Tendence Grouchy

Israel and Gaza

2006-08-17T11:34:00.000+01:00

If you want to know what it is like to live in Gaza now that Israel has supposedly given it back to the Palestinians, you need to read this.

The latest UK `terror' plot

2006-08-14T14:16:00.000+01:00

This week the British media have been full of the terror plot that `Dr' John Reid, UK Home Secretary, claims to have just foiled. The facts that we know for sure are very limited. The Independent set them out today:

1) 23 Muslims, aged between 17 and 35, are being questioned by police about an alleged plot to blow up airliners flying between the UK and USA. They come from Birmingham, High Wycombe and Walthamstow.

2) Pakistani police have arrested several men accused of being linked to the alleged plot.

3) Britain's official `threat level' was raised to critical early on Thursday morning.

4) John Reid is in control of the Government response via his chairing of the Cobra civil contingencies committee.

5) Stringent new security checks have proved extremely disruptive in UK airports.

I would add another fact that The Independent did not state.

6) The Government and police have form in hyping the terrorist threat for their own political ends.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has given us his conclusions as to what is happening -

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand
British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent
are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an
appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few -
just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of
anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon
while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

I highly recommend reading the whole piece, which is very instructive. For now though, I will leave you with his concluding remarks -

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

How Israel treats the Palestinians

2006-08-12T19:39:00.000+01:00

`Today, August 11, the Israeli army and Border Police brutally prevented Bil’in’s weekly non-violent demonstration, by firing rubber bullets and sound grenades on protestors as they marched through the village on their way to the Apartheid wall. Fourteen people from Bil’in, Israelis and internationals, have been injured, including an Israeli in critical condition who was shot on neck and just above his right ear with 3 rubber bullets at close range. He has had surgery at Tel Hashomer hospital to remove a rubber bullet that was lodged in his skull. Currently he is in a medical induced coma in moderate but stable condition, but has sustained brain damaged of unknown severity.

Another demonstrator from Denmark, Rina, has suffered a fracture in her skull and brain contusion after a soldier beat her with the butt of his gun. She is currently hospitalized in Hebron, West Bank and is conscious but unable to walk. She was also beaten on her legs and sustained minor injuries.'

More here.

International Tribunal on Israeli War Crimes

2006-08-12T15:21:00.000+01:00

`We, the undersigned, demand that The United Nations General Assembly immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a ‘subsidiary organ’ under U.N. Charter Article 22 to prosecute the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, Chief of Staff Halutz and Israel’s other top generals and war criminals for their infliction of international war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine.'

You can sign it here.

UPDATE: There is a a partial list of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon here.

Israeli war crimes: not just in Lebanon

2006-07-27T13:41:00.000+01:00

They are still murdering Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel's war crimes in Lebanon - who started it anyway?

2006-07-25T10:48:00.000+01:00

Many Western commentators have criticised or condemned Israel's current war crimes in Lebanon. Even Foreign Minister Kim `weasel words' Howells attacked Israel for targetting Lebanese people and infrastructure in its campaign against Hezbollah (until he got to Israel the next day, when he changed his emphasis. What a coward).

However, these same Western commentators are even more unified in their condemnation of Hezbollah for starting the trouble by `kidnapping' two Israeli soldiers. It should come as no surprise that the truth is somewhat different. Joshua Frank at antiwar.com has researched the original reports from Western news sources such as MSNBC, as well as independent reports. What has he discovered?

`These sources contend that Israel sent a commando force into southern
Lebanon and was subsequently attacked by Hezbollah near the village of Aitaa
al-Chaab, well inside Lebanon's southern territory. It was at this point that an
Israel tank was struck by Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the capture of
two Israeli soldiers and the death of six.

As the AFP
reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were
captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the
border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning."
And the French news site www.VoltaireNet.org
reiterated the same account on June 18, "In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a
commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by
Hezbollah, taking two prisoners."

The Associated
Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant
group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across
the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which
sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph
Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers'
captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said
on condition of anonymity."'

Surprise, surprise. The Israeli soldiers were not `kidnapped' in Israel. They were captured in Lebanon. Israel bears 100% responsibility - not only for its war crimes in Lebanon, but also for how it began. Once again Western journalists have proved to be spineless accomplices in the dissemination of Israeli propaganda.

UPDATE 26.7.06.: Further to Hezbollah allegedly `starting' the current crisis. It seems they have violated the Blue Line on the Israeli-Lebanese border 100 times. How many times has Israel violated it - 11,782. (Info from UN Observers, quoted by Lebanese Speaker of Parliament in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV).

MEPs and Palestine

2006-07-24T10:17:00.000+01:00

I still haven't had any reply from Baroness Ludford (Lib Dem) to my letter of June 13th about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The Baroness is one of nine London MEPs. However, I see from her newsletter that she has raised the issue of Israeli jets deliberately provoking anxiety through low-level sonic booms over Gaza. She reports thus:

London's Liberal Democrat Euro-MP and peer Baroness Sarah Ludford, a
member of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, this week asked the government during exchanges in the House of Lords to urge Israel to stop creating sonic booms over the Palestinian territories. Since the withdrawal of Israeli
settlers from Gaza in September 2005, the Israeli air force has reportedly been
using jets to break the sound barrier at low altitude over Gaza, thereby causing
sonic booms.

Sarah Ludford, who afterwards expressed disappointment that her
December 2005 letter to the Israeli ambassador on this topic had remained
unanswered, commented:

"My protest lies in the indiscriminate nature of this practice. I do
strongly support Israel's right to take legitimate action to protect its
security, but the damage caused by the sonic booms appears to be designed to
intimidate, in other words collective punishment which cannot be morally
justified."

"The UN's demand for an end to this practice points out that amongst
children sonic booms can cause anxiety, bedwetting, muscle spasms, temporary
loss of hearing and breathing difficulties. It is wrong for Israel to inflict
this suffering if the military justification present in other Israeli Defence
Force actions is here absent."

It is interesting to note that the Baroness's letter to the Israeli ambassador has been totally ignored. And this despite the fact that she is a member of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel! It just shows the contempt the Israeli authorities have for any criticism at all, however mild, and whoever it is from. Israel demands the right to `self-defence'. However, this self-defence is the right to commit war crimes against anyone, anywhere as they so choose; and to totally ignore any criticism from any source.

Baroness Ludford needs to take a long hard look at her attitude to Israel. Yes, it is good that she has raised this matter. No, it is not good that she appears to be turning a blind eye to all the other war crimes the Israelis are committing against the Palestinians.

You can write to your MEPs here.

Walthamstow MP Watch: Middle East crisis 2

2006-07-21T20:01:00.000+01:00

On the 18th July I wrote to Neil Gerrard, Labour MP for Walthamstow, to ask him if he could in any way bring pressure to bear to stop the Israeli government's current war crimes in Lebanon. I am pleased to say that I have already received a letter in reply. In it he sets out his opposition to Israeli actions, and details a House of Commons motion on the issue. Here is the letter:

You can write to your political representatives via writetothem.com .

MEPs reply on Israel and Lebanon

2006-07-21T19:43:00.000+01:00

On the 14th July I wrote to 8 of the 9 London MEPs (excluding the UKIP MEP because he won't do anything). I have now had two replies. This is the letter from John Bowis (Con):

I was pleasantly surprised that he agreed that Israel must be restrained, and that aid should not be cut to the Palestinians. I expected a harder line response from a Conservative MEP. That was to come from Dr Charles Tannock, another Conservative MEP. He e-mailed me as follows:

Opinions are, of course, divided on this controversial issue and I
support the G8 position as well as the EU Council declaration. The
responsibility for the tragic killing on the Gaza beach remains disputed, as
according to admittedly Israeli sources the ordnance used was not theirs.
Furthermore, it is clear that Israel having withdrawn from Gaza and south
Lebanon in what was supposed to be a land for peace deal has instead found this
territory to be rapidly filled by terrorists committed to the total destruction
of the state of Israel and not the two-state solution agreed in Oslo in
1993.
Therefore, I believe Israel was provoked deliberately and although I call
for restraint and dialogue within international law, I accept Israel's right to
self-defence and retaliation against terrorist strongholds. I have
nevertheless questioned the Israeli Ambassador to the EU as to why in Gaza
civilian infrastructure was targeted such as water supplies for which there was
no justification and therefore I condemn this particular act as
disproportionate.
Nevertheless, until Israel can live peaceably within its borders there is
no hope for the 2003 roadmap for peace under the Quartet and I hope that the
recent escalation of Israeli military action will secure the release of Israeli
soldiers and stop rockets being fired on Israeli territory at civilian targets,
as otherwise there are no prospects for a durable peace in the region. I
also believe that Iran and Syria have been connected directly with this
provocation as a distraction from their own disputes with the international
community. I also call upon Lebanon to implement UNSCR 1559 and disarm
Hezbollah as previously directed.

Yours
sincerely

Dr. Charles Tannock MEP

I felt there was a great deal to disagree with here, so I responded as follows:

Dear Dr Tannock,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful
reply to my e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to reply to an
individual constituent such as myself. I am heartened to hear that have tackled
the Israeli Ambassador to the EU on the question of the targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Gaza. Would you permit me to briefly respond to some of the
points that you have made?

Firstly, Israel's denials of
responsibility for the killings on Gaza beach are not credible. The Independent
reported (`Revealed: the shrapnel evidence that points to Israel's guilt) on 14
June that a former Pentagon battle damage expert, Marc Garlasco, said "All the
evidence points" to a 155mm Israeli land-based artillery shell as being
responsible. There is much more detail in the article which I will not repeat
here.

Secondly, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral, and
not part of any `land for peace deal'. As I am sure you are aware, Israel always
refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians on the grounds that there is no
partner for peace. The plain fact is that Israel does not want a partner for
peace. It simply wishes to impose its own designs unilaterally, in which it is
nearly always aided and supported by western politicians, who have a great deal
to answer for.

You say Gaza was `rapidly filled by
terrorists'. Are you calling the entire Palestinian population terrorists? That
seems to me to be a very extreme comment. Terrorism is often defined as the use
of violence for political ends. It seems very strange how the Palestinians, or
anyone who supports them, seem to be almost uniquely singled out for
this description, and how this is used as a term of abuse i.e. terrorists equal
people who can never be acknowledged or negotiated with. This flies entirely in
the face of history - especially that of the British Empire. Those who used
violence to oppose colonial rule (just as the rulers used violence to
maintain that rule) often became respected statesmen after independence had
been achieved, and established good diplomatic relations. Israel itself was
established through an extensive campaign of terrorism and violence, some of it
against British troops, as I am sure you are very well
aware.

Israel has since maintained its rule through extensive use
of state terror. Western politicians are very quick to condemn Palestinian
suicide bombings (which I should make clear I do not support). But the Israelis
have murdered many more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian `terrorists'
have Israel civilians. How often are those killings condemned, or even
acknowledged? The Palestinians held free democratic elections and elected Hamas.
Western governments then disgracefully supported Israel's attempts to starve the
Palestinians into submission for having the temerity to elect the `wrong'
government.

You refer to the two-state solution. Whatever the
Israelis may say to placate their supporters in the west, they have no intention
of accepting any such solution. They are still stealing Palestinian land through
their `security wall' with the intention of limiting the Palestinians to a few
disconnected `bantustans' which will never be able to cohere into a state.
Western governments have shamefully colluded in this. The ever more desperate
situation of the Palestinians is a running sore on the face of the world,
and all western politicians will do is blame them for their own situation,
collude with every Israeli act of violence against them, and then wonder why
terrorism is increasing. It is increasing out of desperation.

The
only way to put a stop to this appalling situation is a one-state solution.
Israel/Palestine must be a democratic nation where Jew and Arab are equal
and can live in peace. Everything Israel does is designed to prevent this from
happening. Everything western governments do colludes with this. But there
is no other way.

Thank you for your time.

Yours
sincerely,
Grouchy.

Middle East Crisis: what can we do?

2006-07-21T19:20:00.000+01:00

I suggest that the most important thing we can do is go on the demonstrations on Saturday 22nd July. The main one is in London, but there are others in Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Sheffield, and York.

But I also think it's worth writing to your MP and MEP. It's very easy. Just go to writetothem.com, and as long as you know your own postcode all the details are provided for you. This is the letter I wrote to 8 of the 9 London MEPs (I didn't bother with the UKIP MEP because he won't do anything) on July 14th:

Dear MEP,
I write to you as one of your London constituents. Given the very grave
events currently taking place in the Middle East, I am writing to you to ask you
to use your influence as an MEP to persuade the European Union to take a
constructive role in reversing Israel's actions against its
neighbours.

Up to now the EU has simply seemed to tail the USA in
their quite appalling encouragement of Israel's state terrorism against the
Palestinians. It is vital that the EU plays a more independent role now that
Israel has once again invaded the Lebanon. The EU must call for -

-
the total withdrawal by Israel of all military forces from the Lebanon
- the
ending of the aerial and naval blockade of the Lebanon
- no recurrence of
these attacks
- an end to the blockade of Gaza, and the withholding of
Palestinian revenues

Anything less will do nothing to reduce
the danger of a wider war, and may only increase it.

Thank you for
your time.

Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.

Also, write letters to newspapers. This is my letter to my local newspaper:

Dear Editor,
Walthamstow MP Neil Gerrard made an excellent contribution to a recent
debate in Parliament on the tragic situation in the Middle East.
He said, `No one in this House in any way supports kidnapping or the
firing of rockets into Israel, but...collective punishment is clearly against
international law and has been
regularly and routinely used by Israel over
the years. It is being used again now in Lebanon'.
The Israelis are bombing Lebanon into dust, and have killed over 300
civilians. This has nothing to do with `stopping terrorism'. These are war
crimes against the Lebanese people.
Unfortunately, the British government has
joined the USA in refusing to call for a ceasefire. President Bush only has to
shout `Yo Blair', and Tony comes running like an obedient puppydog for his
orders.
If you think our government should be doing everything it can to help
find a peaceful solution, you can do something about it. For a start you can
contact your MP. It is very easy to send an email via www.writetothem.com . You
only need to know your own postcode.
You can also contact your MEPs about the
European Union's attitude in the same way. I have had some good correspondence
with some of London's 9 MEPs in this way.
Please raise your voice to force the government to take
action.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.

BBC News - written in Tel Aviv

2006-07-21T18:37:00.000+01:00

It is quite astonishing just how brazen the BBC are in reproducing Israeli propaganda about what Israeli forces are doing in Lebanon.

Dear BBC,

Why is a news service funded by the British licence-fee payer
broadcasting Israeli propaganda about the events in the Lebanon, instead of at
least attempting to report even-handedly?
In today's lunchtime news,
newsreader Sophie Raeworth (I think that's her name) told us that `Israel has
bombed more Hezbollah targets' in the Lebanon.

This is pure Israeli propaganda. The Israelis have bombed roads,
airports, factories, housing and just about everything else. Are all these
`Hezbollah targets'? It is quite disgraceful that a British TV news service is
swallowing and regurgitating blatant propaganda.

If you continue to do this - which no doubt you will - you will forfeit
any right to be funded by the licence fee. You are not entitled to my
licence-fee to produce propaganda for Israel - or anyone else for that matter.

If you can't do the job properly, don't bother doing it at
all.

Yours,

Grouchy.

That was the lunchtime news. I didn't see the six o'clock news. But, lo and behold, at ten o'clock:

Dear BBC,

I have already complained about Sophie Raeworth on the lunchtime news
stating that Israel `had bombed more Hezbollah targets' in Lebanon. Now Fiona
Bruce, summing up the headlines at the end of the News at Ten, said that Israel
`had bombed more Hezbollah targets in Beirut'.

This is absolutely
scandalous. Israel has bombed just about everything in the Lebanon - factories,
airports, housing - anything and everything. Just what is it about these things
that makes them `Hezbollah targets', and just how has the BBC independently
verified this is the case? Quite obviously most of these places have nothing to
do with Hezbollah, and the BBC has verifed nothing independently.

You have simply taken Israeli state propaganda, swallowed it
whole, then vomited it out over the British population. I will ask you again.
Why is a British TV news service, funded by British licence-fee payers,
producing propaganda for the state of Israel? Just what do you think you are
doing? If you continue along this road of producing propaganda you will no
longer be entitled to funding from the licence-fee. Why don't you be honest and
get your funding from Washington and Tel Aviv? You are a disgrace.

Yours,

Grouchy.

I think we need a campaign to remove the licence-fee from BBC News, or just to cancel it altogether and let the BBC collapse. I am tired of being lied to. You can tell the BBC what you think here.

Walthamstow MP Watch: Middle East crisis

2006-07-18T22:33:00.000+01:00

If you are a UK citizen, what can you do about Israel's current war crimes against its neighbours? Well, it might not seem like much, but I do think it's worth writing to your political representatives in Westminster and Brussels. This is what I wrote to Neil Gerrard, Labour MP for Walthamstow:

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I am writing to ask you if there is anything you can do as a Member of
Parliament to bring pressure to bear to prevent the Israeli Government from
continuing its current round of war crimes in Gaza and the Lebanon.

Once again Israel is murdering civilians in its neighbour
countries. Once again the USA has vetoed a motion critical of Israel at the
United Nations. Just for once our Government must stop tailending the US
neo-conservatives and speak out for humanitarian values.

Both Britain and the European Union must stop supporting Israeli
war crimes. I would be grateful if you could do anything to
help.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Neil Gerrard is a principled MP, and it doesn't surprise me at all that he made this contribution to a debate in Parliament on the 17th July on the situation:

No one in this House in any way supports kidnapping or the firing of rockets
into Israel, but does my hon. Friend accept that collective punishment is
clearly against international law and has been regularly and routinely used by
Israel over the years? It is being used again now in Lebanon, with the bombing
of infrastructure and targeted assassinations from the air that inevitably cause
civilian casualties, as the Israelis know when they do it. Those are not the
actions of a responsible Government. In comparing the actions of Hezbollah and
Israel, let us remember that Israel is a Government and a state, not an
organisation like Hezbollah. One expects any state that claims to be a democracy
and is a member of the UN to abide by
international law.

This is a sound and valuable contribution to the debate. Compare it to the weasel words of Government minister, Kim Howells, in reply:

We certainly expect Israel to abide by international law and we are
totally opposed to collective punishment. My hon. Friend is right in recalling
the history of relationships between Israel and its neighbours since the second
world war. There is a great difference now. Hezbollah recognises no
international law and targets civilians directly. Hamas's terrorist elements
murder civilians directly. That is the way in which terrorists operate. It is
difficult, as we have found in this country to our great pain, to understand how
such an enemy operates, and it is still more difficult to erect defences against
such attacks. That is not to excuse collective punishment, as my hon. Friend
puts it, but we must also try to understand that there are some very
unscrupulous organisations around that operate across frontiers, owe allegiance
to no one and are prepared to use any murderous techniques they care to invent
to achieve their ends. That is a very difficult enemy with which to
negotiate.

This is disgraceful, disreputable garbage. About eight Lebanese civilians have died for each Israeli civilian killed since Israel launched its war crimes against the Lebanon. Hezbollah only fired rockets into Haifa (which I do not support) after Israel deliberately killed many civilians and attacked vital Lebanese infrastructure. Howells is a cowardly careerist who - for the sake of his career - crawls to Blair, who - for the sake of what exactly? - crawls on his belly to Bush.

To put pressure on the cowards in the British government, go here.

BBC News lacks balance - so what else is new?

2006-07-18T14:07:00.000+01:00

The BBC's coverage of the current tragic events in the Middle East is as unbalanced as we have come to expect. The usual kinds of bias were on show in last night's Ten o'Clock News:

Dear BBC,

Gavin Hewitt's piece on the current strife in the Middle
East was not a balanced report. For example, he asked Lebanese refugees in an
aggressive, accusatory way whether they agreed with Hezbollah firing rockets
into Israel. No such questions about Israel bombing and killing civilians were
put to Israelis.

Also, the order of events is being fudged as well as
the comparative scale. Israel attacked civilians first, on a massive scale.
Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel only after this happened. Civilian deaths on
any side are reprehensible, but why is it that the far fewer Israeli casulaties
are given much greater prominence than the many more Lebanese casualties?

Once again the BBC has failed to provide even-handed reports, instead
propagandising on behalf of the Israelis.

Yours,

Grouchy.

It really is quite stunning that a British news service, funded by British licence-fee payers, should see its role as propagandising on behalf of Israel. Of course, Israel has numerous supporters in this country, and some of them are quite prepared to justify Israel's state terrorism against its neighbours (step forward Maureen Lipman). But it is certain that there is a majority that does not want to see either Israel attacking Lebanon's infrastructure, or Hezbollah attacking Haifa. So why does the BBC see fit to side with the minority against the majority?

Because the British government is a US plaything, and the USA is the principal backer of Israeli state terrorism. It is to the immense shame of both the British government, and the BBC, that they are so gutless and spineless.

You can let the BBC know what you think here.

UPDATE: This is absolutely essential reading. A detailed analysis of the BBC's disgraceful, spineless pro-Israel propaganda.

Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to the Conservatives?

2006-07-02T16:52:00.000+01:00

Nationwide, the local elections of 2006 were regarded as pretty good for the Tories. They achieved 40% of the popular vote and comfortably outdid Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, things didn't run quite so smoothly for the Tories in Waltham Forest - in fact they had a mini-catastrophe. By losing all three council seats to the Lib Dems in Hale End & Highams Park ward they fell from second to third-largest party in the borough. This was the only change for the Conservatives since the local elections of 2002:

Hale End & Highams Park........................lost 3 seats to the Liberal Democrats

The Tory vote dropped 5% in this ward, while the Lib Dem vote went up over 7%. This may have been tactical voting as Labour's share of the vote fell by nearly 6%, but it isn't really possible to know. The situation was complicated by the Greens standing and taking 3.6%, so where the votes may have moved since last time is unknowable.

The political geography of the borough is a little unusual in that the Tories are virtually unbeatable in the five northernmost wards, but apart from Hale End & Highams Park they are not in contention anywhere else. They have virtually no chance in any of the wards in the rest of the borough. Where there is any contest, it is between Labour and the Lib Dems, with the Tories basically just in the role of onlookers.

The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Tory vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Tory ward to the hardest for them to win.

WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS

Endlebury.....................72...........c. 67...........+5......................3
Chingford Green............70...............55.........+15......................3
Larkswood....................62...........c. 63...........+0......................3
Valley...........................61...........c. 54...........+7......................3
Hatch Lane...................58...............55...........+3......................3
Hale End & HP.............41...............46...........-5.......................0
Wood Street.................31................15..........+16.....................0
Hoe Street....................19................20..........-1........................0
Lea Bridge....................16................20..........-4........................0
Chapel End...................16................18..........-2........................0
Markhouse...................15................21..........-6........................0
Forest..........................14................11...........+3.......................0
Leytonstone.................12.................7............+5.......................0
Higham Hill..................10..............c. 10..........0........................0
William Morris..............10................15...........-5.......................0
High Street.....................8..................7...........+1.......................0
Cann Hall.......................8..............c. 5...........+3.......................0
Grove Green...................8..................8.............0.......................0
Cathall...........................7.................16..........-9........................0
Leyton...........................6.................7............-1........................0

The Tories only scored big increases in the safe ward of Chingford Green, and Wood Street. Why in those wards? If you have any ideas, please do tell. They scored increases in all five of their safest wards. Then, apart from Hale End & Highams Park, the ups and downs made no difference to any of the other results. The Conservatives are very much corralled in the north of the borough with no sign of any ability to break out in the foreseeable future.

In fact, for the forseeable future, the only way the Conservatives could control the Council would be in coalition with another party. So it was quite interesting to see a letter in the Walthamstow Guardian of 8th June 2006 (letters page not online) from Councillor G.A.Walker, Leader of the Conservative Group on the Council:

`I sent a letter to every Lib Dem councillor offering to form a joint
Lib Dem/Conservative administration which would have given them a 6:4 majority
in the cabinet and leader ship of the council ... it was not until 72 hours
before the annual council meeting that I received a formal indication from the
Lib Dems that they were declining my offer and had done a deal with the Labour
group ... We offered them the chance to jointly take control ... but they have
bottled out, again preferring to shield behind a Labour group upon whom to cast
the blame for failure.'

It is not at all surprising that the Lib Dems rejected this overture. Apart from the five northernmost wards, the Tories have little support in the borough. If the Lib Dems had put them into (shared) power, the opposition Labour Group would have taken the opportunity to `talk left' and appear as principled anti-Tories (whereas in power they implement Tory neo-liberal policies). The Lib Dems would suffer the consequences at the next election, and in all likelihood, Labour would win a majority in the borough. The Lib Dems would be set back for quite a few years.

To see just how limited the Conservatives chances are, the next table lists the Tories target wards in order from the easiest for them to win, to the hardest. The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward. As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case).

WARD......................CONS %.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D

Hale End & HP..........41................Lib Dem 44..................2%
Wood Street..............31................Lab 44..........................7%
Lea Bridge.................16................Lab 56........................16%
Markhouse................15................Lab 46........................16%
Forest.......................14................Lib Dem 44................16%
Hoe Street.................19................Lab 51........................17%
High Street..................8.................Lab 40.......................17%
Leytonstone..............12................Lab 46........................18%
William Morris...........10................Lab 45........................18%
Higham Hill...............10................Lib Dem 49................20%
Grove Green...............8................Lab 47.........................20%
Cathall........................7................Lab 46.........................20%
Chapel End................16................Lib Dem 56.................21%
Cann Hall....................8................Lib Dem 50.................22%
Leyton........................6.................Lib Dem 47.................22%

To gain overall control, the Conservatives would require a swing from Labour and the Liberal Democrats of about 17%. Barring political earthquakes that isn't going to happen. So any urgings from Labour to vote for them to keep the Tories out are completely meaningless in Waltham Forest. The Conservatives can look forward to opposition in perpetuity here - unless they can persuade another party to go into coalition with them.

European Union and Palestine: MEPs respond (sort of)

2006-06-30T16:05:00.000+01:00

2 or 3 weeks ago I wrote to the London Members of the European Parliament about the humanitarian problems in Palestine caused by the attempts of Israel, the USA, and the European Union to punish the Palestinians for democratically electing the `wrong' party, Hamas.

I have had three replies so far.

Here's the shortest, from Mary Honeyball, (Labour):

Thank you for your email addressed to Mary Honeyball. She has asked me to advise you that she has noted your comments.

Kind regards, Helen Hegarty, Assistant to Mary Honeyball MEP.

Er, fair enough. With several million constituents (all Londoners) I suppose it might be a bit much to ask for a personal reply. And at least she had the courtesy to respond. But it doesn't tell me her attitude to the issue. Surely a short statement could have been appended?

Here's number 2, from Gerard Batten, (UKIP):

I am afraid that I don't approve of the EU interfering in world trade or giving funds to anyone. Its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors in eleven years, and also the money it has handed over to the Palestinians in the past cannot be properly accounted for; i.e. we have no idea how much of it has ended up in the hands of terrorists. I also think it interesting that Yasser Arafat managed to die a multi-millionaire.

I attach a copy of my Personal Manifesto, which explains the basis upon which I hold my seat in the European Parliament. I am sure you will appreciate from this that I don't think the EU should be spending any British taxpayers’ money on anything.

Whether Britain sends aid to the Palestinians or not or reviews existing trade agreements should be something solely for the British government to decide so I am sorry but I will not be raising this matter in the Europarliament.

Yours sincerely,

Gerard Batten MEP

This is pretty much what I would expect UKIP to say. His response was extremely fast. He may not be willing to recognise the EU enough to take any action, but he does seem to respond to constituents quickly. Is that any comfort to you?

Here's number 3, from Dr Charles Tannock, (Conservative):

The Conservative Party does not support any funding to a Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authority (PA), unless they renounce violence, disarm and recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. In the past, hundreds of millions of Euros from the European Union including the UK have been donated in aid to the PA with little to show for it in terms of securing a lasting peace as envisaged in Oslo in 1993, there has instead been widespread corruption and embezzlement of public funds. I personally, although accepting the democratic victory of Hamas, regard them as a banned terrorist organization as do the EU and the USA and, therefore, would never countenance supporting any funds for them until they change their charter and terrorist ideology. The recent suicide bombing outrage in Tel Aviv and ostensibly carried out by Islamic Jihad was publicly supported politically by the Hamas PA Government which is an outrage. Nevertheless, I am committed to lasting peace in the Middle East with a two-state solution in which a viable democratic Palestinian state can live together in peace and security side by side with Israel within internationally recognized borders.

I have to say that I was staggered by the extraordinarily one-sided nature of this response, so I replied:

Dear Charles Tannock,

Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to my e-mail - not all your London MEP colleagues have had the courtesy to do so.

Normally I would not bother you any further, but I would ask you to allow me to respond very briefly to your comments, as they were so very one-sided. I can understand why you would consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. However, you make no reference whatever to the state terrorism of Israel, which I find astounding.

Israel has killed - and continues to kill - many more Palestinian citizens than the number of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinian organisations. The recent murders of the Palestinians on the beach in Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this. The current punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza, and the kidnapping by Israel of elected politicians, is yet another example of their lawless behaviour (shamefully backed up by both the USA and the EU).You completely ignore this.

Secondly, it is of no importance what you think of Hamas. They have been democratically elected by the people of Palestine. The game the European Union is playing in refusing to recognise them is a disgraceful capitulation to US warmongering in the Middle East. Israel itself was established by terrorists (who killed British soldiers as I am sure you are aware). Many independent states have been established at least in part through methods you would describe as terrorism - why do you uniquely single out the Palestinians for this treatment?

The shameful capitulation of the EU to US foreign policy in the Middle East - which you appear to wholeheartedly concur with - can only further delay any possibility of peace. Israel is still stealing land from the Palestinians, is still inflicting terror upon them, is still a completely lawless state which behaves wth contempt towards international law, and is still bristing with nuclear weapons which are totally ignored by both the EU and the USA (in contrast to Iran, which doesn't have any!!!).

If the policy statement you sent me remains Conservative Party policy on the Middle East you will share responsibility with the USA for all the needless death and destruction that will continue there until a just peace is brought into being. As far as I am concerned, until you change your policy, you will be completely unelectable and I will never vote Conservative at any election - European, national or local.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

So that leaves the following MEPs still to reply: John Bowis (Conservative), Claude Moraes (Labour), Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat), Syed Kamall (Conservative), Jean Lambert (Green), and Robert Evans (Labour).

Personally, I shall feel disinclined to vote for any of them at the next election if they can't even be bothered to send an acknowledgement. Just because they are working in Europe rather than in this country, that is no excuse for failing to be accountable to their constituents.

Blair `I'm 101% Behind It'

2006-06-15T17:04:00.000+01:00

This is what he is 101% behind.

Check it out. Look at all the photos. Yes, I do mean all of them.

Do you still believe this anything to do with exporting democracy?

If Blair has his way, democracy in the UK will look like these photos.

It's not too late for you to do something about it.

Do we really need proportional representation?

2006-06-14T19:50:00.000+01:00

After the local elections in May the Walthamstow Guardian was kind enough to publish a letter from me pointing out how lopsided the result was, due to the first-past-the-post voting system. In particular, I pointed out that Labour have 43% of the councillors from only 34% of the vote (and thus have 5 more councillors than they are entitled to by their share of the vote). And I also pointed to the fact that the Greens have no representation on the council despite more than 8,000 people voting for them. I concluded by stating that we needed proportional representation to get a fairer and more democratic result.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Someone called M.Griffiths had a letter published in response. As the Letters Page is not online I shall quote, `It is clearly not appreciated by Grouchy that it is proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience'.

Now that struck me as quite an extraordinary statement. So I replied, and once again the Guardian was kind enough to publish, on the 8th June, in edited form. I have no complaint about the letter being edited (it was probably a bit longer than would be regarded as ideal), but it is a pity that they cut the part that tied my general point into the local elections. Never mind. Here it is, with the parts edited out placed in square brackets - like this [....].

Dear Editor,
M.Griffiths writes to oppose proportional representation because `it is the proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience' (Letters June 1). Perhaps M.Griffiths could tell us which of these groups is responsible for the continuing occupation of Iraq, the attacks on our civil liberties [(ID cards, police `shoot to kill' policy)], the undermining of Parliament through the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill, or the lunatic privatisation of the NHS, education and council housing? Which group is responsible for the fact that while the privatised water companies post large profits for their shareholders they allow huge amounts of leakage and claim we are suffering from a drought?
The problem is the direct opposite. [Our foreign policy is run by the USA, and our domestic policy is run in the interests of big business to the detriment of us all].] All three of the main parties are neoconservative in foreign policy (i.e. do what the USA tells them to), and are neoliberal in domestic policy (privatising everything in sight in the interests of big business, and transferring wealth to the already powerful). The first past the post electoral system allows the big parties to ignore the wishes of the electorate. We need proportional representation not because it would be some kind of magic solution, but because it would begin to force the parties to listen to what we want,[rather than Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.]
[The current government was elected by 21.8% of the electorate (33% of those who voted). There is no majority for their current extremist policies. In the local elections Labour received 43% of the councillors from 34% of the vote - and have 5 more councillors than their share of the vote entitles them to. It took 2,229 votes to elect each Labour councillor, but 2,926 to elect each Liberal Democrat, and 3,132 to elect each Conservative. Perhaps M.Griffiths can tell us what it is about that that ensures good local government? I am neither a member or supporter of the Green Party, but I have no doubt that they have sufficient support across the borough to deserve to be represented on the Council.]

We need the smaller parties such as the Greens and Respect to represent the interests of ordinary people rather than the big corporations and the USA. [We need proportional representation to begin to get a more democratic system of national and local government, where what the majority of people want can no longer be ignored. That is called democracy. That is what we need.]
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.

US war crimes in Ramadi

2006-06-14T09:21:00.000+01:00

The destruction of Fallujah, and the mass murder of its citizens, wasn't enough for the current US government. Now they are repeating the war crimes in Ramadi, capital of the same province in Iraq. However, if you rely on BBC News to keep you informed about what's going on in the world you can expect to continue in blissful ignorance. Not one word about it.

If you want to complain about the poverty of the BBC's coverage of events in Iraq, go here. This is what I said:

Why has BBC News not reported anything about the current US assault on Ramadi in Iraq? This is shaping to be a major war crime - like the destruction of Fallujah but (as far as I know) the BBC has not said one word about it. Details can be found at http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=9136 . Civilians are being murdered, and a city destroyed. Why are you pretending nothing is happening?

The Independent abuses Chavez again

2006-06-13T23:58:00.000+01:00

I have referred before to the Independent on Sunday abusing the democratically elected Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. Now the daily paper has been up to the same old trick. Here's my letter of complaint to the paper.

Dear Readers' Editor,

I was really quite astonished to read the caption to the picture of Peruvian Presidential candidate Alan Garcia on p. 22 of Tuesday 6 June's edition of The Independent. This is how it reads, `Alan Garcia is widely regarded as the man who will save Peru from the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.'

`The Venezuelan dictator'??? Come again? How many elections does the man have to win to be regarded by Independent journalists as legitimately elected? My dictionary has two definitions of `dictator':

1) someone who uses force to take and keep power in a country. If your journalists think this applies, they are simply delusional.

2) someone who tells people what to do and refuses to listen to their opinions. This definition could be used against many politicians if a journalist was so-minded. It would certainly apply far more to Tony Blair and George W.Bush than to Chavez.

In case you need reminding, Chavez has not illegally invaded another country on false premises despite being authoritatively warned that this would be counter-productive. He is also not threatening Iran with an illegal use of force for sticking to their treaty rights to develop civil nuclear power.

It seems that rather than providing factual reporting you are supplying propaganda on behalf of the current governments in Washington and London. I would be genuinely interested to hear just how `independent' you think that is, and therefore would appreciate a reply from you about this.

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

And, of course, they didn't reply. But at least they published a letter expressing similar sentiments later in the week.

Walthamstow MP watch: Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill

2006-06-13T23:10:00.000+01:00

You may not have heard much about this bill. The media have paid little attention to it. But it is a first rate menace to the little bit of parliamentary democracy that we have. Put simply, it will take away from Parliament, if a Government minister so chooses, the right to vote on new Bills, or revisions to existing Acts (with a very small number of exceptions).

New laws will be made, if a minister so chooses, purely on the say-so of the minister. If the word `dictatorship' springs into your mind, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Save Parliament blog summarises where the bill is now (going through the House of Lords). I wrote to Neil Gerrard, MP for Walthamstow, back in March. He replied like this:

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds
of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the
same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation.
This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change
when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.

Well, that might seem reassuring, but what has Neil Gerrard actually done? You might think he would say something about such an important Bill on his website, but there is no mention of it. If you want to know, you have to check out his voting record at the Public Whip. And guess what? He has opposed every effort to amend the Bill in order to reduce its malignant effects. So I wrote to him to ask him what he was doing:

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I wrote to you previously about my deep concerns over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. You replied as follows:

`The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.'

I would be grateful if you could reconcile this statement with your actual voting record on the bill, where you appear to be doing nothing to support attempts to increase parliamentary scrutiny and control. In particular -

Division 232 - an attempt to increase the requirement for ministers to behave `reasonably'. You voted against.
Division 234 - an attempt to reduce ministers ability to change law commission reports without parliamentary approval. You voted against.
Division 235 - an attempt to ensure that the provisions of the act are demonstrably used for the stated purpose of `reducing the burdens on business'. You voted against.
Division 238 - an attempt to bring persons delegated by ministers to have the power to change legislation under parliamentary scrutiny. You voted against.
Division 240 - an attempt to increase the possibility of parlaimentary veto on an order passed under the bill. You voted against.
Division 241 - the Bill's Third Reading. I was absolutely stunned to see that you voted in favour of this extremely dangerous piece of legislation despite your previous assurances.

If you ask your constituents I am quite sure that a majority will tell you that they did not elect you to parliament to give away vital powers of parliamentary oversight to an already overmighty executive. So why on earth are you doing so,and how can you possibly justify it? I feel betrayed.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

No reply as yet.

Humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine

2006-06-13T17:02:00.000+01:00

As the Rolling Stones once memorably told us, `you can't always get what you want'. The good ole USA destabilises, undermines, and invades other countries - supposedly in the name of democracy. But when they get it, they don't like it. For example, the current attempt to starve out the Palestinians for voting for the `wrong' party.

Little Georgie Bush doesn't like Hamas (so naturally his creepy hanger-on Tony doesn't like them either). Hamas came to power (insofar as they have any) in a democratic election. No problem. Just put the pressure on international aid-givers to stop them from providing the supplies the Palestinians need to live (while Israel prevents them from getting at their own money).

Result - starvation, and the eruption of feuding between democratically-elected Hamas and Georgie's chosen ones, Fatah. Those Palestinians just haven't got the hang of democracy yet. You're supposed to look at the choices (if there are any) then do as the USA tells you - after all, that's what we do in `democratic' Britain.

The good people at War On Want don't accept this. You shouldn't either. What can you do? For a start, how about writing to your Members of the European Parliament to urge the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement - under which Israel receives trading preferences - until Israel stops violating the Palestinians rights.

This is my letter to the London MEPs:

"I am writing as a constituent of yours. I am very concerned about the current situation in Palestine. UN reports reveal that 60% of Palestinians are now living in acute poverty and that over half of all Palestinians are completely dependent on food aid. These increases in poverty are a direct result of Israel’s Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its intensification of action against the Palestinian people over the past four years.

The UK Government’s policy of close engagement has failed to produce any significant results. Neither Britain nor the EC seems to be reacting with appropriate concern to the recent killing of so many Palestinians on the beach in Gaza - not the first time such an event has occurred. It is now time for action to pressure the Israeli government to abide by international law.

The EU must suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, under which Israel enjoys trading preferences with the EU. Article 2 of that Agreement makes Israel’s trading preferences conditional upon respect for human rights, a condition which UN specialists say has been breached by Israel’s continued violation of Palestinians’ rights. I urge the British government to press for this suspension immediately and to halt all arms sales to Israel until the Occupation is brought to an end, and I would ask you to take this matter forward in the European Parliament.

Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,

Grouchy"

BBC still covering up for war criminals

2006-06-08T18:47:00.000+01:00

This evening's Six O'Clock News bulletin reported on the death of Al-Zaqarwi in Iraq. Personally, I had no time for him, and if he was responsible for attacks on Shia civilians there as claimed, then his death is no loss. However, in the course of this report the BBC claimed that he was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.

What about Fallujah then? Who was responsible for that? The BBC are still making propaganda for the war criminals in Washington and London. This is the text of my complaint to the BBC:

"BBC 6 o'clock news tonight claimed that Al-Zarqawi was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.

What about the destruction of Fallujah and the mass murder of civilians there? What about the illegal use of chemical weapons in the course of that war crime?

That was nothing to do with Al-Zarqawi. It was purely the responsibility of George W.Bush, backed up by Tony Blair.

When is the BBC going to stop attempting to cover up for the war criminals in Washington and London? All you are doing is undermining your own credibility, and undermining the argument that the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee. If BBC News chooses to put out propaganda, you have no right to be funded by the British licence-fee payer."

If you wish to register your opinions on the quality of the BBC's `News' operation, go here.

Incidentally, the BBC reported that other people, including a child, were killed in the attack on Zarqawi. This is very reminiscent of the way Israel targets Palestinians activists with not a care in the world about how many ordinary people they kill.

Congratulations USA. You just murdered another child in Iraq, and you don't give a shit about it.

Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to the Lib Dems?

2006-05-29T20:29:00.000+01:00

Nationally the Liberal Democrats' performance was rather disappointing. However, in one respect at least, their performance in Waltham Forest must have been quite satisfying. They took 3 Council seats from the Conservatives, and thus became the second largest party in the borough. But they must have been disappointed with their performance against Labour. Given Labour's problems it seemed quite likely that they might take a few seats from them - in the end overall they gained one (if intervening byelections are taken into account). These were the changes affecting the Lib Dems since the 2002 local elections:

Forest..................won 2 seats from Labour (1 won at byelection)
Grove Green.........lost 1 seat to Labour
High Street...........won 2 seats from Labour
Leyton.................lost 1 seat to Labour
William Morris......won 1 seat from Labour (won at byelection)
Hale End & HP......won 3 seats from the Conservatives

The Liberal Democrats now have 19 seats, 12 short of an overall majority. So it is likely that the Council will continue to be run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.

The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Lib Dem vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest ward to the hardest for them to win.

WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS

Chapel End...................56............54..............+2....................3
Cann Hall......................50............66.............-16....................3
Higham Hill...................49............48..............+1....................3
Leyton..........................47............60............-13....................2
Forest...........................44............28...........+16....................2
Hale End & HP..............44............37.............+7.....................3
High Street....................43............36.............+7.....................2
Cathall..........................41............19...........+22.....................0
William Morris..............40.............25............+15.....................1
Grove Green.................40.............38.............+2....................0
Leytonstone.................26.............34............-12....................0
Lea Bridge....................21.............23..............-2....................0
Hoe Street....................20............16..............+4....................0
Valley...........................20............12..............+8....................0
Wood Street.................19.............32............-13....................0
Markhouse...................19.............16.............+3.....................0
Chingford Green............19............20..............-1.....................0
Hatch Lane...................14............11..............+3....................0
Larkswood....................13............15..............-2....................0
Endlebury.....................12............15..............-3....................0

It is not easy to discern any clear voting pattern from the above figures. For example, in the south of the borough the Lib Dems vote fell by a considerable percentage in Cann Hall and Leyton wards; but increased sharply in Cathall. Why? Perhaps there were factors local to those wards. A bit further north the Lib Dems scored sizeable percentage increases in Forest and William Morris wards; but fell markedly in Wood Street. Voting patterns may be less clear because there is less of a clear line between the Lib Dems and Labour - both are responsible for Council decisions - but that doesn't really explain such big differences between different wards. If anyone has an explanation, I would be interested to hear it.

What is clear is the size of the Lib Dems victory in Hale End and Highams Park, winning all three seats away from the Conservatives. However, they are unlikely to win any more seats away from the Tories in future elections (as can be seen from the next chart) so the major electoral battles in the future are likely to continue to be between Labour and the Lib Dems in the southern half of the borough (unless any of the smaller parties emerge to make a real challenge).

The next chart looks at the situation in the Lib Dems' target wards (all wards where they do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for Leyton, Forest, and High Street wards, where it is to win one seat in each case). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for the Lib Dems to win.

WARD......................LIB DEM%.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D

Leyton............................47..............Lab 44....................<1%
Forest............................44..............Lab 36....................<1%
High Street.....................43..............Lab 40.....................2%
Cathall............................41.............Lab 46......................3%
William Morris................40.............Lab 45.......................3%
Grove Green...................40.............Lab 47.......................4%
Leytonstone....................26.............Lab 46......................11%
Wood Street....................19.............Lab 44......................13%
Markhouse......................19.............Lab 46....................14%
Hoe Street......................20..............Lab 51....................16%
Lea Bridge......................21..............Lab 56....................18%
Valley............................20..............Con 61...................21%
Hatch Lane.....................14.............Con 58...................23%
Larkswood......................13.............Con 62...................25%
Chingford Green...............19............Con 70...................26%
Endlebury.......................12...............Con 72..................31%

Since the Lib Dems would require 12 extra Council seats to have an overall majority they would require a swing from Labour in the order of 11% to achieve that. Unless there are very big political changes between now and the next election that seems unlikely. In practice, unless Labour can increase their popularity the Lib Dems will continue to be the kingmakers in the borough.

In theory they could ally themselves either with Labour or the Conservatives to form a majority administration. However, the latter option seems unlikely. It could certainly be viable for one term. But unless support for Labour declines dramatically, and Cameron achieves real changes in the Conservative Party, any such coalition would be likely to be punished at the following election. The Conservatives are really only popular in the five northernmost wards in the borough. The reaction elsewhere to the Lib Dems putting the Tories into power would probably be highly negative.

What we really need is proportional representation, of course.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that.

Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to Labour?

2006-05-23T23:33:00.000+01:00

Overall the Labour Party in the borough were probably fairly relieved by the results. Nationwide they lost something like 315 council seats in a dismal performance. However, they suffered a net loss of just one seat in Waltham Forest (if byelection results since the last elections in 2002 are taken into account). These were the changes affecting Labour since the 2002 local elections:

Forest..................lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems (1 lost at byelection)
Grove Green.........won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
High Street...........lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems
Leyton.................won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
William Morris......lost 1 seat to Lib Dems (lost at byelection)

So Labour continue to be the largest party in the borough with 26 councillors (to the Lib Dems 19 and the Conservatives 15), but they are 5 councillors short of an overall majority. In practice we can expect the borough to continue to be run by a Lab/Lib Dem coalition.

The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Labour vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Labour ward to the hardest for them to win.

WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS

Lea Bridge....................56...........52..............+4........................3
Hoe Street....................51............41............+10.......................3
Grove Green.................47............40..............+7.......................3
Markhouse...................46............39..............+7.......................3
Leytonstone..................46............38.............+8.......................3
Cathall.........................46............65..............-19......................3
William Morris..............45............51...............-6.......................2
Wood Street.................44............43..............+1.......................3
Leyton..........................44............33............+11.......................1
High Street...................40............43...............-3.......................1
Cann Hall.....................37............29..............+8.......................0
Higham Hill..................36............42...............-6........................0
Forest..........................36............38..............-2........................1
Chapel End..................23............28...............-5........................0
Valley..........................19............34.............-15........................0
Larkswood...................18............22...............-4........................0
Hatch Lane..................18............27................-9.......................0
Endlebury....................12............18................-6.......................0
Hale End & HP.............11...........17................-6.......................0
Chingford Green............11...........15................-4.......................0

It can be seen that despite a poor performance nationwide, in Waltham Forest Labour increased its percentage vote in most of its strongest wards (with the exception of Cathall and William Morris). Conversely, its percentage vote fell in all of its weakest wards, which - because of First Past The Post - had no effect on the results. The latter ward results may be a sign that Tory voters are returning to the fold with the advent of David Cameron to the party leadership.

How was it that Labour managed to increase its percentage in most of its strongest wards? I wish I knew the answer to that question. It seems that in Waltham Forest - unlike in some other parts of London - we aren't yet seeing the unravelling of the traditional Labour vote. There was little sign of tactical voting against Labour at this election.

However, another four years of privatisation of housing and education, plus cuts in support for special schools, closing old people's day centres, cuts in adult education - in short, New Labour's neoliberal agenda - may start the process by the next elections. It may depend, too, on the quality of opposition to Labour. It remains to be seen whether there will be a growth in organised opposition to neoliberalism in the borough (which is the official policy of all three main parties), but we desperately need it.

The next chart looks at the situation in Labour's target wards (all wards where Labour do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for William Morris, where it is to win one seat). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for Labour to win.

WARD......................LAB %........OPPONENTS %........SWING REQ'D

William Morris..........45...............Lib Dem 40.................1% from Lib Dem
Leyton.....................44...............Lib Dem 47.................2% from Lib Dem
High Street..............40...............Lib Dem 43.................2% from Lib Dem
Forest.....................36...............Lib Dem 44.................5% from Lib Dem
Cann Hall.................37...............Lib Dem 50.................7% from Lib Dem
Higham Hill..............36...............Lib Dem 49.................7% from Lib Dem
Hatch Lane..............18...............Cons 58.....................16% from Cons
Chapel End..............23...............Lib Dem 56................17% from Lib Dem
Hale End & HP........11................Lib Dem 44...............17% from Lib Dem
Valley.....................19...............Cons 61.....................22% from Cons
Larkswood..............18................Cons 62....................23% from Cons
Chingford Green......11................Cons 70....................30% from Cons
Endlebury...............12................Cons 72....................31% from Cons

As Labour require 5 extra councillors for an overall majority, a uniform swing from the Lib Dems to Labour across the borough of 2-3% (all other things remaining equal) would be enough. Labour would win the remaining seats in their top three target wards. Given that the Labour vote in these elections across the country was at an historic low of 26%, that may not seem too great an aim for next time. However, changes in the Labour government in the intervening period, and the importance of local factors, mean that it will not be a foregone conclusion.

Barring political earthquakes, it looks as if only the top six wards in the list will be in contention for Labour (plus defending the wards they already hold). So there is no real direct competition between Labour and the Tories. Any Polly Toynbee-like invocations to `vote Labour to keep the Tories out' are meaningless here. And by extension, this would also seem to be the case for parliamentary contests in Waltham Forest.

Finally, some thoughts on our appalling first-past-the-post electoral system. As I have pointed out before Labour won 34% of the vote in the borough, but 43% of the council seats. The difference amounts to five councillors. Labour has five more councillors than it is entitled to by share of the popular vote. That accounts for nearly all of Labour's majority over the Liberal Democrats. In itself, that is quite clearly damaging to democracy in the borough.

But the problem goes much deeper. The Power Inquiry has reported on the deep disillusion amongst the population in general with what they feel is their lack of influence on the political system. First-past-the-post is at the heart of this problem. If you are a non-Conservative voter in Chingford Green, why bother voting? Or a non-Labour voter in Lea Bridge. The results are a foregone conclusion. So those voters are disenfranchised. This must be a contributory factor to the continuing decline in turnout at elections.

A system of proportional representation would deal with these problems. No vote would be wasted. Everyone would have an incentive to go out and vote - particularly because smaller parties would not be marginalised as they are at present. The Greens received over 8,000 votes in Waltham Forest. That was from one candidate in each of 18 wards (compared to three in each of 20 for the main parties). If they stood more candidates their vote would be even higher. Yet it is still unlikely that they would win any council seats. That is quite outrageous.

We need electoral reform now, before the next local elections in 2010.

Chavez - The Independent on Sunday ignores history

2006-05-18T21:02:00.000+01:00

Venezualan President Hugo Chavez stirred quite a few journalistic feathers on his recent private visit to London. Media Lens have done an excellent review of the kind of bias that informed almost every article. But I was particularly interested in the Independent on Sunday's editorial (subscription required).

This admitted - seemingly through gritted teeth - that Chavez is a democrat. However, it went on to claim that he was, `using anti-US sentiment to create an external threat', thus revealing his true nature as a `tyrant'. So I wrote to the editor. I do not hold out great hopes (to say the least) of seeing it published. Here it is:

Dear Editor,

Do your editorial writers have any knowledge of history at all? Do you think it would be useful if they did?

Your editorial last Sunday on Hugo Chavez accused him of sinister `use of anti-US sentiment to create an external threat in the classic gambit of the tyrant'. Would this be the same USA that knew in advance of the coup against Chavez and did nothing to discourage it, and proceeded to support it against the democratically expressed wishes of the Venezualan people?

Could it possibly be the same USA that financed and armed the vicious right-wing Contra terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who murdered thousands of innocent people to overthrow a democratically-elected government that was not to US liking? Or the USA that supported Pinochet's murderous suppression of democracy in Chile in 1973? Or the Brazilian generals' coup in 1964? Or the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in 1953?

How many examples is it necessary to quote? How about death squads in El Salvador? Perhaps you could explain to your readers just how Chavez is `creating an external threat'. Are you seriously suggesting that the external threat doesn't exist? Only a fool or a simpleton would believe you.

Still, I'm sure you feel it is quite reasonable not to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - ward by ward results

2006-05-12T16:13:00.000+01:00

As can be seen from the map above, Waltham Forest is an elongated shape running north-south, from Chingford in the far north of the borough, down through Highams Hill and Highams Park, then through Walthamstow, down to Leyton and Leytonstone in the south. Socially it is very diverse. Chingford has more in common with the Essex stockbroker belt than with the south of the borough, which is often described as having the same kinds of problems as London's inner city. This underlies the political character of the borough, which can broadly be divided into three parts.

The north of the borough splits into two parts. The five northernmost wards are very safe Conservative territory. The Tory vote here exceeds all the other parties put together. Two of the next three wards heading south are fairly safe for the Liberal Democrats; the third has just changed hands from the Tories to the Lib Dems, making a block of three Lib Dem wards. The south of the borough is different. Here all the wards are in more or less close contention between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Conservatives have little chance of victory here.

The overall result is that the Conervatives remain a substantial minority on the Council with 15 councillors; while neither Labour nor the Lib Dems can achieve a majority on their own (Labour have 26 councillors, and the Lib Dems 19). So in practice, the Council is run by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition.

I have already posted an overall analysis here. The purpose of this post is to look at the results ward by ward. I will set out the results heading from the far north of the borough heading south.

Total votes per party,and percentages, in 2006 are followed by the 2002 results, percentage only (in brackets). [The data for 2002 was taken from the London Strategic Voter website].

1 The Conservative safe wards

1) Chingford Green - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected

Cons: 6,766 - 70% (2002 - 55%) / Lib Dem: 1,800 - 19% (20%) /

Lab: 1,061 - 11% (15%) Turnout: 43%

2) Endlebury - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected

Cons: 6,346 - 72% (c. 67%) / Lab: 1,076 - 12% (18%) /

Lib Dem: 1,046 - 12% (15%) / Green: 398 - 4% (n/a) Turnout: 40.4%

3) Hatch Lane - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected

Cons: 4,677 - 57% (55%) / Lab: 1,461 - 18% (27%) /

Lib Dem: 1,101 - 14% (11%) / BNP: 509 - 6% (n/a) /

Green: 380 - 5% (8%) Turnout: 37.9%

4) Valley - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected

Cons: 4,887 - 61% (c. 54%) / Lib Dem: 1,624 - 20% (12%) /

Lab: 1,529 - 19% (34%) Turnout: 37.1%

5) Larkswood - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected

Cons: 4,849 - 62% (c. 63%) / Lab: 1,402 - 18% (22%) /

Lib Dem: 993 - 13% (15%) / Green: 294 - 3.8% (n/a) /

UKIP: 270 - 3% (n/k) Turnout: 34.5%

2 The Liberal Democrat (fairly) safe wards

6) Higham Hill - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dems elected

Lib Dem: 3,762 - 49% (48%) / Lab: 2,773 - 37% (42%) /

Cons: 781 - 10% (c. 10%) / Green: 327 - 4% (n/a)

Turnout: 34.7%

7) Chapel End - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dems elected

Lib Dem: 4,610 - 56% (54%) / Lab: 1,911 - 23% (28%) /

Cons: 1,261 - 16% (18%) / Green: 419 - 5% (n/a)

Turnout: 35.7%

8) Hale End & Highams Park - CHANGED - 3 Lib Dems elected
(formerly 3 Cons)

Lib Dem: 4,532 - 44% (37%) / Cons: 4,143 - 41% (46%) /

Lab: 1,168 - 11% (17%) / Green: 367 - 4% (n/a)

Turnout: 46.7%

3 The southern half of the borough

9) High Street - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dems, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lab)

Lib Dem: 4,293 - 43% (36%) / Lab: 4,045 - 40% (43%) /

Cons: 846 - 9% (7%) / Green: 604 - 6% (10%) /

Soc Alt: 245 - 2% (n/k) / Turnout: 43.1%

10) William Morris - NO CHANGE (from byelection) -
2 Lab, 1 Lib Dem elected (2002 3 Lab)

Lab: 4,083 - 45% (51%) / Lib Dem: 3,649 - 40% (25%) /

Cons: 934 - 10% (15%) / Green: 496 - 5% (n/a)

Turnout: 40.4%

11) Markhouse - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 3,600 - 46% (39%) / Lib Dem: 1,493 - 19% (16%) /

Cons: 1,129 - 15% (21%) / Respect: 1,004 - 13% (n/a) /

Green: 570 - 7% (16%) / Turnout: 36.3%

12) Lea Bridge - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 3,942 - 56% (52%) / Lib Dem: 1,497 - 21% (23%) /

Cons: 1,131 - 16% (20%) / Green: 429 - 6% (n/a)

Turnout: 27.1%

13) Hoe Street - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 3,951 - 51% (41%) / Lib Dem: 1,596 - 21% (16%) /

Cons: 1,474 - 19% (20%) / Green - 785 - 10% (17%)

Turnout: 34.7%

14) Wood Street - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 4,143 - 44% (43%) / Cons: 2,878 - 31% (15%) /

Lib Dem: 1,822 - 19% (32%) / Green: 557 - 6% (8%)

Turnout: 40.2%

15) Forest - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dem, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lab)

Lib Dem: 4,263 - 44% (28%) / Lab: 3,477 - 36% (38%) /

Cons: 1,321 - 14% (11%) / Green: 534 - 6% (12%)

Turnout: 41.5%

16) Leyton - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dem, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lib Dem)

Lib Dem: 4,266 - 47% (60%) / Lab: 3,914 - 44% (33%) /

Cons: 559 - 6% (7%) / Green: 253 - 3% (n/a)

Turnout: 37.6%

17) Grove Green - CHANGED - 3 Lab elected
(formerly 2 Lab, 1 Lib Dem)

Lab: 4,303 - 47% (40%) / Lib Dem: 3,630 - 40% (38%) /

Cons: 770 - 8% (8%) / Green: 480 - 5% (9%)

Turnout: 38.4%

18) Leytonstone - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 4,057 - 46% (38%) / Lib Dem: 2,323 - 26% (34%) /

Cons: 1,097 - 12% (7%) / Respect: 771 - 9% (n/a) /

Green: 594 - 7% (15%) / Turnout: 38.8%

19) Cathall - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected

Lab: 3,171 - 46% (65%) / Lib Dem: 2,828 - 41% (19%) /

Cons: 484 - 7% (16%) / Green: 270 - 4% (n/a) /

2 Independents: 178 - 2% (n/a) / Turnout: 34%

20) Cann Hall - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dem elected

Lib Dem: 3,862 - 50% (66%) / Lab: 2,892 - 37% (29%) /

Cons: 648 - 8% (c.5%) / Green: 337 - 4% (n/a)

Turnout: 34.5%

When I have the time I intend to put up a further post drawing some conclusions from these statistics about the support for the various parties within the borough.

Letter on Local Elections to the Walthamstow Guardian

2006-05-09T22:40:00.000+01:00

The Walthamstow Guardian published this letter on the 10th May (letters page not online).

Dear Editor,

There is a serious lesson to be learnt from last week's local elections. The Conservatives got 25% of the Councillors from 27% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats got 32% of the Councillors from 32% of the vote, but Labour got 43% of the Councillors from 34% of the vote.

The main victims of our unrepresentative voting system are the smaller organisations like the Green Party and Respect. They have a sizeable minority of voters who are completely unrepresented on the Council, and hardly represented in Parliament.

The recent Power Inquiry report highlighted the widespread disillusion with politics in Britain, with people feeling alienated from the political system. We desperately need electoral reform with some form of proportional representation so everyone is represented. Otherwise important arguments are ignored, not just by politicians, but also by the media which concentrates its coverage on elected politicians.

We need action now if we are to have anything like a representative democracy in this country.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - An Analysis

2006-05-09T19:27:00.000+01:00

William Morris Ward Polling Station 4 May 2006

OVERVIEW

Parties.................Votes.......%....Councillors....%....Votes per Cllr

Labour.................57,959....33.9........26.............43.3..........2,229

Liberal Democrat..54,990....32.2........19..............31.7.........2,926

Conservative.........46,981....27.5........15..............25...........3,132

Greens..................8,094......4.7

Respect................1,775.......1

BNP........................509.....<1

UKIP.......................270.....<1

Socialist Alt.............245.....<1

Independents...........178.....<1

[Ward by ward results can be found here]

This table is best used for comparing the performance of the three main parties as they each stood 3 candidates in each of the 20 wards. The Greens support is understated here because they stood only 1 candidate in each of 18 wards. It is not possible to draw conclusions about the extent of the support of the smaller parties from this table because they stood candidates only in 2 wards (Respect, 2 candidates each in each of 2 wards); or in 1 ward (all the other parties who each stood 1 candidate). There were 2 Independent candidates in 1 ward.

One way to examine the relative support of all the parties is to divide the total number of votes per party by the number of their candidates and compare the resulting percentages. The main problem is that we don't know whether the small parties' support from only one or two constituencies would be replicated across the borough. Nevertheless, this gives us a rough and ready measure of their support.

Parties...................Votes...........Candidates....Votes per Cndte...%

Labour....................57,959................60................966................20.7

Liberal Democrat................54,990................60................916................19.6

Conservative............46,981................60................783................16.8

Greens.....................8,094................18................450..................9.6

Respect....................1,775.................4................444..................9.5

BNP..........................509...................1................509.................10.9

UKIP..........................270..................1................270...................5.8

Socialist Alt.............................245...................1.................245.................5.2

Independents.............178....................2..................89..................1.9

We can draw some important conclusions from the statistical information here. Most importantly, first-past-the-post significantly distorts electoral representation. Although the percentage of Conservative votes and councillors, and of Lib Dem votes and councillors is quite closely aligned, that of Labour is considerably skewed. Labour received 33.8% of the vote, but 43.3% of the councillors. The smaller parties are the main victims here.

The Greens received 4.7% of the vote from just under one-third as many candidates as the main parties. If they stood more candidates their share of the vote would undoubtedly increase, but under the present system they would probably still not get any councillors. What would happen if we had a much more representative system of proportional representation? If the councillors were distributed amongst the parties according to the above table (excluding the Independents who received less than 5% per candidate), the comparison would look like this:

Now: Lab - 26, Lib Dem - 19, Cons - 15, Total = 60

With PR: Lab - 12, Lib Dem - 12, Cons - 10, BNP - 7, Greens - 6,

Respect - 6, UKIP - 3, Socialist Alternative - 3, unallocated - 1, Total = 60

Of course, the real results would not be quite like this. I think it unlikely that the BNP would get much support outside the northern wards of the borough - and hopefully not much there. Also, it seems unlikely that Respect or the Socialist Alternative would do as well in the northern wards, although they might compensate for this in the rest of Waltham Forest. The main point is that much wider points of view would be represented on the Council, that are currently ignored.

The Power Inquiry recently reported on the deep alienation of the British electorate from the political system. The results in Waltham Forest clearly show how a sizeable minority of the electorate is disenfranchised by our current electoral system. In fact they are doubly disenfranchised. Not only are their views not represented in the Council (and only just barely in Parliament), but also they are largely ignored by the media who concentrate on reporting on elected politicians and ignore almost everyone else.

THE CONCLUSION IS VERY CLEAR. WE MUST HAVE ELECTORAL REFORM, AND WE NEED IT NOW - NOT IN SEVERAL YEARS TIME.

(I intend to post a ward-by-ward analysis shortly to supplement this post).

UPDATE 19/5/06 I have adjusted the figures slightly because revised voting figures have been issued for one of the (unsuccessful) Lib Dem candidates in Hoe Street ward.

Walthamstow Labour - legal, decent, honest, truthful?

2006-05-01T22:14:00.000+01:00

Do Advertising Standards Authority codes apply to election literature? If they did I think the Walthamstow Labour Party might have one or two problems with their latest leaflet headed `Eight screen cinema for Walthamstow!' (pictured above).

The Yahoo! Walthamstow Group has already had a number of contributors saying Labour's claim that `only Labour has worked to get a cinema for Walthamstow' is not true. I would also like to see some evidence to support the claim that `the Tories and Lib Dems ... will vote together to block [it]'. The whole saga of what has happened to the EMD cinema (closed down and bought up by the UKCG) is still very murky. What do Labour intend to do about it? Is it their policy to try to get it back into use as a cinema (which does have considerable local support, after all) or are they against this idea? If the latter, what is going to happen to it? We are none the wiser. Unfortunately, this leaflet smacks of electoral opportunism.

But things go from bad to worse with the accompanying leaflet designed to play the `law & order' card. Look at the two pictures (under the heading `Please don't think all political parties are the same. There is a real difference between Labour and Liberal Democrats). In the picture on the left, we see a group of three police officers in a residential street (which I somehow suspect is not even in Walthamstow); in the picture on the right we see three youths in hoodies walking away from the camera. Clearly, we are supposed to think that under Labour there are more police on the streets, whereas under the Lib Dems the streets are full of young criminals. Is there any evidence to suggest there is any difference between Councils run by Labour and those run by the Lib Dems? The leaflet doesn't provide any.

And what about those pictures. For a start, young people wearing hoodies are not automatically criminals and I, for one, do not appreciate this stereotyping of them to make cheap political points. Tony Blair famously claimed that he would be `tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', but he only ever seems to consider the former, never the latter. The Walthamstow Guardian letters page (letters page not online) has published a number of letters pointing out the lack of facilities for young people.

For example, a correspondent called Midge Broadley had a letter published on the 6th April with this, `I have long felt the only message yong people are getting these days is "Buzz off, you're not wanted here". For years the Council's youth services budget has been cherry-picked to support other services and maybe the time has come for the balance to be redressed'. If Labour want to reduce crime - a laudable aim - they shouldn't just bang on about ASBOs all the time. What about positive efforts to reduce the causes of crime, like giving young people positive opportunities?

And do we want our streets saturated with policemen? The police force that played such an infamous role in the miners' strike of 1984-85, and that shot Jean Charles de Menezes, is not particularly trustworthy as far as I am concerned. Another blogger has discussed the difference between low and high policing; the former being the attention to the prevention and detection of the crimes that affect people the most, and the latter being the kind of political policing that New Labour are doing their damnedest to introduce. So if New Labour have their way, in future years the police will be spending ever larger portions of their time demanding to see your ID card, and ensuring that your personal details are on the national identity database, arresting people who fail to notify the government that they have changed their address, etc. Is that what most people want?

I would bet you that when it comes to policing, what most people want would be something like Heartbeat on ITV. If New Labour have their way, what they will get will be more like Orwell's 1984. Sorry, Walthamstow Labour Party, I don't think you have anything to boast about.

New issue of The Underdog

2006-04-30T14:33:00.000+01:00

`Walthamstow's Rabble Rousing Rebel Rag' Issue 13 May 2006

When I went to the newsagent's to pick up my Sunday paper I was pleased to see the latest issue of The Underdog there. If you haven't seen it before, it's well worth a read. It's produced by the Walthamstow Anarchist Group, and I think it's pretty widely available (free) from newsagents around Walthamstow. However, if you haven't seen it, you can download it from their website at www.walthamstowanarchy.org.uk .

Although I'm a socialist, and the people behind it are anarchists, I have always found myself in 100% agreement with what they have to say. This issue leads on the excellent victory by the Greenleaf Road Anti-Mast Action Group against the attempt to install a 3G mobile phone mast on Forest Road Police Station. It also covers ID cards, supposedly bad behaviour by kids at Walthamstow Bus Station, domestic violence, terrorism, the effects of the rise of supermarkets on local shops, and Pizza Hut's lighting policy in their toilets (!). A right rattling good read, go and get yourself a copy.

I see they are also planning a public meeting on the 11th June. Should be well worth attending. They say they will put up details on their website.

William Morris Ward - London Strategic Voter Recommendations

2006-04-29T22:30:00.000+01:00

London Strategic Voter - set up to encourage tactical voting to get New Labour out of office - has made recommendations on who to vote for in the upcoming local elections. The William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council recommendations are here.

Let it be said straight away that this is an attempt to get New Labour out from the Left. There are many former Labour voters - like me - who can no longer stomach voting for a party led by war criminals who want to destroy our civil liberties, and are bent on privatising everything in sight.

So for William Morris ward LSV recommends voting 1 Green, and 2 Lib Dem. This raises the question of which 2 of the 3 Lib Dem candidates to vote for. I suggested to LSV that this could be made on the basis of opposition to ID cards, because I have had replies to my letter from 2 of the 3, both strongly opposing the government's legislation.

LSV have gone along with this, and so they are currently recommending voting as follows - 1 vote for the Green candidate (Alexandra Rowe) and 2 for the Lib Dems (Simon Jones and Bob Wheatley). There is nothing against the 3rd Lib Dem candidate, but he hasn't yet replied to me on ID cards, so that seems a reasonable way to make a choice.

Is the PM taking liberties? - Observer blog comments

2006-04-29T22:19:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair and Charles Clarke recently went on a PR offensive against those who have criticised their attacks on our civil liberties. Below are my comments on the Observer blog about this issue:

Mr Blair claims that he has to act to suppress our civil liberties in order to ensure the greater right not to be blown up by terrorists. If that is so, why did he ensure UK forces illegally invaded Iraq when he was very clearly and authoritatively warned that such an action would be very likely to make us targets for terrorist attack? It seems our right not to be blown up was rather unimportant compared to his desire to slavishly follow US neoconservative foreign policy.

So why are New Labour introducing all this authoritarian legislation? I don't believe it has anything to do with preventing terrorism, and still less to do with `combating identity fraud' or whatever fantasy they are peddling at present. Personally, I don't believe it is (yet) to do with peak oil either. I think it is preparation for social unrest due to the growing unpopularity of neoliberal economics (and the associated political policies).

This can be seen virtually everywhere these days. Political parties across the industrialised world seem incapable of offering any alternative to failed neoliberalism. Consequently, we see French goverments elected to only one term of office, then booted out. We see stalemate in Germany and Italy. Opposition to neoliberalism is growing, as we have seen with recent ructions in France, with the rejection of the EC constitution, and the fight against Bolkestein in the ferries dispute in Ireland.

This battle is going to intensify. I think New Labour are preparing to stick the boot into any attempt to undermine neoliberalism, and that's why they are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and are attempting to introduce an abomination like the Leg and Reg Reform Bill. I'm sorry to say that I think things may get a lot worse before they get better. But it isn't all one-way traffic. The French went out on the streets and got the CPE attack on young workers rescinded. We will have to be prepared to defend our freedoms if they are not to be taken away from us.

One final thought - the role of the media. Blair has had a very soft ride thus far, especially from the truly pathetic BBC (although I don't think the Guardian has been much better). The gentlemen and ladies of the media had better look to their laurels. Judging by the tone of much of the comment here people are `sick up to here' with Blair and New Labour. If the media continue to wipe Blair's backside for him in their present loathesome manner they are going to lose all credibility. They have been warned.

Letter on ID cards to Walthamstow Guardian

2006-04-29T22:05:00.000+01:00

The Walthamstow Guardian issue dated April 27 2006 published the following letter (letters page not online) from me about ID cards and the local election, under the headline `Back candidate who will fight ID cards all the way':

Dear Editor,

Although there are important local issues to consider in the Local Elections on 4th May, many people will be be voting on national issues. Personally, I am deeply concerned about the Government's continuing attacks on our civil liberties.

So I wrote to all 10 candidates in William Morris ward to ask them their views on the Government's ID card plans, and whether they would support a Council motion against forcing people to produce ID cards to get Council services. (The Government plans to force everyone to have an ID card and produce it to get basic services. This will enable it to keep track of where we are and what we do on a daily basis).

So far I have had replies from 2 Conservative, 2 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrat candidates. All have said that they are against ID cards, and that they would personally support a Council motion against them.

However, the Labour candidates said they would only vote for such a motion if the Labour Group on the Council agreed. So although I would urge everyone to only vote for a candidate who opposes ID cards, it is also vital that he or she will vote for a Council motion against them.

Please ask for your local candidates' attitudes before considering voting for them. This may be a last chance to preserve some freedom against state intrusion into every aspect of our private lives.

Yours sincerely,
.
Grouchy

Labour candidates reply to ID cards letter

2006-04-29T21:42:00.000+01:00

In April I wrote to all 10 local election candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Laboour candidates:

1. Geraldine Reardon

Thank you for your letter of 9 April. I share your concerns with the ID Cards Bill. In Walthamstow Labour Party we have had regular discussions about the Bill with Neil Gerrard.

If a motion, such as the one put to Cambridge City Council were proposed to Waltham Forest Council, I would want to support it. However, as you know, each member of Labour Group is bound to obey the Whip and I could only vote if Labour Group supported the proposal. Therefore, beforehand I would have to make sure that Labour Group were in favour of the motion.

My concerns are that a national register will not be voluntary, that compulsion is built into it its implementation, and that it will inevitably encroach on other aspects of our lives. I also don't believe it will do anything to prevent terrorism and will cost a huge amount of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

May I wish you well with the campaign.

2. Adam Gladstone

Thank you for your letter dated 9th April asking for my position on ID cards.

I have always been opposed to ID cards. I opposed them when they were suggested by Michael Howard and the Tories and I oppose them now, even though sadly it is my party which is now proposing them. I oppose them because I think the whole scheme is horribly flawed and will prove disastrously expensive but, perhaps much more importantly, I oppose them because I do not believe that the state has any right to force every citizen to identify themselves.

The potential for creeping authoritarianism is clear. I have no doubt that as a white, middle-class male in my thirties, I would not be asked for my ID card very much. I suspect members of other groups in society may not have such confidence, even though they are just as law-abiding as me. As an individual I therefore have no problems at all supporting such a motion as you suggest.

However I would like to point out that were I elected on May 4th I would be part of a Labour group and would be expected to follow an agreed position within that group. I can only promise you that I would be strongly urging for my group to support such a motion. As you may know, our local MP, Neil Gerrard is a prominent Labour critic of these proposals and has voted against them.

I hope this has answered your questions. I share your view that this issue is very important and I understand why you wish to know the position of candidates before casting your vote on May 4th. Please feel free to contact me again if you want to discuss this or any other matter.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Labour candidate, Khevyn Raj Limbajee.

I am quite heartened by the opposition expressed by these candidates to the ID cards legislation. However, if elected, they still might be overruled by the rest of the Labour Group. And judging by the last Council's apparently enthusiastic introduction of Blairite neoliberal policies, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in their willingness to oppose Blair on ID cards. Labour candidates throughout the country really ought to be aware by now of how little support there is for Blair's extremist policies amongst the population at large.

Lib Dem candidates reply to ID card letter

2006-04-29T21:18:00.000+01:00

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the local elections for William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation. These were the Lib Dem replies.

1. Bob Wheatley

Bob Wheatley rang me to assure me that his views were in line with Lib Dem national policy on ID cards. He said he was comletely opposed and may be willing to move a Council motion against them, depending on the size of the Lib Dem group after the election.

2. Simon Jones

I am opposed to the compulsory issue of ID Cards, and would vote for this motion if presented to Waltham Forest Borough Council.

The national Liberal Democrat policy is to oppose the introduction of ID Cards, and our main arguments for this stance are laid out at this web page:
Liberal Democrats : Id Cards

Personally, I find several parts of the Identity Cards Bill make me raise my eyebrows. For example:

(4)
For the purposes of this Act something is necessary in the public interest if, and
only if, it is—

in the interests of national security

“national security”, to me, is one of those phrases (like “health and safety issue”) which make me uneasy: not because they are redundant concepts in themselves but because they are so often hijacked by mindless authoritarians. The ejection of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang from the last Labour Party Conference was an issue of “national security”, apparently, which shows how inappropriately such seemingly benign powers can be applied.

(8) (3) d
d An ID Card issued to an individual … remains the property of the person issuing it

- this might be a more trivial point, but I don’t see why an individual should be asked to pay for something that remains government property.

Other, less specific, reasons for my opposition to these cards include:
- my distaste for the back-door technique to introduce them as compulsory documents;
- the use of paranoia about terrorism to give them a sheen of necessity (all the 7/7 bombers were registered, average citizens right up to the moment they detonated their devices, and would have been eligible to carry quite legitimate ID Cards); and
- the obvious incompatibility between the dream of a registered population and the reality of the Home Office’s failure to provide remotely accurate figures on immigration.

I hope this is helpful to you. And thank you for sending me the details of Cambridge’s resolution – exactly what I would expect from good Liberal Democrats!

Please email or ring me if you wish to discuss anything further.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Liberal Democrat candidate, Mohammad Saeed Diwan, but the Liberal Democrats opposition to ID cards is very clear.

UPDATE Saeed Diwan has now replied to me as follows:

Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in replaying to your letter dated the 9th April 2006, I am sure you can appreciate that election time is very demanding for us the candidates.

In response to your question regarding the ID cards, my view on this is that the United Kingdom is fast and furiously becoming a police state. We are watched every step of the way by CCTV, tracked by our credit cards and monitored by the banks.

There are no guarantees that the ID Cards will not be forged, there are no guarantees that ID cards will save us from identity theft. Whatever, technology is used to secure the information on the ID cards there will always be someone out there who can and will counter it.

On a recent trip to Kenya I witnessed a man being beaten and then dragged off to the police station by five police men because he was not carrying an ID Card.

I do not support ID cards and will certainly not support any motion in favour of them.

Regards

Saeed Diwan

Conservative candidates reply to ID cards letter

2006-04-29T20:59:00.000+01:00

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council in the local elections to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Conservative candidates:

1. Tim James

Thank you so much for your letter dated 9th April with regard to the local elections and the wider issue of Identity Cards.

I can confirm without hesitation that I am utterly opposed to the introduction of ID cards both personally and politically. David Cameron reiterated the parties hostility to such measures only recently.

I am also concerned that even at proposal stage we witness yet again this willingness to chip away at our civil liberties and freedoms.

Financially - this is yet another burden that will have to be endured by households across the nation, many of whom are already struggling with personal debt which have arisen by trying to meet the shortfalls in their expenditures due to the massive programme of taxation imposed over the past 10 years to pay for this Governments extravagant and alas often wasteful public spending. (An issue mirrored by local government)

Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that these would make our streets safer. ID cards and CCTV cameras are no substitute for police on the street. Crime has become a serious issue over recent years. The Government's response to this has been to downgrade the classification of cannabis, legalise prostitution for women working from home and to extend licencing hours. Needless to say crime has soared. Last July and August serious assault and muggings DOUBLED in Waltham Forest (Data supplied by the Metropolitan Police for Greater London)

I hope this clarifies my position and helps you to come to a decision for the local elections on May 4th. However you decide I know that we are all hoping to make this Borough a better, safer and cleaner place to live without having to bankrupt it's residents with taxes.

Best regards,

Tim James

2. Ian Drury

Thank you for your letter.

I rejoined the Conservative Party the day after the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, announced that ID cards would be introduced, and on an effectively compulsory basis. I oppose ID cards on principle: this is an unacceptable extension of state power and a potential instrument of tyranny.

I would support such a motion as you describe in your letter and if elected, will press for a similar motion to be adopted here.

Kind Regards,
Ian Drury

3. Emily Garrett

Thank you for your recent letter asking for my views on the identity cards bill.

The Conservative party both nationally and in Waltham Forest strongly oppose the introduction of compulsory identity cards as we consider it to be an infringement of civil liberties.

Personally I am also against the introduction of compulsory identity cards for the reason stated above and because I consider it to be an unreasonable financial burden on individuals and do not believe that it is a sensible solution for the problems it is meant to be intended to solve. (i.e. terrorism, crime, identity theft and fraud.)

I would therefore strongly support any motion such as the one cited in your letter should I become a Councillor in Waltham Forest.

I hope this answers your question, but if you would like to ask anything else please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Emily Garrett

So clearly the local Conservative candidates oppose the ID cards legislation. I wish David Cameron would explain, however, why he felt it necessary to compromise on the legislation so that Conservative MPs voted in favour of the introduction of the compulsory database for passport applications combined with an optional ID card - a compromise that is completely worthless. I hope the Conservatives opposition is not going to be tempered should they win office again. That unnecessary compromise raises questiuons in my mind.

Letter to Local Election candidates re ID cards

2006-04-29T20:47:00.000+01:00

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation, as follows:

Dear candidate,

I am writing to you as an election candidate in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council. I am a resident in the ward and I would like to ask you a question to help me to decide how to vote in the May local elections. Although there are important local issues at stake I will probably be voting with regard mainly to national issues.

Accordingly, I would like to ask you if you could tell me your attitude to the recently passed ID Cards Bill. Are you in favour or against this measure? Which way would you vote if the question arose - for example on a Council resolution against this measure? For example, Cambridge City Council passed the following motion in February 2005:

This Council notes that the Home Secretary is currently attempting to push an ID Cards Bill through Parliament. This Bill will have an effect upon all of the people of Cambridge. This Council believes:
1) That the disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of
Cambridge.
2) That the scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
3) That the national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal
fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
4) That the ID card and database proposals are likely to fundamentally alter the relationship
between the state and the individual. According to Government estimates, the cost of such a
scheme could reach 5.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially
higher costs. Cambridge residents will be required to pay an estimated 35 for a stand-alone
ID card or 85 for a passport and ID card together.
This Council resolves to:
1) affiliate to the 'No2ID' campaign, which already includes MPs and several political parties
2) make representations at every possible stage, reiterating this Council's opposition to ID
cards
3) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the
national identity cards
4) make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required
to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law
5) only co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be
unlawful
6) instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Home Secretary expressing these views and
asking him to reconsider his decision to push forward this legislation.

Would you support or oppose such a motion in Waltham Forest?
I would appreciate it if you would be willing to answer these questions for me, and if possible, to reply by e-mail. My contact details follow.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Neil Gerrard MP - reply on civil liberties issues

2006-04-29T20:22:00.000+01:00

I have now had quite a long and reasoned reply from my MP - Neil Gerrard (Lab, Walthamstow) - to recent civil liberties concerns that I wrote to him about.

Dear Grouchy,

Thank you for your emails and apologies for my delay in replying.

Firstly on the ID Cards Bill there have been some changes as a result of the Lords proposing various amendments. I was involved in a couple of meetings with Charles Clarke when these amendments were due for debate. He accepted a Lords Amendment which will mean that it will not be possible to bring in compulsion to have an ID card, or register, without new legislation, as opposed to being able to bring in a regulation under the Bill as it stood. I do believe this is a step forward, and it was for this reason that I was prepared to abstain on a further Lords Amendment.

I also asked, and have on record in the Commons, that it is possible for anyone to renew their passport at any time, without waiting for it to expire. This does mean that if there is a regulation in two or three years to say that anyone applying for a passport must put their details on the national ID register, it will be possible to get a new passport before that which will be valid for 10 years. I am convinced that the Home Office will be incapable of setting in place the technology to run an ID cards system as proposed, something which no other country in the world has done or is attempting, and that it will collapse as a costly folly.

If there is a future attempt to bring in compulsion I believe the objections will be huge. Many of the people who currently say they support ID cards do so in the mistaken belief that it will not affect them. There is an attitude of "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about" which I think would quickly evaporate once people realised that they were going to have to have a card and produce it for all sorts of normal transactions and to obtain public services.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.

As far as the activities of the Special Branch are concerned and interviewing actors and people like Morrissey, it suggests a complete lack of common sense. I don't see it as a public warning not to criticise; if so it will have exactly the opposite effect.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gerrard

Waltham Forest Council Election 4 May 2006

2006-04-06T20:47:00.000+01:00

This Council is currently under No Overall Control. In practice, it is run by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition who seem to get on together like cats tied up in a bag. The Walthamstow Guardian letters page (letters page not online) seems to be full of letters from Councillors bitterly slagging each other off. Whatever their differences, they don't seem to be about policy. Both parties are enthusiastic privatisers in the currently fashionable neoliberal style. Anyway, if you live in Waltham Forest this is your chance to do something about it.

The candidates list has just been published. There are 207 candidates in 20 wards. The Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats are each standing 3 candidates in each ward. The Greens are standing 1 candidate in each ward except for 2 (Chingford Green and Valley). Respect are standing 4 candidates (2 each in Leytonstone and Markhouse). There is 1 Socialist Alternative candidate (High Street). There are 2 Independents (both in Cathall). UKIP is standing 1 candidate (in Larkswood), and the BNP have 1 candidate (in Hatch Lane).

London Strategic Voter are arguing for tactical votes to get New Labour out. I am very sympathetic to this view as New Labour have gone way beyond the bounds of the acceptable (e.g. Iraq, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation in health education and housing, etc). But are LSV right in recommending voting for the Lib Dems? Personally, although I don't want to waste my vote I like to vote FOR something if at all possible.

So if I lived in a ward with Respect candidates, they would get my votes. I don't believe such votes would be wasted. They received a very good level of support in the Leytonstone byelection not long ago and it is quite credible that they could be the main challengers to New Labour in those wards. What about the other 18 wards though? I think it's worth voting for the Greens. I don't agree with all their policies but they are avowedly anti-neoliberal, and for me that's the main thing. They also have enough weight not to be merely token candidates. I am sorry to say that I think that the Socialist Alternative probably is a token candidate. It's too important to get New Labour out to waste votes on token candidates, even if they have good policies. I don't know anything yet about the 2 Independents in Cathall ward.

So, what about the Lib Dems? With a heavy heart, I would argue that if you only have a choice between the 3 main parties and the Greens - and you have 3 votes - you should cast 1 vote for the Greens and 2 for the Lib Dems. Not because I believe there is any real difference between Labour and the Lib Dems, but because it is really vital to kick New Labour in the teeth. A really bad result in the local elections may help to undermine the Blair/Brown national agenda. We really mustn't miss any opportunity to do that.

London Stop The War March 18th March 2006

2006-03-21T21:17:00.000Z

The BBC's coverage of this event was, as usual in these cases, disgraceful. I saw the 5pm programme on BBC News 24. There was a report of just a few seconds, ten minutes in, which didn't even mention all the other demonstrations around the world, let alone show any footage of them. And, of course, the usual uncritical repeating of the police `estimate' of 15,000 in attendance.

Complete crap, but BBC News is so far up Tony Blair's backside they can't even tell day from night any more. Perhaps it's time to find out what proportion of the licence fee goes to BBC News, and then withhold that amount from our payments. Let New Labour pay for BBC News - it's all just Downing Street spin.

ID Cards Bill / Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill

2006-03-12T18:39:00.000Z

This is the text of a letter I wrote on the 10th March to my MP, Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow). I have not yet received any reply.

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I am deeply concerned about the continuing attacks this government is making on civil liberties and parliamentary democracy in this country.I was very angry to read today that the monstrous ID Card Bill is to return to the Commons on Monday in an attempt to force it through as soon as possible. This Bill will waste many billions of pounds and achieve nothing except to criminalise the whole population. I am sure I am amongst many who regard it as an outrage that I should have to be forcibly fingerprinted, and have DNA samples taken from me by force when I have committed no crime. If Blair imagines that if he gets this disgraceful measure through Parliament that is the end of the matter, then I predict he couldn't be more wrong. Once compulsion starts, co-operation will end.

However, even this appalling measure pales beside the breathtaking arrogance of the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill. I am sure there is no need to go over the potential effects of this measure with you. It appears to resemble nothing more than the Nazi Enabling Act of the 1930s which allowed Hitler to enact legislation without any vote. Any MP who supports this measure is a turkey voting for Christmas. Sadly, with some exceptions, the Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be full of turkeys.

Hasn't Blair done enough damage to the Labour Party? If he is allowed to get away with all this it won't just be the Labour Party out of power for a generation (as is likely now with all the lies and war crimes) but finished for good.I must ask you to do everything that you can to prevent these appalling measures from being enacted. If they are, don't ask the people of Walthamstow to vote Labour again.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Detention of `Road to Guantanamo' actors

2006-03-12T18:29:00.000Z

This is a letter I wrote on the 20th February 2006 to my MP, Neil Gerrard (Labour, Walthamstow) about the appalling detention by Special Branch of the actors in Michael Winterbottom's new film on their return to this country from the Berlin Film Festival. I have only received an automated `out of office' reply (on 24th February).

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I am writing to express my serious concern at the latest abuse of anti-terrorist laws by state functionaries (who refused to identify themselves) with regard to the illegal detention of actors from the film The Road to Guantanamo when returning to this country from the Berlin International Film Festival.

The account by one of the actors, Riz Ahmed, is online. Every aspect of this is wrong and this kind of abuse is clearly only going to grow. Indeed it appears that the government is deliberately enacting legislation (e.g the ludicrous `glorification of terrorism' act which neither defines glorification nor terrorism) which is vague and nebulous so that these kinds of abuses of civil liberties will be even more likely to go unchecked.

I do not believe that these kinds of measures or the abuses they encourage have anything really to do with stopping terrorism. They are really designed to bully and intimidate domestic opponents to the government's criminal foreign policies. I would respectfully urge you to oppose these measures and abuses, and to do anything that you can to discover and publicise who illegally detained these people, and call publically for their disciplining for this appalling behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Menzies Campbell and Iraq

2006-03-12T18:19:00.000Z

This is a letter to the Independent on Sunday in response to Campbell's article published 12th March 2006.

Dear Editor,

So now Menzies Campbell is playing the popular `Fantasy World Iraq` game (Independent on Sunday 12th March). He states that the invasion and three-year occupation have been a disaster. He wil get little argument about that from anyone except the warmongers and their ever-dwindling band of apologists. However, he then goes on to claim that `an immediate withdrawal of coalition forces would precipitate even greater violence' than exists now.

He claims that coalition forces are only perceived as occupiers. But the perception is completely accurate for that is what they are. We all know the invasion had nothing to do with (non-existent) WMD; we all know that it had nothing to do with `bringing democracy' to the region. It is very well-known that the neo-cons had it planned as part of their strategy for US control of the Middle East - first Iraq, then Syria, and finally Iran (as we will see in a few weeks' time). The idea is firstly to ensure strategic control of Middle East oil; secondly, to open up the region to further penetration and control of the economy by US corporations; and finally to ensure that the ensuing US client states all support Israel in its continuing theft of Palestinian lands.

To this end the Americans are building a number of extremely large, extremely well-defended permanent bases. They have absolutely no intention of leaving Iraq in the foreseeable future. In the extremely unlikely event of an Iraqi government calling for them to leave, they would simply destabilise and replace the government. The supposedly-democratic Iraqi administration is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington plc. The Iraqi `security forces' are completely dominated by the US military and do not have the equipment or the logistical ability to operate independently. This calls into question just who is behind the current death squad phenomenon. Could they operate without at least the tolerance of the Americans? After all, the USA has used this tactic before in Central America, and some neo-cons were openly calling for the same strategy to be utilised in Iraq.

So Menzies Campbell's claim that coalition forces are preventing violence is therefore utterly specious. The permanent presence of US (and other) forces have quite understandably brought the armed resistance into being. This will inevitably continue and grow for so long as the occupation continues. While we can have no certain idea of what will follow if, as they should, all occupiers were to withdraw immediately, we can be sure of what will happen if they continue to stay. The occupation must end immediately. The failure of the Liberal Democrats to support this shows how hollow their claim is to be a radical force in British politics. Any difference betwen them and the other two main parties is paper-thin.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Letter to the Walthamstow Guardian

2006-03-12T18:07:00.000Z

A slightly edited version of this letter was published in the Walthamstow Guardian edition dated 9th March 2006 (the letters page is not online).

Dear Editor,

Kevin Lord's list (Letters 23/01/06) of New Labour's attacks on our civil liberties is sadly incomplete. Yes, we have bogus anti-terror laws (under which the rock star Morrissey has just been interviewed by Special Branch for calling President Bush `a terrorist'). Yes, we have the ludicrous ID card scheme which will cost billions of pounds and achieve nothing, except to criminalise us all by forcing us to submit to fingerprinting and DNA testing, or suffer a massive fine or imprisonment.

However, he didn't mention the little-known `Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill'. This bill virtually abolishes Parliament. Ministers will be granted wide-ranging powers which will not be subject to Parliamentary control. For example, Ministers will be allowed to summarily introduce any new laws they like apart from new criminal offences with a maximum of more than two years imprisonment, and new taxation measures. Apart from that they will have carte blanche and Parliament will have no right to vote to refuse them.

You don't believe me? The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill explain that Ministers `can amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act of Parliament may do' - all without any vote in Parliament. If this measure goes through we might as well be living in Mussolini's Italy. You can kiss goodbye to any freedoms that you hold dear. Bear this in mind when you vote in the local elections. Only a massive rejection of New Labour at every level can put a stop to these attacks on our liberties.

It is vital to vote in May, and it is vital to vote for freedom and democracy, which means it is essential to vote against New Labour.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

A weekend in Granada, Spain

2006-03-11T14:34:00.000Z

The pictures are of the Alhambra, a unique complex of Moorish palaces in Granada (there are some more pictures on my Flickr photostream).

I went to Granada for the weekend with my Spanish class recently. It is very easy to get to nowadays as you can fly direct from Stansted by Ryanair. The flight takes two and a half hours. Granada Airport is only 10 miles outside the city, and you can travel in quite quickly by bus or taxi. It is also fairly cheap - I paid £76 for return flights including insurance.

I would recommend the trip, especially if you want to practise your Spanish, as we did. There is nothing quite like trying to order dinner in a restaurant, or buying things in a shop, or asking for directions in the street to practise all your basic Spanish knowledge (and crappy pronunciation in our case). The Alhambra is a must to visit. Make sure you book in advance, and that you arrive on time (or they won't let you in). Allow at least three or four hours for a proper visit (and take food and drink with you - you'll need it!).

I didn't really have much chance to look round the rest of the city, although I do recommend that you visit the Albaicin area - I'll post some pictures here soon. If you are into salsa, there are good bars you can visit to practise your dancing. As I don't dance I had to make do with watching - which wasn't too painful. If you decide to visit around this time of year, take some warm clothes. It was bloody freezing first thing on Sunday, although it warmed up a bit when the sun came out.

Adios amigos - hasta luega.

More commentariat idiocy

2006-01-01T13:55:00.000Z

It's not that significant, but it is typical.

British politics and the media that comment on it are trapped in a permanent spiral of putrefying idiocy. Politicians are - with rare exceptions - liars. We all know about Bliar and Iraq, of course. And it's hard not to suppress a snigger - or a groan, depending on your mood - when Cameron starts referring to Gandhi (and don't get me started on that single braincelled creature `Lord' Geldof). But is it too much to expect that those newspaper columnists who are extremely well-paid to pore over their pronouncements and interpret them for us should filter them for some kind of truth?

Don't be stupid, of course it is! Here's a supreme idiot for you - Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer, on Blair's exit strategy - "But he is bound to be tempted to look for 'tops', which could include the withdrawal of British troops from an Iraq which is clearly on the path to improvement". Clearly on the path to improvement. Yes, the idiot really did say that. When did he last go to Iraq? Here's a letter from a Baghdad resident to George W.Bush (the Butcher of Fallujah). Who knows more about the situation in Iraq - someone who lives there or a `journalist' (i.e. paid propagandist) who sits on his fat overpaid arse in London and repeats whatever some Blairite lackey feeds him?

Is there a single newspaper commentator who isn't simply an echo of the liars of the British political class? Rags like the Observer - and their braindead propagandists - are simply a complete waste of time. You'd get more truth from the Beano.

Blair's evil twin `worried about gun crime'

2005-12-26T15:25:00.000Z

Apparently, Sir Ian Blair, the well-known liar about the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005, is worried about rising gun crime - not including, of course, the murder of de Menezes which is currently undergoing multiple coats of whitewash on Blair's behalf. So we Londoners are to be treated to an increase in the numbers of de Menezes' murderers - up to 200 extra armed police apparently, even before the official whitewash is out.

So who gets it next - me, you, a friend or relative of mine or yours, or most likely a total stranger (so that's alright then). Of course Blair, and his evil twin our war criminal prime minister couldn't care less how many innocents the police shoot (how many have died in Iraq now?) as long as there's no publicity. (By the way, you'd better carry some ID if you want to be identified). Or as long as they can claim that he or she `vaulted the barrier' or `was wearing unseasonal clothing', and not get found out about it.

Even if there is publicity they can always rely on official cover-ups, and our complacent `free press'. How long have the investigators into de Menezes' murder been sitting on their spotty arses now waiting for the heat to die down so they can issue their official cover-up and Cur Ian Blair can claim vindication for the casual murder of an innocent on behalf of Tony Blair's policy of licking the arse of the Butcher of Fallujah (George W.Bush if you have to ask, but I'm sure you don't)? How long does it take to establish the truth about state-sanctioned murder (the answer - forever, if necessary).

Then again, they can always rely on the good-old BBC, sustained by our licence-fees to feed us lies on the evil twins behalf. Jean Charles de Menezes was `mistakenly killed' if you believe BBC Newsroom South-East, or whatever their Blairite propaganda broadcasts are called these days. If Emily Maitliss is going to read such barefaced lies straightfaced to camera surely she should be smeared in the blood of the kill, how else are the boys in blue really going to enjoy their work. Let's not be shamefaced about it. After all, he's just the first of many, we have to get used to these things. Who knows, you may be next. And if you won't get off your fat arse to complain aboout the murder of the innocent Mr de Menezes, who's going to complain about yours? Not the BBC, that's for sure (or the `Independent' Police Complaints Commission).

We are ruled by scum, and nobody gives a toss.

Zarqawi Number 2 Ejected from Labour Conference

2005-09-29T20:49:00.000+01:00

In breaking news, the victorious Coalition has dealt a massive blow to the Iraqi insurgency by locating, ejecting and subsequently detaining Zarqawi's number 2 under the Terrorism Act.

This evil man had the nerve to attend the New Labour rally at a secret location (Nuremberg) and heckle the great Foreign Secretary Heinrich Straw. Fortunately our great leader had the presence of mind to set a number of fat thugs on the vicious 82 year old and bodily throw him out, where our wonderful policemen immediately detained him as a suspected terrorist.

SO PERISH ALL ENEMIES OF THE THOUSAND YEAR NEW LABOUR REICH!

New Labour Assault 82 Year Old Man

2005-09-28T19:03:00.000+01:00

So much for Tony Blair's `respect agenda'! It seems `respect' doesn't have to be extended to anyone who disagrees with New Labour. An 82 year old man - apparently a veteran Labour Party member of over 50 years - who heckled the odious Jack Straw about Iraq at the Party Conference, was manhandled out by a fat New Labour thug (a David Aaronovich lookalike).

AND THE POLICE HELD HIM UNDER THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT (according to BBC-TV News)!!!!!!!! No doubt that ignoramus Charles Clarke is even now signing the order for his house arrest. And as he apparently came to this country as a fugitive from the Nazis, he can expect to be deported to Germany in due course.

So perish all who glorify terrorism by maligning honest New Labour ministers.

You really couldn't make it up. What did we ever do to deserve this government of war criminal scum.

Stop The War March London 24/9/05 post 2

2005-09-25T21:43:00.000+01:00

There were some very good speakers in Hyde Park. Several people spoke for Military Families Against the War; and there was Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn, Scottish MSP Colin Fox, and two brave young women from the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign - justice4jean.com. There was Bianca Jagger, Brian Eno, Tariq Ali, John Rees, Lindsey German, an Iraqi doctor, an Iraqi author, Tom Hayden, Gate Gourmet workers, and an excellent speech from John Pilger. My apologies to those speakers I missed for not listing them here.

Stop The War March London 24/9/05

2005-09-25T19:34:00.000+01:00

I went on the march and took some photos, examples above. At a guess there were more than 10,000 on the march (as we know the police estimates are always ridiculously low for political reasons), but less than 100,000. Okay, that leaves a lot of room for guesswork but I only just scraped Maths O-Level, don't ask me to count to 100,000!

Abbey Gardens, Bury St Edmunds

2005-08-28T21:53:00.000+01:00

Abbey Gardens, Bury St Edmunds, originally uploaded by Tendence Grouchy.

I now have a Flickr photostream. I'm not promising anything particularly interesting, but if you want to, take a look.

The Blairs Have No Integrity

2005-08-18T22:04:00.000+01:00

Another unpublished letter to the shitty Guardian, sent 17/8/05.

Dear Editor,

Thanks to a fine piece of reporting by ITV News (putting BBC News to shame) we now know there was as much truth to Ian Blair's account of how the police came to shoot Mr de Menezes at Stockwell tube station, as there was to Tony Blair's account as to why British troops invaded Iraq.

If either Blair had an ounce of integrity their resignations would already have been announced. As neither does, we can look forward to continuing British government support for war crimes in Iraq, together with further innocents shot by the Metropolitan Police.

How wonderful it is to live in a `modern democracy' (where the will of the people can be safely ignored).

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Guardian Blairite Garbage

2005-08-11T19:16:00.000+01:00

Text of an unpublished (of course) letter to the Blairite Guardian on 10th August 2005:

Dear Editor,

John Lloyd's opinion piece in today's Guardian employed what has come to be standard Blairite dishonesty, saying that in The Guardian `These pages have been host to several pieces arguing, in essence, that we British had it coming (it being terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of extreme Islamism').

What a load of rubbish. What articles is Lloyd referring to? There has not been a single one. What Lloyd is doing is following The Great Leader's dishonesty in claiming that explanation = justification. And we all know why Blair did that. Because British foreign policy has landed us in this current mess. Naturally, Lloyd attempts to cover this up.

Feeble effort, 0 out of 10, must try harder. What about telling the truth for a change?

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

TV Review - Hollywood UK:British cinema in the sixties****

2005-08-09T17:32:00.000+01:00

Hollywood UK Episode Two: Making It In London BBC4 8th August 2005

This is the 2nd of 5 episodes from the series originally broadcast on BBC2 in 1993.

And so we come to `Swinging London'. Did it really exist - as famously declared by Time magazine in April 1966 - or was it just a media construct? A clip of an interview with Julie Christie (from Peter Whitehead's important Tonite Let's All Make Love in London - uncredited by the BBC) from 1966 or 67 shows her saying about the 60s, `A good time is much easier had by all than ever before'. Certainly true by comparison with the 1950s, but it was much truer for `the beautiful people' that Terence Stamp discusses moving amongst here, than for the general population. All the same, something was happening, as evidenced by the films discussed.

Presenter Richard Lester looks at these films - Darling (1965), A Hard Day's Night (1964), The Pleasure Girls (1965), The Knack (1965), Georgy Girl (1966), Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment (1966), Alfie (1966), Far From the Madding Crowd (1967), and Poor Cow (1967).

Darling is used to set the scene. In contrast to the gritty northern materialism of the `kitchen-sink' films of the first programme in the series (see previous review), we now have glamour with a capital G, as personified by Julie Christie. Her character, Diana Scott, is an ambitious attractive young woman who is determined to lead her own life. She wants to be economically and sexually independent. Her fascination with powerful men leads her to move up the social ladder from man to man until she finally marries an Italian prince. But it ends in tears with the character isolated and alone in an Italian castle. According to writer Frederic Raphael, the 60s saw a presumption that what was previously considered as `bad behaviour' should be accepted as the norm. So the script for Darling, in displaying Diana Scott's bad behaviour, was a social comment intended to suggest that a better society was needed - in Raphael's words, `i.e. God help us, a socialist one' (this comment says a lot more about Raphael than socialism).

A Hard Day's Night, a `documentary-style' film about a day in the life of The Beatles has been famously described by film critic Andrew Sarris as `the Citizen Kane of jukebox movies'. Yet, as revealed here by United Artists executive David Picker, the film was only made because UA would get a soundtrack album out of it. In fact the film cost only £190,000 to produce (presumably making it one of the most profitable films of all time). Writer Alun Owen tailored the on-screen characters to the Beatles own personalities, enabling fresh lively performances which captivated audiences across the world. The programme takes in the difference between the `realism' of this film and the `let's do the show right here' showbizzy nature of the Cliff Richard precedents, The Young Ones (1961) and Summer Holiday (1962), which director Richard Lester was able to react against.

The Pleasure Girls' fairly realistic depiction of life in London for girls who had just moved there - involving flatmates, independence and boyfriends - is contrasted with Lester's ownThe Knack, a more stylised film about young people in the capital. The latter utilised a high-key photographic style - thus rendering more of an advertising-shoot look - and a kind of Greek Chorus of elderly people commenting on the antics of the younger generation. Lester admits to have used every trick he could think of in the film. All this makes it something of a microcosm of early swinging London. `The knack', by the way, is the ability to pull women. The full title of the film is The Knack...and how to get it.

Georgy Girl explored the other side of this question as Georgy, played by Lynn Redgrave, was frustrated and unable to get what she wanted sexually. Georgy, homely and warm-hearted, shares a flat with her polar opposite, sexy but cold-hearted Meredith, played by Charlotte Rampling. Meredith's boyfriend is Jos, played by Alan Bates. Meredith gets pregnant, has the baby, but doesn't want it. Georgy solves her problem by marrying her old guardian - James Mason - so that she can adopt her friend's baby. How very different from the home life of our own dear Queen.

Morgan: A Suitable Case for Treatment is a very idiosyncratic film, being a re-working of a David Mercer play screened by the BBC in 1962. Mercer's own breakdown and experience of psychoanalysis appears to inform his understanding of Morgan, played by David Warner. A familiar Mercer theme, described as `social alienation masquerading as madness' is at the core of the film. Class differences between working class Morgan and his upper-middle class wife Leonie, played by Vanessa Redgrave, make them incompatible. Their frustration at this makes them resort to games and fantasies. Morgan's mental association with Guy the gorilla makes for some memorable scenes, as for instance when Morgan speeds away from the camera on a motorbike, dressed in a smouldering gorilla suit. A communist motif also runs through the film as Morgan's mother, played by Irene Handl, is a card-carrying member who regards her son as a class traitor. At the end of the film, as Morgan works in the garden of the mental home where he has been sent, and Leonie visits him to tell him she is carrying his child, the pull-out shows us the flowers growing in the shape of a hammer and sickle. The film embodied the psychological theories of R.D.Laing - an important 60s figure - who is shown here commenting on the film.

And so to a more conventional film which was one of the biggest commercial successes of the decade - Alfie. The least conventional aspect of the film was the way that the main character, played by Michael Caine, addressed the camera directly about the merits or demerits of the succession of `birds' that he pulled. The film epitomised male attitudes (Caine comments that all his friends lived like Alfie at the time) while amusing and charming the audience. It wasn't all light-hearted though, with a strong performance as a backstreet abortionist by Denholm Elliott. It contained a number of fine performances amongst Alfie's conquests, including those of Millicent Martin, Jane Asher, Shelley Winters (the `older woman'), and Shirley Anne Field. But, of course, all good things must come to an end, and after contracting TB Alfie finally reflects on the shallow nature of his existence.

According to Richard Lester, Far From The Madding Crowd demonstrated the limits to `Swinging London' - it didn't translate to Thomas Hardy's Wessex. The film, starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates, and Peter Finch was not a commercial success, especially in the USA. John Schlesinger's adaptation of the novel focussed on how a young woman could inherit her uncle's farm, then keep it and run it herself without alliances with, or ownership by, any of her three male suitors. Somehow Nic Roeg's cinematography seemed to outshine the principal actors.

The final film featured here, Poor Cow, pointed in a new direction. Directed by Ken Loach, who came from directing television plays for the BBC, it "had a realism about it I hadn't encountered before" according to Terence Stamp. Stamp also recounts how the producer, Joseph Janni, begged him not drive to the shoots in his new Rolls-Royce, because Loach "was a communist and would hate it". Loach complains that he was required to carry a huge crew for the film's production which swamped what he was trying to do. As Stamp says, the film shoot was not structured in the traditional way, with a master shot followed by medium, close-up and reverse close-up shots. Instead, Loach utilised big master shots which continued until the film ran out. He also used a lot of non-actors in his films. Of course, Loach was to continue and develop this style throughout his career.

Lester summarises the `Swinging London' period as "honeymoon years in which pleasure and personal fulfilment could be pursued as ends in themselves [but which] were bound to lead to some kind of burnout. Filmmakers like Ken Loach had already sensed it was time for a rediscovery of the minutiae of people's lives". So the next episode of the series moves on to `issue films', including some of the most important films of the decade.

2005-08-07T22:03:00.000+01:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

TV Review - Hollywood UK:British cinema in the sixties****

2005-08-02T23:47:00.000+01:00

Hollywood UK Episode One: Northern Lights BBC4 1st August 2005

This series of five programmes fronted by the late lamented Richard Lester (director of the Beatles films, amongst numerous others) is currently being re-run on Monday nights on BBC4. It was first shown in 1993 and well deserves to be aired again. It is an overview of the British film industry in the 1960s. `British film industry', I hear you cry, `I didn't know we had one'.

Well, we used to. As Lester says in his introduction, while there were only two British films in production at the start of 1993, there were 76 in 1967. A statistic which demonstrates the scale of film production in the sixties, when as Lester says, `Hollywood film studios were tripping over each other to shoot their pictures in London'.

For this series, the 1960s actually begin in 1958, with the release of Room at the Top. This first episode of the series concentrates on what came to be (rather dismissively) termed as the `kitchen sink' films - working-class dramas based in the north of England. So the main films discussed after Room at the Top are Look Back in Anger (1959), Saturday Night & Sunday Morning (1960), A Taste of Honey (1961), Whistle Down the Wind (1961), A Kind of Loving (1962), This Sporting Life (1963), and Billy Liar (1963).

These films were a considerable departure from the nature of previous British films which tended to be dominated by public school types. As producer/director Karel Reisz says, `It was time to make films about what's outside the drawing room'. So Room at the Top was adapted from John Braine's novel which included `an unprecedented amount of sexual frankness'. The Censor gave the film an `X' certificate (to be seen by adults only), which the producers seized on in their marketing efforts. The story of an ambitious working class lad who manages to marry into money, but causes the death of his mistress - his real love - it left the drawing-room far behind in favour of the bedroom, and the protagonist's clashes with his `social superiors'. Strong stuff. Look Back in Anger is really included here because of its importance as a play rather than as a film, so I will discuss it no further.

Saturday Night & Sunday Morning - in my opinion one of the best films here - sees an outstanding performance from Albert Finney as Arthur Seaton, lathe operator in a factory. We first see him at the lathe as the end of work on Friday afternoon approaches. As he produces widgets and puts them in a box we hear him counting them on the soundtrack - nine `undred n fifty-three, nine `undred n fifty-four, nine `undred n fifty-bloody-five. He then thinks about the weekend, `What I'm out for is a good time, all the rest is propaganda'. Arthur is a tough working class young man who hates the thought of being shackled - whether at work or by any woman. `Don't let the bastards grind you down' is his motto. Gritty, it is, and a must-see.

A Taste of Honey dwells on the changing sexual mores of the times. A teenage girl played by Rita Tushingham, falls pregnant by a sailor, who moves on. She then forms a relationship with a supportive gay man - advanced subject matter for 1961. Whistle Down the Wind was a vehicle for child star Hayley Mills, and for my money is the only film discussed here of little importance (ironic that the BBC should have chosen this film to show after the programme - the weakest of the bunch). A Kind of Loving is very redolent of the times. Alan Bates stars as the man trapped in an unhappy marriage after a shotgun wedding - a situation that is probably unthinkable now when something like a third (if I remember correctly) of weddings end in divorce.

This Sporting Life came at a time when audiences were tiring of `kitchen sink' films. Decidedly downbeat it was not a box-office success. However, it contained outstanding performances with Richard Harris as a tough rugby league player going into a steep decline, and Rachel Roberts (also in Saturday Night & Sunday Morning) as the woman he loves. Of this group of films, Billy Liar begins to point in a new direction. It is the story of a young Bradford lad who is something of a Walter Mitty character. He deals with the tedium of daily life by inhabiting a rich fantasy world. The film depicts a fine comic interplay between its characters. But Billy is really a bit of a sad character. When the magnificent Julie Christie character asks him to go to London with her he contrives to miss the train. (Julie, Julie, why didn't you ask me. I wouldn't have let you down. Okay, so I was only ten at the time, but you could have mothered me).

A fine start to a fascinating decade then, but the best is yet to come. Tune in to the other four episodes to find out what happens next. The series does a fine job as an overview of the most important British films of the decade, but sadly there is little room for analysis. Why was it that the sixties saw an amazing upsurge, not just in film, but also in popular music, fashion (and fashion photography), and the creative arts in general in this country? And why did it die away? There are a number of factors, but no space here to discuss it. If I have the time to review the other programmes in this series I may return to this question.

Interviewees in the first episode - Michael Caine, Julie Christie, Roman Polanski, John Osborne, Sir John Woolf, Karel Reisz, Alan Sillitoe, Peter Yates, Rita Tushingham, Paul Danquah, Murray Melvin, Bryan Forbes, Keith Waterhouse & Willis Hall, John Schlesinger, Joseph Janni, Lindsay Anderson, David Storey, Richard Harris, and Tom Courtenay (not bad, eh!). And from the archives, John Trevelyan, Tony Richardson, and Albert Finney.

US Suicide Bomber Shock!!!

2005-08-02T21:15:00.000+01:00

During the last-ever episode of Enterprise on Sky One tonight, one of the American characters, Trip, blew himself up to kill some alien invaders in his ship. This was portrayed as heroic and brave.

Don't those terrorist-commie-pinko bastards in Hollywood know that suicide bombing can never be justified under any circumstances? Don't they listen to our leader, the Great Poodle of Downing Street, who proclaimed this just last week? What do they mean by spreading this terrorist propaganda on our screens?

In future, instead of blowing themselves up to defeat invaders, characters must drop cluster bombs from 30,000 feet. We know that's okay because the Great Poodle has already done that himself - in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

If this happens again I will be demanding a witch hunt - `terrorist-commie-pinko suicide bombers out of Hollywood'. Has a ring to it, don't you think?

USA Planning War Against Iran

2005-08-02T19:24:00.000+01:00

It seems that the Washington crazies are planning to use any further 9/11 style attack on the US to launch nuclear strikes on Iran. Of course, as with Iraq, any Iranian involvement in such an attack would be irrelevant.

No doubt the Great Poodle of Downing Street would rush to support any such war crimes. Well, in for a penny in for a pound, eh? When you are already guilty of causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians what's a few hundred thousand more?

We have to get the war criminals out of government on both sides of the Atlantic or all we face is unending mass murder, and terrorism in response.

Immediate Withdrawal from Iraq

2005-07-30T22:51:00.000+01:00

Surprise, surprise, The Independent had the good taste to publish this letter on 1st August (wake up Guardian letters editor!). This was a response to Douglas Hurd's relatively honest column on Iraq in The Independent on 28th July.

Dear Editor,

In his otherwise interesting column in Thursday's Independent Douglas Hurd repeated a tired old piece of propaganda, i.e. `There is no case for immediate withdrawal of British and American troops'.

British and US politicians seemingly never tire of repeating this nonsense. The fact is that coalition troops make the situation worse in Iraq every day. It is also true that Sunnis and Shia got along without major problems before the invasion - the communities are intermarried and were certainly not at each others throats before the US interim administration under Paul Bremer began to use `divide and rule' as a tactic to govern the country. A tactic that has been continued and developed ever since.

The way to put a stop to this is to immediately withdraw all foreign troops. US and UK politicians claim there would be civil strife if troops were withdrawn, but this is not the real reason for their objections. They have shown us that they place little value on Iraqi lives, and civil strife would not bother them in the slightest. Their problem is that they want a pliable puppet regime in Baghdad, and they know that immediate withdrawal will undermine that aim.

As usual, our politicians are incapable of expressing their real motivations for their actions but hide them under the pretence of caring about human rights.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Torture / Suicide Bombs

2005-07-30T22:42:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian in response to A.L.Kennedy's column on torture on 26th July.

Dear Editor,

A.L.Kennedy's column on torture (Guardian, Tuesday) was grimly entertaining. But is true that torture doesn't work? Okay, if you want the truth, no it doesn't. But if all you want is any old rubbish you can use to justify your policies of imperialism it works just fine, thank you, as Craig Murray has shown us with Uzbekistan.

And while I'm at it, just a quick point about suicide bombs. Mr Blair has told us their use can never be justified. So let us just hope that the terrorists do not get hold of any cluster bombs. Blair has already used them against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, so they must be a legitimate means to mass murder innocent people.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Roy Hattersley - Blithering Idiot

2005-07-30T22:33:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian in response to Roy Hattersley's column of 18th July, lauding
Tony Blair's response to the London bombs.

Dear Editor,

So Tony Blair has had "the two most impressive weeks of his political career" (Roy Hattersley 18th July). Furthermore, he is "universally acknowledged to have responded superbly to the threat of terror". Is there any chance of Mr Hattersley poking his head out of the Westminster bubble and having a look at the real world?

Although it isn't reflected in Parliament (with the honourable exception of George Galloway) and is only partially reflected in the media, many people would disagree with such sentiments. Tony Blair responded to the London bombings with his usual performance of sincerity. How can you tell? Because of the way he inserted...long...pauses...between...his...words for effect. He learnt this effect for Princess Diana's funeral and has been inflicting it on us ever since when ever `sincerity' is required.

Furthermore, he has continued to lie about Iraq. As telling the truth now would undermine all his past mendacities he maintains that our tailcoating of US neo-imperialism and involvement in war crimes has nothing to do with us being targets for terrorism. Roy Hattersley may have been born yesterday, most of us were not.

Far from having had a "golden 14 days", Tony Blair has continued to act without decency, honesty or integrity. In this, he insults us all.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

The Link Between Iraq and the London Bombings

2005-07-30T22:23:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Independent on 14th July about Blair's attempt to suppress the link between his war crimes in Iraq and the London bombings.

Dear Editor,

In the wake of the London bombings Tony Blair lost no time in proclaiming that Iraq had nothing to do with it, choosing instead to echo George W.Bush's claim that the terrorists were bombing us because they hate our civilisation. One of the world's leading experts on suicide bombers does not agree with him.

Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has the world's largest database of information about suicide bombers. In answer to the question "How much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory [as the motivation for suicide bombing]?" he replied, "The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor". He also quotes from a captured Al-Qaeda planning document which shows the Madrid attack was a deliberate attempt to affect Aznar's support for George Bush. The lesson is clear - terrorist outrages against us are conducted as a strategic attempt to force our withdrawal from the illegal occupation of Iraq - not because they hate our civilisation. Otherwise how do we answer Osama bin Laden's question, "Why do we not bomb Sweden"?

There is a great deal more fascinating information in this interview which there is no space for here. Anyone who would like to read it can find it here. It is time for the Blairites to stop hurling personal abuse at those (such as George Galloway) who attempt to discuss the real causes of terrorism in this country. We need the truth to prevent terrorism, not US-inspired propaganda.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

How Representative is Parliament?

2005-07-30T22:09:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on 14th July in response to Jackie Ashley's column, `Speak up, speak out' on the Parliamentary response to the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Jackie Ashley is quite right in her comments in today's Guardian about the importance of open debate about the London bombings in Parliament. If the issues are not openly debated there Parliament does just become a rubber-stamp for the Government.

But why does she think the Blairites are trying to suppress it (for instance, by the disgraceful slandering of George Galloway)? They are desperate to suppress the clear and evident link between Blair's slavish support for George W.Bush's criminal foreign policy - especially in the Middle East - and the criminal attacks on Londoners. The Guardian performs a vital service for democracy when it publishes articles such as Seumas Milne's in today's (Thursday's) issue which point out the facts.

Parliament failed us when the original invasion of Iraq was debated. Millions of us marched against that disaster but our voices were little represented in Parliament. Now our MPs are making the same mistake. Millions of us know not only that the bombers were criminals who were personally responsible for their crimes, but that also Goverment policy in the Middle East is making us targets for such people.

MPs must stand up to the disgraceful personal abuse of their critics by Blair and his coterie of docile, useless MPs and speak up for their constituents against our continuing involvement in American war crimes in Iraq.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

New Terrorism Laws

2005-07-30T22:05:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on 13th July about Blair's announcement that new laws against terrorism are to be introduced after the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Tony Blair has announced that new laws will be introduced to fight terrorism in the wake of the London bombings. Is it too much to hope that the first of these will outlaw the invasion and occupation of other countries for political purposes, and ensure the speedy and efficient prosecution of those responsible for war crimes committed in any such invasion and occupation?

Yes, it is far too much to hope for.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

London Bombings and Galloway

2005-07-30T22:01:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Guardian on the parliamentary reaction to the London bombings of 7th July.

Dear Editor,

Once again the British Parliament has failed the electorate. In the runup to the invasion of Iraq it was quite clear that Blair did not have majority support in the country for his policy. However, with the exception of some individual Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats, MPs failed to represent the majority opinion. Now, after the appalling London bombings, Parliament has failed us again. Millions of people in this country know full well that British support for George W.Bush's neo-conservative project - especially over Iraq - has got us into this situation. What does Parliament do? If fawns on the man who is responsible for this atrocious situation. Blair the war criminal goes unchallenged yet again. Yet again our MPs prove themselves to be nothing but a bunch of lickspittles.

And what of the only MP who has the integrity and the courage to say what millions of us know to be true? The desperation of the Blairites to cover up Iraq as the cause of us being the target of terrorists is the personal abuse they resort to against George Galloway. I notice that David Winnick hid behind parliamentary privilege to slander Galloway as "making excuses for mass murderers". Anyone who saw Galloway interviewed on Newsnight knows that is totally untrue. Instead of holding Blair to account for his crimes spineless Blairites are still trying to cover up for him.

Our so-called parliamentary democracy is a complete joke. A very sick one at that. Only one man counts, and he isn't even British - George W.Bush.

Yours fairhfully,

Grouchy.

Steve Richards - `Useful Idiot'

2005-07-30T21:45:00.000+01:00

This is an unpublished letter to The Independent on 8th July in response to Steve Richards column of 8th July headed `Those responsible for dealing with terror must be given the means to do so' (only the introduction to the article is free - the rest of it requires a fee. Don't pay, it's worthless).

Dear Editor,

In the 1930s British communists were regarded as `useful idiots' in their role of denying the crimes of Stalinism and propagandising on Stalin's behalf. Today we have a number of `useful idiots' in the media who perform the same service for Tony Blair. Of these, few exceed Steve Richards in his zeal for the Great Leader. (I remember a recent headline was `No-one can doubt Blair's integrity'. `No-one can doubt Corbett's tallness' and `No-one can doubt Winton's wedding' must be due any day now).

In his column on Friday he argued that Blair must be believed when he warns of terrorist threats, and the Government must be allowed draconian measures to prevent acts of terrorism. Fortunately, most people are not as credulous as Richards would like us to be. We remember Blair's lies about Iraq and WMD. We know that over 100,000 people have died as a result of those lies. No, we do not believe Blair on terrorism because he only uses it as a threat to get what he wants.

And what does he want? Only the abrogation of our civil liberties so that this country can continue to be a poodle to the New American Empire. Perhaps Richards can tell us how house arrest did so much to prevent the bombings in London this week? No, of course he can't, because it was no help at all. Perhaps some `useful idiot' or other can tell us how ID cards would have prevented it, when they didn't prevent the Madrid bombings. Blair wants these measures to cripple the domestic opposition to his warmongering, not to stop terrorism - because they won't stop terrorism.

To stop terrorism we have to tackle the causes. And what were the causes of last week's crimes? The war crimes inflicted on the innocent people of Iraq by Blair and Bush. How do we stop them? We do two things: first, we withdraw British troops from Iraq immediately; second, we expel the war criminals from our Government.

In the meantime, perhaps Steve Richards could withdraw his head from Tony Blair's bottom and start facing reality.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

Letter on the London Bombings of 7th July

2005-07-30T21:41:00.000+01:00

This unpublished letter to The Guardian (dated 8th July) was my response to the London bombings of the day before.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Osama bin Laden has been quoted as saying, "If you bomb our cities, we'll bomb yours". War crimes visited upon innocent Iraqis have now been inflicted on innocent Londoners. The majority of Londoners opposed the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and do not deserve to suffer this - no more than do the Iraqis.

Now we face the grotesque probability that those responsible for this situation - the British Government - will try to use these crimes to force through measures to abrogate our civil liberties, thus further compounding their original crimes against humanity. Such measures will do absolutely nothing to stop terrorists. They will however make it more difficult to oppose the criminal activities of our own government - the real aim.

The only way to fight this terrorism is to deal with our own crimes. British troops in Iraq must be withdrawn immediately; and the war criminals in the British Government must be kicked out. Nothing else will stop these attacks, and put an end to the mass murder of civilians carried out in our name in Iraq.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

The IRA and Al-Qaeda

2005-07-30T21:18:00.000+01:00

Are there any similarities between these two? This interesting post makes some points that are worth considering.

The `Decent Left' Songbook

2005-07-30T15:20:00.000+01:00

I hate the term `decent left' because it's complete bullshit. As I have posted before, `war criminal left' is a far more accurate term. So, for the leading proponents of mass-murdering civilians in the interests of US neo-imperialism I would like to suggest the following apposite theme tunes:

David Aaronovitch (Mr Big Fat Fraud) `Art For Art's Sake' (Money For God's Sake)
Nick Cohen (Does he come from Barking?) `They're Coming To Take Me Away Ha-haaa' (Napoleon XIV 1966)
Christopher Hitchens (Popinjay) `Deck Of Cards' (Max Bygraves version, natch)
Johann Hari (Mr Originality) `Second Hand Rose'

I suggest that if you ever have the misfortune to read anything by these idiots, just have that individual's theme tune tinkling away in the back of your mind. `They're coming to take me away ha-haaa' is particularly relevant to Cohen's recent bilge.

Grouchy.

David Aaronovitch

2005-07-30T14:37:00.000+01:00

Unpublished letter to The Observer (otherwise known as the Liberal Bomber) on May the 8th. David Aaronovitch wrote a column entitled `If the PM's really listening, he'll go'.

Dear Editor,

Congratulations to David Aaronovitch on his very funny column (8th May). He tells us about the fat bloke in the stand at the football match who knows nothing but who is always shouting ignorant advice at the manager. Only on this one occasion, Mr Aaronovitch says, the fat bloke has got it right - Blair must go. Does it not occur at all to Mr Aaronovitch that he is the fat bloke he is writing about? His columns are nothing but ignorant shouting - at all of us rather than the manager - but just for once in his life `fat bloke' is right, Tony Blair must indeed go. Congratulations to Mr Aaronovitch on being right for once. Is there any chance at all that he might go at the same time so that we no longer have to listen to his ravings?

Yours faithfully,

The Grouch.

Blair's Mandate to Govern

2005-07-30T14:13:00.000+01:00

As threatened, the first in a series of unpublished letters to The Guardian and The Independent. This was e-mailed to The Guardian on May 7th, just after the UK general election.

Dear Editor,

As your leader of 7/5/05 pointed out, only 22% of the electorate as a whole (including non-voters) supported Labour in the election. However, what proportion of the 22% were `holding their noses' as they voted Labour? Enthusiasts for Mr Blair's policies of further privatisation in health and education, assualts on civil liberties, and tailending US neoconservatives in foreign policy (to mention just a few examples) must be considerably below 20%. This is not a mandate for Mr Blair's particular form of extremism. He claimed yesterday that he had `listened and learned' from the electorate. But he also `took full responsibility' for the Iraq debacle - with no noticeable results whatsoever. I would bet all the tea in China that Mr Blair's listening and learning produces the same result. Only a reduced majority and the hope that MPs in general have listened and learned stand between us and a whole raft of legislation which is not supported by more than 80% of the electorate.

Yours faithfully,

Monsieur Grouchy

Why didn't the bastards publish it?

So this guy walks into a bar ...

2005-07-26T22:36:00.000+01:00

... and orders a pint. "Cor, that was great", he said as he knocked back his pint of Adnams. He looked over at the TV in the corner. The news was on, with Tony Blair denouncing terrorism.

"What a hypocrite", the man exclaimed. "Blair has killed more innocent civilians than all those terorists put together. He's a real slimy maggot". The barman reached across the bar and punched him in the face.

As the man dragged himself up from the floor he said, "I didn't know this was Blair country".

"It ain't", said the barman. "It's maggot country".

Hitchenofascists

2005-07-26T18:52:00.000+01:00

So what is it with this term `Decent Left'. This is, apparently, a descriptive term for those (allegedly) on the Left who support US neo-imperialism (you know, the mass murder of civilians in Afghanistan, Iran, and elsewhere so the USA can control oil, etc in its own interests). What exactly is decent about that?

So, in the interests of transparency I propose we call them the War Criminal Left. That is a far more accurate description of their politics. Or, if that's too unwieldy, how about `hitchenofascists'. Que? Well, a prime representative of the War Criminal Left is of course Christopher Hitchens. He coined the term `islamofascists' for the islamic jihadists. This term has a spuriously analytical ring to it. In fact, it's just a term of abuse.

So my term of abuse for Hitchens, Aaronovich, Hari, Nick Cohen and all the other supporters of war crimes on `the Left' is Hitchenofascists. Well, that's the printable version, anyway.

Just What The World Needs ...

2005-07-25T01:15:00.000+01:00

...another blog. So here it is. Why `tendence grouchy'? Because of the graffiti that went up on the walls of Paris in May '68 - Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho. It turns out that I'm more grouch-y than Grouch-o, hence the slight adaptation.

What will I be wittering about? Politics, undoubtedly. I have to have some outlet for my rage against what Blair and Bush are doing to the world. And the media, too. Yes, I know blogs are constantly criticised for adding another layer of commentary to that already produced by the media. But, hey, if media comment wasn't so lacklustre and spineless we wouldn't have to do it. Also, since the Guardian and Independent seem to choose not to publish my letters (we have an agreement - they don't publish my letters, I don't buy their papers), I guess they'll turn up here.

But I might also blog about non-current affairs stuff, like my love of the Sixties, and old television programmes (they don't make 'em like that anymore you know).

Of course, whether anyone out there will read it is another matter.