Happy Burns Night

It is not often poetry is quoted at Prime Minister's questions, but this poem was.

Scottish Nationalists who like to quote Robert Burns as though he would support their separatist cause should
1. read this poem
2. hang their heads in shame

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat? (or The Dumfries Volunteers)By Robert Burns

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat? Then let the loons beware, Sir!
There's wooden walls upon our seas And volunteers on shore, Sir!
The Nith shall run to Corsincon, And Criffel sink in Solway,
Ere we permit a foreign foe On British ground to rally!

O, let us not, like snarling curs, In wrangling be divided,
Till, slap! come in a unco loun, And wi' a rung decide it!
Be Britain still to Britain true, Amang oursels united!
For never but by British hands Maun British wrangs be righted!

The kettle o' the Kirk and State, Perhaps a clout may fail in't;
But Deil a foreign tinkler loon Shall ever ca' a nail in't!
Our father's blude the kettle bought, And wha wad dare to spoil it,
By Heav'ns! the sacrilegious dog Shall fuel be to boil it!

The wretch that would a tyrant own, And the wretch, his true-sworn brother,
Who would set the mob above the throne, May they be damn'd together!
Who will not sing God save the King Shall hang as high's the steeple;
But while we sing God save the King We'll ne'er forget the People!

Happy Burns Night!

The Iron Lady - a review

The year has only just started, yet The Iron Lady is bound to be the most talked about film in the UK in 2012, and for good reason: few British prime ministers receive - and few will warrant - the Hollywood treatment. 'The Iron Lady' nickname was first used by the Soviet media to describe Margaret Thatcher back in 1976, and the name stuck.

The film is slow to begin, with a lengthy opening sequence focussing on Lady Thatcher's dementia and daily routine, before various objects and comments trigger flashbacks. Those expecting heavy and sophisticated political drama are likely to be disappointed. The flashbacks to Margaret Thatcher's early life and her political career are largely brief, and not presented chronologically. This is a film which is more about the personal than the political. There are some contemporary political references – at one point Thatcher makes clear that does not like coalitions, at another point she says the ‘medicine’ of spending cuts (in the early 1980s) is harsh but necessary for the good of the patient. But the modern sequences are focussed on Lady Thatcher’s old age, not current affairs.

Some critics have complained that the film was one-dimensional and fails to present the perspective of those who were 'victims' of Thatcherism. But this is not supposed to be a political or sociological documentary, but the drama of one woman's life. Frankly, there have already been plenty of portrayals of the 'other side' of the story. After all, this was a woman who pursued her policies in the face of the opposition of the overwhelming majority of the academic, intellectual, cultural, artistic, literary and even ecclesiastical elite of the country. As it was, the film did have plenty of scenes showing the furious opposition to Thatcher's policies, and was punctuated by real and familiar images of riots and protests, and Britons falling under the blows of police batons and police horses. The film was also punctuated by the explosions of Irish Republican violence and murder, which struck down several of Margaret Thatcher's closest colleagues, reminding us that this was a leader forced to persevere in her own war against terrorism - or rather terrorism's war against her.

While there is not a great deal of political philosophising or ideological oratory, what does come across most forcefully is the Margaret Thatcher's strength of conviction and character. She is shown as a woman constantly having to fight on and persevere in the face of the weak men around her calling for her to compromise, prevaricate, back down and delay. These are the moments when - depending on one's views - members of the audience want to stand up and cheer her on. One of the best sequences is on the Falklands War, where Thatcher is faced with a US ambassador trying to persuade her to agree to a Peruvian 'peace plan' rather than respond to the Argentine invasion and members of her own Government warning against sinking an enemy warship because it happened to be sailing the other way. As we all know, the Lady was not for turning.

The film is not completely one-sided and does not shy away from Margaret Thatcher's mistakes and flaws, such as the defence cuts she approved before the Falklands War or her rude and bullying treatment of Geoffrey Howe in Cabinet. But the film does have flaws – it spends too much time on Margaret Thatcher’s present state rather than the political battles of her career, and there are some omissions and simplifications which lesson the narrative of her premiership.

Despite this, the film’s overall impact is that it is not just powerful - though humorous and light-hearted in places - but also incredibly moving. And Dartford is given its rightful place in the story. Meryl Streep’s performance is brilliant and surely deserves an Oscar. This film is much better than The Queen, in my opinion, with much more of an impact on the viewer.

The atmosphere in the cinema - this may not be universal: this was Dartford, and this was the opening night - was not just of people going to see a film, but of people going to reflect on, almost to commemorate, a remarkable life and career. By the end, the closing sequences were punctuated with the sound of sniffling and noses being blown.

Few films about a politician can achieve that impact. There is unlikely to be another film quite like this, as there is unlikely to be another leader like Margaret Thatcher.

Spending on Trident now is good value for money

Opponents of the UK’s nuclear deterrent have recently been trying to stir up a fuss about the cost of renewing the Trident system, yet again.

Following a written parliamentary question to the Ministry of Defence, Green MP Caroline Lucas revealed the supposedly shocking news that the MOD was spending money on the renewal of Trident. The aspect of this which was supposed to be controversial was that the MOD has spent approximately £2billion on facilities for building and maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons before the 'Main Gate' decision on renewing Trident and replacing the current submarines has been announced. According to Lucas, this "makes a complete mockery of the democratic process." Lucas took to the Politics Home website to argue that the "Government's billion pound spend on Trident must be challenged". She argues that Trident has become "has become one of the most taboo subjects in Whitehall in recent years" and that "The Coalition Government refuses to discuss its policy".

She was supported this week by Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who argued in the House of Commons that “after the next election the new Parliament will be confronted with the decision whether to renew the Trident system, having already spent £5 billion on it" and therefore "we are walking—indeed, sleepwalking—into a massive expenditure".

But the claim that the renewal of Trident has not been properly debated in Parliament and lacks democratic legitimacy simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The House of Commons had a vote on the renewal of Trident back in 2007, and voted overwhelmingly in favour, by 409 to 161. What could be clearer than that? The renewal of Trident was in the manifestos of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and was debated in the party leader’s debates. It was also agreed to as part of the Coalition Programme for Government, a commitment which was restated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. In accordance with this commitment, The 'Initial Gate' decision to go ahead with the renewal of Trident was made and announced in Parliament earlier this year.

Of course spending on the replacement has already started. The MOD has to start spending now for the renewal of Trident to be viable and to avoid a major capability gap. If it did not, the same critics would turn round in a few years and complain that the costs of renewal had escalated and Trident was no longer feasible.

The fuss and opposition is not about costs or democracy. It is hard to escape the suspicion that these are just excuses for opponents’ ideological opposition to UK nuclear weapons. They should be open and say so. The trickle of stories about costs is clearly intended to create the impression that Trident costs too much and to undermine public faith in the system.

The reality is that Trident represents excellent value for money. For all the talk of this being a ‘white elephant’ which will weigh down the defence budget, the House of Commons Library calculated that the annual cost of the Trident programme over its lifetime amounts to just 5% of the defence budget. Scrapping Trident should not be seen as an easy way of freeing up defence spending, as disarmament would itself cost billions. The answer to defence cuts is not to scrap the UK’s most important defence capability. You have to question the wisdom of abandoning the UK’s nuclear weapons in a world where North Korea has the bomb and Iran is close to getting it. Keeping Trident is the nation’s ultimate insurance policy, as well as forming part of the defence of NATO. Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented and it is quite safe to say Barack Obama’s idea of a nuclear-free world is not going to happen. Is a world where Britain does not have nukes but Iran does going to be safer?

Nor is the Liberal Democrat proposal for ‘cheaper alternatives’ to Trident helpful. Developing and testing an entirely new system is highly unlikely to be cheaper than using the existing one. Nor do any of the alternatives suggested – such as land-based missiles or a submarine-launched cruise missile system - offer improved capabilities. In fact they all have flaws which are absent from the Trident continuous-at-sea deterrent, a deterrent which guarantees constant coverage, cannot be pre-empted and which could be fired at any time and at any target. None of the alternatives can offer this.

The two aspects of the renewal of Trident which are creating unnecessary costs are the delaying of the Main Gate decision until after the next election, and the decision for the Cabinet Office to conduct a study into alternatives to Trident in order to ‘assist the Liberal Democrats’. Again, it is difficult to see the argument for ‘alternatives’ as anything other than an excuse to undermine the renewal of Trident due to fundamental opposition to the UK having nuclear weapons at all, particularly given what one Conservative MP rightly described as the "CND revivalist" atmosphere of the debate on Trident at the last Lib Dem party conference, at which Nick Harvey promised to make Trident "a hot potato" at the next election.

Opponents of Trident are not being any more ‘democratic’ or ‘open’ than anyone else. No matter how many votes are taken on this decision, they will never accept the result unless it goes their way. That will now be a decision for the next Parliament, due to the most unwise delay ever made by the Coalition.

Veto in Europe Day

It was no great surprise that many Liberal Democrat politicians were unhappy with David Cameron’s recent refusal to sign a new EU treaty which would have established a ‘fiscal compact’ for the Eurozone within EU structures.

Lord Oakeshott rather dramatically described it as "a black day for Britain and Europe”. Paddy Ashdown said “We have tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain.” Sharon Bowles, the Lib Dem MEP who chairs European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
said “The City will suffer. Maybe serves them right."

What was perhaps slightly more surprising was the Deputy Prime Minister’s open disagreement with the Prime Minister’s actions in Brussels. Nick Clegg told Andrew Marr that he was “bitterly disappointed” by the outcome of the summit and that “there was a danger that this could lead to Britain being isolated”. Clegg lashed out at those who backed the Prime Minister's stance, saying: “I hear this talk about the bulldog spirit - there's nothing bulldog about Britain hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic - not standing tall in Europe, not being taken seriously in Washington". This was followed by Clegg telling the BBC that he “could not welcome” the outcome of the summit, that he and the Prime Minister "clearly do not agree" and that the outcome was "bad for Britain".

In a bizarre piece of bad PR, Clegg decided to absent himself from the Commons during the Prime Minister’s statement on the summit. This was followed by the refusal of Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for the rarity of an opposition motion (put forward by the Democratic Unionist Party) which praised the Prime Minister’s action in Brussels.

What Nick Clegg was disagreeing with was less clear. The UK’s negotiating position was agreed by the Coalition Government before the summit. Clegg repeated afterwards that the UK’s demands were “perfectly reasonable and perfectly measured” and “rightly sought”.

So the Lib Dems agreed that the UK’s position was reasonable. That was not the objection. Instead, what the Lib Dems seemed to object to was that the Government stuck to it. The UK’s demands were reasonable, but the Lib Dems object that the Prime Minister insisted on making them. What they evidently wanted and expected was that the Government would simply cave in, abandon its demands and agree to a new treaty without anything in return for the UK. Allowing Eurozone leaders to pursue even closer integration and fiscal union unobstructed is evidently their priority.

Chris Huhne challenged the Prime Minister in Cabinet, arguing that he had no authority from the coalition to veto a revision of the Lisbon treaty. So according to Lib Dem logic, the Prime Minister can make demands, but is not allowed to stick to his guns. Instead he has to always say yes to the EU. The Lib Dem over-reaction would almost suggest that David Cameron had announced that the UK was about to leave the EU. Yet this was simply an instance of the UK refusing to sign a new treaty without being given even the most modest of safeguards or assurances. Whatever Lib Dems might imagine, there is nothing in the Coalition Agreement which says that the Government has to agree to every new treaty change.

What this incident has shown very clearly is that the Lib Dems’ recent rhetoric about not being ‘slavish apologists’ for the EU, and instead seeking the reform of the EU in the British national interest, was – surprise, surprise – just rhetoric after all. Nick Clegg told the BBC: "I am not here to defend the European Union in and of itself, I am here to defend the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people in this country." Yet when the Prime Minister refused to agree a new treaty without modest safeguards and a level playing field for the UK’s financial sector, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to back him. When it came to the first real test of the Lib Dem attitude to the UK’s position in the EU, the Lib Dems made it clear where their loyalties lie.

Once the prospect of closer integration comes up, the instinctive Lib Dem reaction is that the UK should agree to it regardless of whether or not it gets anything in return. Agreeing to anything and everything that comes out of Brussels is apparently a more attractive prospect than ‘isolation’ – even if, as it turns out, the UK is actually voicing objections that are shared across the EU, where the latest agreement is far from a done deal. Paddy Ashdown even claimed that we had "diminished ourselves in Washington", an argument that was quickly contradicted by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

What is most concerning about Nick Clegg’s stance is what happens next: not in terms of the Coalition, but in terms of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He sees the ‘repairing’ of this as a personal mission, even if he has to bypass the rest of the Government, saying: "On Europe, what I'm going to do is build bridges, re-engage and make sure that the British voice is heard at the top table in Europe." As well as openly criticising the use of the UK’s veto, Nick Clegg publicly stated that "it would be ludicrous" for the Eurozone and other countries which ratified the new agreement not to be able to use the existing EU institutions to enforce it because of "the exception of only one member state". Yet stopping the whole EU structure being used for the new arrangements - without safeguards for the UK - was the whole point of the UK's veto. And the UK having a veto at all is based on the principle that changes to the EU treaties must be unanimous. The Deputy Prime Minister is not just publicly disagreeing with the Prime Minister, but seeking to publicly undermine the UK's negotiating position.

The new intergovernmental treaty which has been proposed, instead of the rejected EU treaty, envisions the use of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Worryingly, it is reported that the Government is considering accepting this development, which would undermine the whole point of the veto, as an ‘olive branch to Nick Clegg’. Rather than an EU treaty using EU institutions to enforce a fiscal compact, there would be an intergovernmental treaty using EU institutions to enforce a fiscal compact – and still with nothing in defence of the UK’s national interests. The Government must not accept this without concessions to the UK in return. It certainly should not accept this for the sake of Nick Clegg.

Will Hutton's caricature history of calamities that weren't

In his attack on David Cameron's veto, Will Hutton presents a caricature of the history of conservatism of Britain in which conservatism, particularly on foreign policy, has supposedly led Britain into a series of calamities.
"It was wrong to resist revolutions in France and the US" - really, why? Particularly when you consider the mass executions and massacres, carried out by the French Republican regime. Surely stopping Napoleon Bonaparte from taking over Europe was a good thing.
The slave trade and the Corn Laws - fair enough.
"wrong to embrace appeasement in the 1930s" - probably, but was it also wrong to simultaneously increase military expenditure and prepare the country for war, while the Labour Party was calling for disarmament and cuts to the defence budget so that the money could be spent on social and economic projects?
"wrong to contest the decolonisation of India" - Not so clear-cut: India was a valuable strategic asset and source of (volunteer) troops in the Second World War, and the rushed decolonisation of the late 1940s was hardly a shining success story.
Was it also wrong of the Conservatives to introduce universal free education and universal and equal suffrage? On foreign policy, was it wrong of the Conservatives to call for greater military preparation and faster naval expansion in the face of German expansion before the First World War? Was it wrong of the Conservatives to stand firm against the USSR, and to preserve Britain's nuclear defences and the alliance with the US when the Labour party was calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament in the face of the Soviets?
Neither the historical record of British foreign policy or the Conservatives is really that calamitous. We have hardly done badly as a country.

And speaking of being consistently wrong, hasn't Will Hutton consistently agitated for the UK to join the Euro?

John Baron has got it wrong on Iran

Following the disgraceful attack on the British embassy in Iran, following Iran’s decision to expel the British ambassador (and which was followed by the speaker of the Iranian parliament telling us that we had it coming), you might have thought that people would have finally dropped any remaining illusions about the Iranian regime and its emnity to Britain.

Not so for Conservative MP John Baron, who argues that “the West has got it wrong on Iran.”

John Baron belittles the recent IAEA report as "almost an annual event on the international stage". He goes on to imply that the trashing of the British embassy was our fault, saying: "The US and UK seized upon the report as providing yet further evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Further financial sanctions led directly to the events on Tuesday."

He argues: "a close reading of the IAEA’s report reveals little new evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. There is no smoking gun: only the suggestion that Iran is moving towards the option of a nuclear weapon." Iran is hardly likely to offer up a 'smoking gun' of clear incontrovertible evidence to the IAEA is it? Let us not forget that the report does say that Iran has carried out "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components," and says of Iranian research that "the application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency.”

Baron goes on to impugn the integrity of the IAEA, making much of the fact that previous director Mohammed ElBaradei commented in 2009 that the threat from Iran was "hyped", but that he was succeeded by a Japanese diplomat who was closer to the US view, and: "After a decent interval, he is now bang on cue." So, without any evidence, we are supposed to assume that the previous IAEA director was right and honest while this one is merely saying what the US wants. This is presumably the same Mohamed ElBaradei who also wrote that "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme," and that "Iran has not offered any cooperation with the Agency."

John Baron goes on to describe Iran's nuclear programme as "understandable", arguing that Iran feels 'encircled' - not mentioning Iran's arming of insurgents in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan and its sponsorship of terrorism across the Middle East and the wider world. He goes on to argue that there is "more irrational than the existing members of the nuclear club". Is that supposed to be reassuring? Are the attack on the British embassy, the conferences about the Holocaust never happening and the claim that there are no homosexuals in the country rational actions? Arguing that Iran will be rational hardly means that it will benign.

Then Baron quibbles over whether called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" (the translation given by the Islamic Republic News Agency!), or whether he merely said "the régime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Even accepting this argument, Ahmadinejad has also said that Israel "will soon disappear" and "is on its way to annihilation", that as well as the idea of 'Greater Israel' "the idea of smaller Israel is dead", that it is God's wish that "this germ of corruption will be wiped off", that Israel is "like a cancer cell that spreads through the body" and "must be removed from the body", that Israel was "a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it. Yes it will collapse and its end will be near.”

Baron goes on to extol the tolerance of the Islamic Republic for its Jewish minority, pointing out that "The 25,000 Jews in Iran are represented by a Jewish MP". Yet the reason there is a Jewish MP for Jews (and a Christian MP for Chistians and a Zoroastrian MP for Zoroastrians) is that non-Muslims are not allowed to vote or stand in elections for any of the other seats in parliament - so they have no say on the nature of the Government. Let us not forget that three quarters of the Jewish population of Iran fled following the Islamic Revolution and that Jews in Iran today are not equal but second-class citizens who face restrictions on their travel.

Baron says: "We tend to forget that, outside Israel, it has the most developed democracy in the region." Yet, as we all saw, elections are evidently less free and fair and civil liberties more restricted than in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq.

John Baron makes the old argument that military action, "inflammatory sanctions" or appeals for 'regime change' would 'boost the hardliners' and 'undermine local proponents of reform'. According to this logic, we could never take any action against Iran, or indeed any other oppressive regime, as it would 'boost the hardliners' and hurt reformists. Presumably the best way to help democracy is to let repressive regimes get away with doing what they want.

It is already clear that the Iranian regime will not allow opponents or reformists any power. They were brutally crushed after the last presidential election and at the time of the Arab Spring. Us standing back and watching hardly did any good for the opposition then.

Baron's recommendation is that "we offer implicit recognition of Iran’s status as a major power in the region". In other words, we reward the Iranian regime for its bullying and aggressive behaviour, despite the proxy wars it has been waging against us.

Margaret Thatcher might call this the "stench of appeasement". But John Baron seems to have gone beyond appeasement into outright apologism for the Islamic Republic. It is difficult to see what Iran would have to do before he accepted any action against it.

Opponents of Trident have a problem with democracy

On the subject of defence, we saw yet another non-story on the cost of Trident from the Guardian this week, with the supposedly shocking news that the Ministry of Defence was spending money on the renewal of Trident. This was the revelation that the MOD has spent approximately £2billion on facilities for building and maintaining the UK's nuclear weapons, before the Trident 'Main Gate' decision has been announced.

According to the Green MP Caroline Lucas, this "makes a complete mockery of the democratic process." No it does not.

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of renewing the UK's nuclear deterrent in 2007. The renewal of Trident was in the manifestos of the Conservatives and Labour. It was also part of the Coalition Programme for Government and the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The 'Initial Gate' decision to go ahead with the renewal of Trident has been made and announced - and it was made clear then that this involved spending money on the project.

What more does she want?

The MOD has to start spending now for the renewal of Trident to be viable. If it did not, the same critics would turn round in a few years and complain that the costs of renewal had escalated and Trident was no longer feasible.

The fuss and opposition is not about costs or democracy. These are just excuses for opponents' ideological opposition to the principle of UK nuclear weapons. They should be open and say so. The trickle of stories about costs are designed to create the impression that Trident costs too much and to undermine public faith in the deterrent.

It is opponents of Trident who are 'making a mockery of the democratic process'. No matter how many votes are taken on this decision, they never accept the result.