Learning to love Gordon

Total number of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan = 334

It was a hell of a choice. 

Duty ruled that I had to read the Sunday Times today. Should I buy it or pay a £1 on line. I do not want to encourage payments for on-line papers - especially Murdoch ones. As I had a hour's wait for a train, I bought a copy. Happily it did not carry the story that I feared it would.

Possibly it's because I cannot answer questions about suspect Russian spy 'LbDem MP Mike Hancock and his planted accomplice' without laughing. I gushingly praised Mike for his robust independence and his originality on social policy in Europe. Unknown outside of Portsmouth, where he is still a councillor, he has made a major impression in Europe.  I missed the Sunday Times story last week but the Guardian did a copycat version. I hope to see Mike tomorrow. I'll quiz him on his career as a spy. No doubt, Mike the brilliant raconteur will have some hilarious stories to relate. 

Of course I could always be wrong. I could be stabbed with the poison-tipped umbrella. But it's very unlikely. Life is rarely that interesting or that melodramatic except in the fantasy world of the Sunday Times..

Gordon's enemy

Blair is persuading me to love Gordon Brown.

My track record on Gordon is immaculate. I was one of only 27 Labour MPs who did not vote for him as Labour Leader. I publicly and in the PLP to his face told him to go as leader in July 2009.  I cringed at his 10p tax gaffe and his Rochdale indiscretion into a Murdoch microphone. Because he stubbornly clung to power Labour lost seats that we would have won this year with any other Leader.

But he lost ground because he is Gordon, not because he is not 'new' Labour.  Blair's attempt to defenestrate Brown is the start of a Brown re-assessment. Brown had many sterling qualities that Blair lacked. Almost any enemy of Blair must have some merit. As things are going now, Blair is likely to be hammered as the first PM to reveal royal confidences. Not that there are any surprises in what he says. But it could poison future relationships between PM and Monarch. Not a bad thing really. It's an unhealthy relationship when it's abused by Charles and Blair secretly to plot against the civilising Hunting Act to appease the blood thirsty appetite of rural animal tormenters. 

I've never been a Brownite or a Blairite - until now.

Independent on Sunday.

MPs get their first chance to vote on Afghan withdrawal

Commons to have its say as ex-Army chief Dannatt condemns Blair and Brown over defence spending

By Matt Chorley, Political correspondent

Sunday, 5 September 2010

• SHARE
• PRINT
• EMAIL
• TEXT SIZE
  • NORMAL
  • LARGE
  • EXTRA LARGE

The Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, will this week face calls to set out a detailed timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan in the first major Commons vote since the war began almost nine years ago.

New powers handed to backbenchers will allow MPs to debate the continued deployment of British forces, with many of the record new intake expected to express unease at the timescale for troops coming home.

In a sign of the shifting focus in the war-torn country, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, yesterday announced he had formed a council to pursue peace talks with the Taliban. Many in Westminster now accept the only hope of a settlement is through negotiating with insurgents, not by pursuing ongoing military action.

To date, 332 British military personnel have died in Afghanistan since 2001, while 1,500 have been wounded in action. Last night Mr Fox ordered an urgent review into reports in The Sunday Times that 5,000 wounded war heroes classed as medically unfit would be forced out of the forces to cut costs. He wanted to "ensure that those who have fought and sacrificed for their country are treated in a proper and honourable fashion".

The Commons vote comes amid claims the Blair-Brown rivalry at the heart of the Labour government caused "impossible operational pressures" for the armed forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The former head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, uses a new book, Leading from the Front, serialised in The Sunday Telegraph, to claim Gordon Brown was a "malign" influence by failing to fund military commitments agreed by his government. Tony Blair lacked the "moral courage" to overrule his Chancellor.

The coalition has empahsised that British forces will not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely. David Cameron expects the Afghan forces to take control of security by 2014 with a deadline for the withdrawal of British combat troops set for the following year. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, last week staged a surprise visit to Camp Bastion, and claimed the military campaign was "turning the corner" – though he admitted he had "no idea exactly how and when we will succeed".

However, a new YouGov poll shows that 30 per cent of the public think British troops should be brought home "immediately" while a further 42 per cent said "soon". Just 7 per cent thought the UK was "winning the war with the Taliban". The Independent on Sunday understands that a growing number of MPs from across the political spectrum have doubts about the claim that the presence of British troops in Afghanistan makes Britain's streets safer.

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and long-standing opponent of the conflict, said: "At the moment Parliament is not doing its job. The majority of the public would like to see the troops home before Christmas, and Parliament is not reflecting that. The Government and all the main politicians are in denial on this. They are divorced from reality.

"Nick Clegg said we have turned a corner in Afghanistan. We have turned so many corners we have been around the block many times – and we are still in hell."

Both the Netherlands and Canada announced withdrawal plans after a shift in public mood at home. While the Ministry of Defence understands the political reasons to set out a plan to withdraw by 2015 at the latest, senior figures are "unhappy" at the amount of detail given.

"I don't think we can discount the possibility of an exit earlier than 2015," one minister said. "If the Americans decided to come out earlier, we are not going to be there on our own."

In 2001, 13 Labour rebels made clear their protest against the conflict in a vote on a technicality in the House of Commons. However, Thursday's debate is being seen as the first time MPs have been able to vote on a substantive motion, which reads: "That this House supports the continued deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan."

Peter Bone, a Tory MP and member of the Backbench Business Committee, whose son has served in the RAF in Afghanistan, said: "We want the Commons, for the first time, to say whether it wants to continue in Afghanistan or not. On Iraq we had a proper vote and debate on it." Longer-serving MPs are still angry with John Reid, who, as Labour's defence secretary, said in 2006, as troops moved into the south: "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years' time without firing one shot."

Tim Farron, a Liberal Democrat MP and co-chair of the party's foreign policy group, said: "I want them out sooner rather than later, but also we need to look at how we achieve our security in Afghanistan." Talks with the Taliban were needed, he added. "The crucial thing now is accepting that some of the people running at least part of Afghanistan might be a bit ugly."

Comments

[Kay Tie]

"Brown had many sterling qualities that Blair lacked."

I'm sure there were some. None spring to mind, though.

Nope, after a full two minutes of trying to think about it, I can't think of any qualities Brown had over Blair, other than negative ones like "not messianic" - but that's absence of a negative quality.

Any ideas?

[Paul Flynn]

Brown is better on the economy and will be credited for saving the world from slump. His labour convictions are deeply rooted. He does not love money, his new interests will reflect his idealism. He is not obsessed with superficialities and he would not have joined Bush's war in Iraq because he does not have a Messianic image of himself

[Kay Tie]

"Brown is better on the economy and will be credited for saving the world from slump."

Hehehe, good one! I never knew you had such a wicked sense of humour, Paul.

[D.G.]

If you're going to continue to campaign for troop withdrawal Paul, I hope you'll include the Tongan troops and any private security forces we might be paying for.

[Ad]

'If you're going to continue to campaign for troop withdrawal Paul, I hope you'll include the Tongan troops and any private security forces we might be paying for.'

This government like the last one, is as Paul says ‘divorced from reality’. This government like the last one is acting as the supporter of American imperialism. Undermining foolish governments, military top brass and their docile media servants is a worthwhile target. It is also a very important subject.

[Paul Flynn]

Agree Ad. The whole house of cards would collapse if the truth was revealed. The USA is paying protection money to private armies, and mercenaries and indirectly to the Taliban to keep their operation functioning.

[DG]

"The USA is paying protection money to private armies, and mercenaries and indirectly to the Taliban to keep their operation functioning."

Does that statement apply to the UK too?

[Kay Tie]

"Does that statement apply to the UK too?"

If so then there's precious little sign of the cash.

[Ad]

'Does that statement apply to the UK too?'

Yes the British government has hired mercenaries or PMSCs as they are called in Afghanistan. There are several hundred of them altogether I think. There are also British PMSCs hired privately by NGOs, businesses etc. essentially acting as highly trained and heavily armed security guards.

These numbers are dwarfed by those contracted to the American government, said to be in the tens of thousands. They are not used on offensive operations, i.e. to take a district from insurgents or assasinate somebody. They do however become involved in low-intensity conflicts and violent situations. There are concerns about abuses and human rights violations because of a lack of oversight and accountability. Acting supposedly in a defensive capacity in areas of conflict will inevitably lead to the lines becoming blurred.

Karzai has recently called for PMSCs to be phased out and disbanded over the next few months. There are exceptions for those contracted to NGOs, embassies etc.

[OSBORN FRANCIS]

Not to miss the main thrust of all this, but;

"It's an unhealthy relationship when it's abused by Charles and Blair secretly to plot against the civilising Hunting Act to appease the blood thirsty appetite of rural animal tormenters."

Mr Blair and Prince Charles secretly colluded to derail the Hunting Act?

Got any evidence for that!?

[Patrick]

Francis
Perhaps you could start by reading 'Bliars' sick book.
He (probably like you) hated the hunting bill and has now publically admitted to sabotage.

He instructed Hazel Blears to do the above and created so many deliberate loopholes so that this joke 'law'would be impossible to police.

He told his ministers to derail it, the police not to uphold it, and bet Charles that it would not lead to it's demise.

Work it out for yourself!