Posts Tagged → Britain
IMF predicts UK recession will last longest of G7
The importance of a successful outcome to the G20 meeting to Britain is highlighted today with the International Monetary Fund predicting that the recession in the UK will be longer and deeper than amongst our competitors. The IMF predicts that Britain will be the only member of the G7 to experience a continuing economic contraction in 2010. These predictions come on top of bleak assessments on jobs. As unemployment passes two million today most commentators expect it to reach three million in 2010.
There was a time when Ministers’ claimed Britain was in the best place of any nation to weather and then recover from the global downturn. That sounded a little boastful at the time. Today it seems like an unfortunate joke. There are two million people sitting at home today who won’t see the funny side.
Inevitably, today’s gloomy predictions and terrible statistics will lead to more cat-calls for Gordon Brown to apologise. I’m not so sure it matters whether he does or he doesn’t use those words. The public know that this is a global downturn. They know too that whilst individual governments in one country or another might have done this thing or that differently, a bit sooner or a bit later, that in reality this hurricane was going to hit and to hurt.
The real point now for Labour is not to try to brief, boast or bluster our way through. No more leading the world or saving the planet. No more last in, first out idle rhetoric. Britain, for a range of reasons, not least our reliance on the City of London and financial services sector, and our over reliance on easily obtained debt to fuel consumer confidence, is going to experience a downturn beyond the memory and experience of most of our politicians and most of our people. When Alastair Darling told us that in an interview over Christmas he was made by his political masters to recant as surely and as fully as anyone faced with the inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition. But Alastair was right and the briefers were wrong. The only way to convince the public that Labour knows how to deal with this crisis is to lower the rhetoric and level with them. It is not apologies we need now but humility.
So, when the G20 ‘global deal’ happens it should not be greeted with fanfares and fireworks because even if it amounts to anything much it won’t impact directly the million more Britons expected to lose their jobs this year. Everyone hopes and prays that a deal can be reached but let us not talk up expectations about its impact in a way which only adds to the disillusionment with politics so many of our friends and neighbours face as they stare out from their homes at an uncertain future.
New Labour: not dead just sleep-walking
Tony Blair famously told the 1997 Labour Party conference that the Conservatives were “not dead. Just sleeping.” To make such a comment when the Conservatives had been so throroughly thrashed at the general election only four months previously was remarkable. Equally memorable though should be Blair’s next line in that speech: “Let their fate serve as a warning to us.”
Today, with Labour looking becalmed at around 30% in the polls, with the Parliamentary Labour Party looking ever more fearful of having to make bold and radical reforms necessary to improve the public services, with the economic crisis so crushing and with some Cabinet ministers – who should know better – preening themselves and posing in public like peacocks for a potential leadership position, it looks like Labour has failed to heed Blair’s warning. In this context, it is not surprising commentators are saying: ‘New Labour is dead’
I do not believe new Labour is dead but I do believe it is sleep walking to defeat. Incumbent governments win elections when they are capable of showing the electorate that they have more to offer than they have already delivered: that they can be both continuity and change; not just that they haven’t run out of ideas but that their ideas are right for the times.
The economy of course, is taking the lion’s share of the resources and the reporting at the moment. That is only right. Unfortunately, too much of the rhetoric continues to be anti-market and anti-city – both positions which will come back to haunt Labour in the future; partly, because Labour will need both the market economy and the City to recover and prosper if Britain is to grow our way out of recession and partly, because anti-free market sentiment will be used by those on the left to call for a re-allignment of Labour politics which is actually about trashing the government’s record and moving Labour leftwards.
I appreciate scope for action on the economy is limited but where are the ideas and radical reforms from elsewhere in government capable of making the case that Labour has more to offer in the future? Sadly, they currently appear absent.
Take the publication on Tuesday of the government’s ‘vision for the future shape of public services’. Much of what was in the paper was fine, harmless stuff. The fast-track teacher training is OK. But frankly, the idea that the way to make the radical leap required in public service provision is to ape TripAdvisor by having internet reviews would be laughable if it did not signal so surely that New Labour is sleep walking to defeat.
Or take the loss of David Freud, the welfare reformer, to the Conservatives. I do not believe Freud is a natural conservative. He believes in progressive reforms. He appears to have walked because, despite his excellent work, the government as a whole (probably not James Purnell himself) just does not look interested in pursuing them.
Or take the government’s overall legislative programme. Of course, the Marine and Coastal Access Bill is necessary but, with the exception of the Royal Mail Bill the government’s legislative programme seems to be rather empty. Watch the Parliament Channel any evening (as sadly I do) and there just doesn’t seem to be anything much going on.
Where are the policies to raise standards in schools, to drive choice and contestablility in healthcare, to reduce and remove our reliance on carbon power generation, to address anti-social behaviour and increase personal security, to show Labour are as radical after 12 years in office as they were after 18 years in Opposition?
I believe New Labour isn’t dead. Just sleepwalking to disaster. Labour has just months to put that right. To heed Tony’s warning.
Not really that extraordinary
The news today that Britain was afterall involved in helping to take two Al-Qaida terrorists out of Iraq and hand them over to the Americans to be interrogated has been greeted with the usual hand-wringing.
Ministers and their officials didn’t know at the time but is this so-called extraordinary rendition really extraordinary at all?
Why on Earth should Pakistani terrorists illegally in Iraq, engaged in military actions against Coalition troops and the population of Iraq, be treated as though they were local civilians?
When people argue that this is a War Crime or a violation of the Geneva Convention they are playing the terrorists’ game for them: accepting that somehow an armed foreign fighter in a theatre of war is somehow actually a civilian.
In Northern Ireland IRA terrorist hunger strikers died to be recognised as prisoners of war. British governments refused to accept that status but almost certainly operated a “shoot to kill” policy towards IRA terrorists at times during the Troubles.
Today, we are supposed to feel bad about Britain for recognising foreign fighters in Iraq as combatants rather than civilians.
These people were in Iraq to kill British and other Coalition forces and terrorise genuine Iraqi civilians. They weren’t there on holiday or pilgrimage. They were captured in theatre and, as I understand it fully within the rules of the Geneva Convention, handed over to our allies and removed from the theatre of war. So what?
The Geneva Convention rightly, seeks to put in place a framework to protect civilians. What a shame that across the World terrorists don’t apply the Convention, instead they deliberately target or use civilians as part of their military campaign.
It is time Britain stopped beating ourselves up for treating foreign fighters like terrorist combatants not friendly civilians.
Go for it Gordon
Gordon Brown will next week address a joint session of both houses of the US Congress. This is a tremendous honour for him and for Britain. When Tony Blair made a similar speech in 2003 it was a brilliant performance the impact of which was muted because of the death of Dr David Kelly the following day.
The Prime Minister should use his speech to make the case for continued intervention in Afghanistan; not just the social programmes and electoral registration but the tough, targetted military intervention that continues to benefit us all at home through tackling the Taliban who happliy hosted terrorist cells, the terrorists themselves who continue to plot ’spectaculars’ in our country and the narcotics industry that also deals in death.
He should argue for larger military commitments by NATO members – and a larger number of NATO members too.
Go for it Gordon. Don’t just make the easy speech about shared values but the tough one about shared military service, shared sacrifice and shared security.
I disown Bryan Gould
Those like me (and almost no-one else I know in the Labour Party) who voted for Bryan Gould to be both Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in the same election against John Smith will have been disappointed to read his piece in the Guardian today entitled, ”I disown this Government’.
I helped organise some meetings in Newcastle and on Tyneside for Gould. As a result of being a supporter of his in Nick Brown’s East Newcastle CLP I had to spend a period of two years when I couldnt even get elected to be one of the two constituency auditors – including being beaten by no-one at one AGM!
The reason I supported Gould was that at the time has was a moderniser. He wanted to change the way power in the Labour Party was exercised and by whom. He wanted Labour to have an appeal to the English middle class and to break out of the traditional ghettos of Labour support which had condemned the Labour Party to years of opposition. To me, Bryan Gould was new Labour before it was fashionable. I backed him but he betrayed us. Today’s article is just the latest stage of his own personal betrayal of Labour’s modernisers.
When Gould lost both elections at the same time (to John Smith and Margaret Beckett) rather than stay and fight for what he believed in he flounced out of British politics altogether to live on the other side of the World. Today, Gould (whose experience actually serving in a government is nil) seems to think that his views about British politics from his ivory tower 12,000 miles away actually still count for something significant. He lost all legitimacy to be taken seriously when he couldn’t stand the heat and got out of the kitchen.
I disagree with the content and tone of Gould’s article: the language of ‘betrayal’, which so peppers his writing, is reminiscent of the ritual denunciations of the Trotskyite Left (he should remember because they accused him of precisely that in the 1980s when he called for wider share ownership in Britain and was all but booed off at Party conference); his analysis that the Labour government has rejected “any decent and civilised values” is simply hysterical.
Others no doubt will want to challenge his economic argument. I just want to comment on his international one. He denounces the Iraq War as a contravention of civilised norms, based on a lie, which undermined the UN and destroyed Iraq. Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Firstly, the Iraq War was waged to remove weapons of mass destruction and, as a positive byproduct, end the fascistic regime of Saddam Hussein, his psychopathic sons and their henchmen. Would it have been more ’civilised’ to let the regime continue to torture, kills and commit genocide against its own people?
Second, the war was fought because Saddam refused to comply with UN resolutions. Governments across the World believed that he possessed WMD. Yes, there were differences of opinion on the actions that should follow. Yes, there were errors of intelligence, perhaps even of presentation. But no, the governments that were part of the Coalition of the Willing did not lie. And none of the (too) many inquiries have shown that they intended to.
Third, the UN was not undermined by the Iraq War. There was an effort – led by Tony Blair – to achieve a second resolution but it was vetoed by President Chirac who made clear he would oppose military action whatever. No-one knows if that resolution had been passed if Saddam would have woken up and smelled the coffee and started to properly comply with the UN resolutions. What is clear though is that what undermines the UN is the failure of its Security Council members to properly enforce its resolutions – and the failure of the UN to be able to resolve anything at all, as with Kosovo.
Fourthly, Iraq was not destroyed. Iraq today is a democracy where record numbers of people participate in peaceful elections. There have been challenges, failures in the initial period after the liberation to ensure security for all but, Iraq today is rebuilding itself and showing that democracy can flourish in a majority muslim country in the Middle East.
Those of us who stayed and fought for the creation of New Labour, the successful election victories of 1997, 2001 and 2005, who contributed to the success of Labour in government, who continue to support this government in the difficult economic times since Tony Blair left office do not need Bryan Gould to disown us. He was never part of us when it happened. He never owned it in the first place.
…And the winner is…
In a workplace that I suspect these days doesn’t get many feel good moments, the decision by President Obama to invite Gordon Brown to be the first serving leader to be welcomed to the White House will have felt like manna from heaven. The winner is Gordon Brown.
Perhaps this is a reflection on the state of the special relationship, perhaps it is a ‘thank you’ for Britain’s continued military commitments in support of the USA in Afghanistan or perhaps it is preparation for the ‘Global Deal’ the Prime Minister hopes to secure at the G20 Summit in London. Whatever the reason, it is good news that Brown and through him Britain, is being honoured in this way.
The important thing now is that Gordon Brown uses the visit to make a point. For too long, in too many parts of the media and public life in Britain, there has been a hostility to the USA, sometimes bordering on the zenophobic. Anti-Americanism – especially during GWB years – became fashionable amongst a metropolitan elite who seemed to forget that peace in Europe was saved twice in the 20th Century by the courage and sacrifice of American troops and freedom was secured during the Cold War by their preparedness to do it a third time.
When I was in No10 I lost count of the number of times people said to me that they really wanted to see Tony Blair repeat the scene from ‘Love Actually’ where the PM attacks the US President in public.
Frankly, there are still too many people in politics and the media who believe a “Love Actually” moment would have been good news for Britain. Take ten seconds to think what we gain from our closeness to the USA in terms of security alone and the idea of following the script from that particular comedy becomes truely laughable.
Gordon should use the honour of being the first serving leader to visit the President to reaffirm Britain’s pride in the special relationship, to make the case for our continued military partnership against terrorism in Afghanistan and to publicly show our support for the only Superpower which has even been prepared to sacrifice the lives of its troops for our freedom. The USA is more than Britain’s most important bilateral relationship, it is our most important, most enduring and most effective alliance and one which we should celebrate whoever is in the White House.
And on the theme of winners good luck to Frost/Nixon tonight at the Oscars.
Obama sends more troops to Afghanistan: NATO members must do more too
In preparation for the expected Taliban spring offensive President Obama has announced the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan – an army brigade and a brigade of marines.
America already has about 14,000 troops serving with the Nato-led mission and another 19,000 troops under sole US command fighting the Taleban and al-Qaeda insurgents. Britain has something like 9000 troops in Afghanistan.
So the US and UK already make up around 60% of the 55,000 troop deployment.
The President’s announcement further demonstrates the extent to which Britain and America are shouldering the Afghanistan (and Pakistan) burden, whilst the rest of the Alliance benefits from the increased domestic security these commitments bring.
Take for example Operation Diesel – jointly executed by British and American troops in Helmand province between 6 February and 11 February.
The Operation disrupted facilities for making improvised bombs as well as seizing heroin and drug-making chemicals with a street value of more than £50m.
I said on Sunday that NATO members must step up to the plate. The President’s announcement makes that even more necessary, even more urgent.
Recent Comments