Berlin, rather, is a call for "dialogue" between China and the exiled Tibetan leader, and"restraint" by Beijing.
A boycott of the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games is being discussed as a leverage point in Austria, Belgium, Britain, and France – to be determined by how China handles the frustrations of its Tibetan minority.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has "left open the option" of boycotting the ceremony, Germany has blocked talks with China on economic development, and Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, says that Tibet demonstrations will be authorized as the Olympic torch is carried through London on April 6.
Prince Charles, a friend of the Dalai Lama, had already decided in January not to attend the opening ceremony, he said, in a letter to a human rights group.
Europeans have long had a fascination with and sympathy for the Himalayan region and its Buddhist spiritual traditions – and the Dalai Lama is a frequent visitor to the Continent.
This Friday, Europe's foreign ministers meet in Slovenia, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU, to adopt a common position on relations with Beijing and "the suffering of Tibet," as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner describes it.
The question in Slovenia is how to balance appreciation for the progress China has made with concern about the heavy handed tactics of an unelected government that has long eschewed any dialogue with those disagreeing with it. Most European states also have significant business interests in China.
While no European Union state is preparing to boycott the 2008 Games – "Let's not be more Tibetan than the Dalai Lama," who did not advocate boycott, says Mr. Kouchner – there is a general revulsion at the scenes out of Tibet, and at what is seen as an overheated Chinese propaganda effort to demonize the Dalai Lama and hold him responsible for violence.
In a clear rebuke to the Chinese position on Dalai Lama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to meet the spiritual leader in May, and the Dalai Lama was invited to speak at a conference in Nantes, France, during the games in August.
As the British Foreign Office issued a human rights report critical of China this week, Mr. Miliband said, "There needs to be mutual respect between all communities and sustained dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities."
On May 22, the Dalai Lama will give a speech at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
On Wednesday Robert Menard, general secretary of Reporters Sans Frontières in Paris, the journalistic watchdog group, stated that Mr. Sarkozy should boycott the opening if China does not release 30 political prisoners who are on the lists of nearly every human rights group, and if foreign correspondents are continued to be banned from working in Tibet.
Mr. Menard's group raced to unfurl a Tibetan flag at the opening ceremony of the games in Athens this week while a Chinese official was speaking – an act widely criticized in the journalistic community, which has depended on RSF to report on press violations.
Prior to the China-Tibet dissatisfaction in Europe, many protest groups here demanded that China stop its support of the Sudanese government, widely regarded as a main culprit in the starvation and chaos in Darfur. The phrase "Genocide Olympics" has been used in Europe among human rights groups to describe the twinning of the Games with China's policy toward Sudan.
Friday, November 2, 2007
'It’s all my fault’
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/biography/article2759391.ece
From The Times
October 29, 2007
He went into the garden and began muttering ‘Iraq’ and ‘it’s all my fault’
Tony Blair’s election victory in 2005 was immediately followed by rebellion, a new biography reveals
Philip Webster, Political Editor
Tony Blair virtually regarded the result of the 2005 general election as a defeat for which he blamed himself and the Iraq war, according to a new biography.
As the early results suggested a much-reduced Labour majority, Mr Blair went into the garden and started muttering “It’s all my fault” and “Iraq”, the book reveals.
He accepted that it weakened his authority as Prime Minister to make the changes to the machinery of government that he wanted and to appoint the Government that he needed. And it further enfeebled him in his relationship with Gordon Brown, who had been persuaded late on to take a full part in the election campaign and grabbed most of the credit for winning a third term – albeit with the Labour majority cut from 167 to 64.
Astonishing revelations in Blair Unbound by Anthony Seldon suggest that Mr Brown regularly told Mr Blair to “F off” as the Prime Minister put forward possible ministerial changes in the reshuffle after the election, and that plans drawn up by his advisers to revamp the Treasury were blocked immediately. The biography paints an extraordinary picture of a prime minister impotent to do what he desired, despite having given Labour a record third term, as he crumbled in front of John Prescott and Mr Brown when they resisted his planned changes.
Before the election Mr Blair had again considered moving Mr Brown to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), but the Chancellor’s price for returning to the centre of the election campaign was to stay in his job, the book says.
It reveals that as the election results came in, a deeply depressed Mr Blair –who was with his family and friends at Myrobella, his constituency home – was completely unnerved when Labour lost Putney to the Conservatives at 12.35am. “If we lost this we are going to lose the lot,” he said to Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff.
Later he went out into the garden in the “freezing cold” with his long-time aides Alastair Campbell and Sally Morgan. According to the book, “he started muttering things such as ‘It’s all my fault’ and ‘Iraq’”. “It was a pretty grim hour or so,” Ms Morgan said.
The book describes how before the election Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, and John Birt, the former BBC Director-General who was brought in as a “blue skies” thinker by Mr Blair, drew up plans to reform the “overmighty Treasury”.
One plan was the creation of an Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which would be distinct from the Treasury and have responsibility for productivity and domestic spending, while the Treasury would be left in control of macroeconomic policy. Under this option the Treasury would be compensated for its loss by the sweetener of absorbing trade and competition policy from the Department of Trade and Industry.
According to the book: “The ultras hoped that Blair would not only adopt such a plan but also move Brown out to the FCO. Some saw this as setting Brown up for a fall, believing that he would not be able to make a success of running foreign policy. Blair certainly gave serious consideration to the OMB plan and of moving Brown. He ‘licensed and encouraged this work’, said one No 10 aide, ‘and was highly interested in where it was going’.”
As his Sedgefield result was declared in 2005 Mr Blair was attacked by an antiwar candidate who said he hoped that Mr Blair would visit wounded soldiers in hospital.
The book says: “With Cherie on the edge of tears ‘it clearly impacted very badly on him; it was the most visibly weak I had ever seen him,’ said one close aide. What was not known was that Blair had already visited and would continue to visit the wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq. He had, however, taken steps to ensure that the media did not report this information. ‘I don’t want it to become political,’ he told one military officer, ‘and because I don’t want it to become political I’m prepared to take the hit from people that think I don’t visit.’ He did it ‘for the sake of his own conscience,’ said one official.”
The following extract picks up the election story on the day after polling. “‘The Prime Minister was dog-tired and felt very bad about the result,’ said one of his close team. It was Friday, May 6, his birthday, but not his happiest. He rallied himself in an effort to put his stamp on the reshuffle and to show who was in charge. Letters to ministers, including some significant switches, had been drafted and were ready for him to sign.
“The first meeting that morning was with Prescott. Blair planned to tell him that he would relinquish the communities and local government briefs in their entirety but he could remain as Deputy Prime Minister. Prescott refused point-blank. He took advantage of the Prime Minister feeling politically weak, said an observer. ‘Blair did not have the stomach for a fight’.
“His second meeting was with Brown. He put to him a watered-down plan of splitting the Treasury, but with the OMB reporting up through him. Brown rejected the idea outright. Blair’s much-reduced majority had squashed once and for all his hopes of doing anything to Brown against his will. Powell told a colleague that because of the results ‘you can forget the plans now. They won’t work’.
“Blair still had some leeway, however, and was adamant that he was going to promote modernisers in the reshuffle. This would be a Blairite government. The dual leadership of the preceding three weeks was now over. No 10 became enraged on Friday after the Brownites briefed the press that the results were bad for Labour and for Blair. ‘There was a pretty big rubbishing of it from the Brownites. That is what they do,’ said one of the Blair team who even went as far as to speculate that Brown wanted the reshuffle to fail. Brown had expected to be consulted fully in the reshuffle, and considered it to be part of the deal of him returning to the front line. ‘He really believed he had been told in the general election campaign that it was going to be different from now,’ said a Treasury official. He was right. He had been. Before the election results were known, Brown’s office had phoned No 10 to offer his services in the reshuffle.
“That Friday a number of subsequent phone calls took place between Blair and Brown. They were not the conversations Brown had been expecting. Blair had decided that he was going to move in on the Treasury appointments. ‘Isn’t it at last time to sack Dawn Primarolo [the Treasury minister, now Minister for Public Health]?’ Blair asked him. Brown reacted strongly to protect her. According to one official, their conversation followed the typical pattern at the time. ‘The Prime Minister would start off the conversation on the front foot and Gordon would respond simply by saying ‘F off’. Blair said he wanted his own nominee, John Hutton, to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Brown flatly refused, considering it an affront as Hutton was such a Blairite. He also rejected John Denham for the job. ‘I thought you said you [would] consult me over the whole government. You promised me. So this is it?’ said an indignant Brown.
“‘Gordon, it’s got to be my reshuffle,’ Blair responded. ‘I am the Prime Minister.’ In fact Blair’s team had never even discussed whether Brown should have been involved in the construction of the new Government. The Treasury very quickly got the message that the Chancellor was not going to be involved at all. ‘Their response was, “You bastards. We can’t trust you and we won’t trust you ever again,” kind of territory,’ said an official. ‘After the election Brown defaulted to “betrayal mode”’, said one observer. “Brown, not Blair, emerged as the primary victor of the 2005 election. At the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) meeting the following Monday, for the first time MPs stood up and challenged his leadership, saying that MPs had lost their seats because of his continuation as leader. Former minister Peter Kilfoyle put it to him directly that ‘the sooner he stood down the better off the party would be as he had become a negative factor’. There was a deadly silence. The mood was sombre. Blair responded that he needed time and space and MPs owed it to him to be loyal until the handover.
“But the stories began about how long he could and should survive. Coming on top of the unemphatic election results and the halfcock reshuffle, it was the worst possible start to the third term.”
From The Times
October 29, 2007
He went into the garden and began muttering ‘Iraq’ and ‘it’s all my fault’
Tony Blair’s election victory in 2005 was immediately followed by rebellion, a new biography reveals
Philip Webster, Political Editor
Tony Blair virtually regarded the result of the 2005 general election as a defeat for which he blamed himself and the Iraq war, according to a new biography.
As the early results suggested a much-reduced Labour majority, Mr Blair went into the garden and started muttering “It’s all my fault” and “Iraq”, the book reveals.
He accepted that it weakened his authority as Prime Minister to make the changes to the machinery of government that he wanted and to appoint the Government that he needed. And it further enfeebled him in his relationship with Gordon Brown, who had been persuaded late on to take a full part in the election campaign and grabbed most of the credit for winning a third term – albeit with the Labour majority cut from 167 to 64.
Astonishing revelations in Blair Unbound by Anthony Seldon suggest that Mr Brown regularly told Mr Blair to “F off” as the Prime Minister put forward possible ministerial changes in the reshuffle after the election, and that plans drawn up by his advisers to revamp the Treasury were blocked immediately. The biography paints an extraordinary picture of a prime minister impotent to do what he desired, despite having given Labour a record third term, as he crumbled in front of John Prescott and Mr Brown when they resisted his planned changes.
Before the election Mr Blair had again considered moving Mr Brown to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), but the Chancellor’s price for returning to the centre of the election campaign was to stay in his job, the book says.
It reveals that as the election results came in, a deeply depressed Mr Blair –who was with his family and friends at Myrobella, his constituency home – was completely unnerved when Labour lost Putney to the Conservatives at 12.35am. “If we lost this we are going to lose the lot,” he said to Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff.
Later he went out into the garden in the “freezing cold” with his long-time aides Alastair Campbell and Sally Morgan. According to the book, “he started muttering things such as ‘It’s all my fault’ and ‘Iraq’”. “It was a pretty grim hour or so,” Ms Morgan said.
The book describes how before the election Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, and John Birt, the former BBC Director-General who was brought in as a “blue skies” thinker by Mr Blair, drew up plans to reform the “overmighty Treasury”.
One plan was the creation of an Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which would be distinct from the Treasury and have responsibility for productivity and domestic spending, while the Treasury would be left in control of macroeconomic policy. Under this option the Treasury would be compensated for its loss by the sweetener of absorbing trade and competition policy from the Department of Trade and Industry.
According to the book: “The ultras hoped that Blair would not only adopt such a plan but also move Brown out to the FCO. Some saw this as setting Brown up for a fall, believing that he would not be able to make a success of running foreign policy. Blair certainly gave serious consideration to the OMB plan and of moving Brown. He ‘licensed and encouraged this work’, said one No 10 aide, ‘and was highly interested in where it was going’.”
As his Sedgefield result was declared in 2005 Mr Blair was attacked by an antiwar candidate who said he hoped that Mr Blair would visit wounded soldiers in hospital.
The book says: “With Cherie on the edge of tears ‘it clearly impacted very badly on him; it was the most visibly weak I had ever seen him,’ said one close aide. What was not known was that Blair had already visited and would continue to visit the wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq. He had, however, taken steps to ensure that the media did not report this information. ‘I don’t want it to become political,’ he told one military officer, ‘and because I don’t want it to become political I’m prepared to take the hit from people that think I don’t visit.’ He did it ‘for the sake of his own conscience,’ said one official.”
The following extract picks up the election story on the day after polling. “‘The Prime Minister was dog-tired and felt very bad about the result,’ said one of his close team. It was Friday, May 6, his birthday, but not his happiest. He rallied himself in an effort to put his stamp on the reshuffle and to show who was in charge. Letters to ministers, including some significant switches, had been drafted and were ready for him to sign.
“The first meeting that morning was with Prescott. Blair planned to tell him that he would relinquish the communities and local government briefs in their entirety but he could remain as Deputy Prime Minister. Prescott refused point-blank. He took advantage of the Prime Minister feeling politically weak, said an observer. ‘Blair did not have the stomach for a fight’.
“His second meeting was with Brown. He put to him a watered-down plan of splitting the Treasury, but with the OMB reporting up through him. Brown rejected the idea outright. Blair’s much-reduced majority had squashed once and for all his hopes of doing anything to Brown against his will. Powell told a colleague that because of the results ‘you can forget the plans now. They won’t work’.
“Blair still had some leeway, however, and was adamant that he was going to promote modernisers in the reshuffle. This would be a Blairite government. The dual leadership of the preceding three weeks was now over. No 10 became enraged on Friday after the Brownites briefed the press that the results were bad for Labour and for Blair. ‘There was a pretty big rubbishing of it from the Brownites. That is what they do,’ said one of the Blair team who even went as far as to speculate that Brown wanted the reshuffle to fail. Brown had expected to be consulted fully in the reshuffle, and considered it to be part of the deal of him returning to the front line. ‘He really believed he had been told in the general election campaign that it was going to be different from now,’ said a Treasury official. He was right. He had been. Before the election results were known, Brown’s office had phoned No 10 to offer his services in the reshuffle.
“That Friday a number of subsequent phone calls took place between Blair and Brown. They were not the conversations Brown had been expecting. Blair had decided that he was going to move in on the Treasury appointments. ‘Isn’t it at last time to sack Dawn Primarolo [the Treasury minister, now Minister for Public Health]?’ Blair asked him. Brown reacted strongly to protect her. According to one official, their conversation followed the typical pattern at the time. ‘The Prime Minister would start off the conversation on the front foot and Gordon would respond simply by saying ‘F off’. Blair said he wanted his own nominee, John Hutton, to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Brown flatly refused, considering it an affront as Hutton was such a Blairite. He also rejected John Denham for the job. ‘I thought you said you [would] consult me over the whole government. You promised me. So this is it?’ said an indignant Brown.
“‘Gordon, it’s got to be my reshuffle,’ Blair responded. ‘I am the Prime Minister.’ In fact Blair’s team had never even discussed whether Brown should have been involved in the construction of the new Government. The Treasury very quickly got the message that the Chancellor was not going to be involved at all. ‘Their response was, “You bastards. We can’t trust you and we won’t trust you ever again,” kind of territory,’ said an official. ‘After the election Brown defaulted to “betrayal mode”’, said one observer. “Brown, not Blair, emerged as the primary victor of the 2005 election. At the PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) meeting the following Monday, for the first time MPs stood up and challenged his leadership, saying that MPs had lost their seats because of his continuation as leader. Former minister Peter Kilfoyle put it to him directly that ‘the sooner he stood down the better off the party would be as he had become a negative factor’. There was a deadly silence. The mood was sombre. Blair responded that he needed time and space and MPs owed it to him to be loyal until the handover.
“But the stories began about how long he could and should survive. Coming on top of the unemphatic election results and the halfcock reshuffle, it was the worst possible start to the third term.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
