Alastair Campbell Is A Big Fat Liar*

Interesting news from the latest edition of the New Statesman, news that barely seems to get a mention elsewhere. According to the New Statesman:

Alastair Campbell placed the September 2002 WMD dossier in the hands of the propaganda unit that later produced the plagiarised "dodgy dossier", the New Statesman can reveal.

According to the periodical, Conservative MP John Baron obtained the full text of a letter sent by the Cabinet office to the Hutton inquiry after it had been asked to hand over an early secret draft of the dossier. A previously censored four and a half lines of the letter reveals that Campbell placed the intelligence dossier in the hands of the Coalition Information Committee (CIC). The CIC is a propaganda unit set up by Campbell to promote UK involvement in US-led wars. Campbell has denied that the dossier existed on 9th September 2002.

The New Statesman concludes that:

The revelation that the dossier was from the outset in the ownership of Campbell’s propaganda unit is the final nail in the coffin of the government’s claims that it was produced by the JIC.

It is clear that the government misled both the Hutton inquiry and the Butler Review about the background of the dossier that formed the basis of Andrew Gilligan's accusations. Furthermore, it would appear that the early first draft of the dossier drawn up by John Williams, communications director at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, does not contain any reference to the infamous 45 minute claim that made the case for war. It would appear that, as Gilligan stated at the time, that the claim was inserted to 'sex-up' the dossier. Gilligan's report was, therefore, wholly accurate in its central assertion. An assertion that led to the government asserting its authority over the BBC in an unprecedented manner. An unprecedented event that was, nonetheless, supported by the very people who claim to be opposed to the ideology of the all-powerful state machine. Where were they when the state machine went into overdrive? Behind the lines of the government, where their natural loyalties lie. But, I digress.

After successfully utilising the FoI Act, Baron told the New Statesman:

“Britain went to war on a false premise, and this latest revelation underlines the fact that spin doctors were involved from the outset in the production of the dossier and the presentation of the case for war in Iraq – a war which, in its aftermath, is still costing British and Iraqi lives. I shall be asking further questions when parliament returns as to why the involvement of the CIC in the production of the dossier has been concealed.”

Perhaps it is time for the government to make an apology to the BBC, the British and Iraqi people and to finally admit that the premise on which our involvement was based, was nothing more than the invention of a vicious propagandist with blood on his hands. It comes to something when a Tory MP exposes this sordid truth.

*Allegedly

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

The Blairite Legacy

As their seems to be a national obsession with defining what the Blair Legacy™ is, it seems only fair that I should also have a crack at what people will remember about Blair. Of course, it would be easy for me to just copy and paste what a thousand other commentators have written, but that would be just plain lazy. It would also be very easy to spend the entire post using the situation in Iraq with which to beat Teflon Tony. However, no matter how angry this decision made me, there are countless other examples of why this man has been such a disaster for this country and, in particular, for left-wing progressive politics in general.

Firstly, I want to take you back to 1997 and the general election. Now, I have to confess something to you. Something that seems to annoy many left-wing people I have encountered via this medium. However, it is something that I am proud of. I never voted for Tony Blair. There I said it, this is where you start hurling abuse at your monitor for my failure to vote for the only electable, left-wing candidate. As I said, however, this is something of which I am proud to say. I know this will sound a little 'I told you so', but I had bad feelings about Blair right from the very start. I was coming up to the end of my final year when the election campaign was underway, and I was looking forward to playing a part in my first general election (it's rather like the first time you go out on a date - only the end result is even more crushingly depressing than you might have feared). A friend and I watched some of the pre-election bullshit (sorry, I mean campaign) and we were both agreed - we couldn't trust Blair. At that stage it was for very superficial reasons. Remember the devil eyes poster by the Tories? Well, that was exactly what we thought of Blair - the only disappointment being that it was the dreaded Tories that had come up with such an appropriate image for our future Prime Minister. We were also very suspicious of the actual content of what he said, but it was the smile and the eyes that made me think that he had sold his soul to the devil (as it now seems). So, regardless of the consequences of not voting for the only credible opposition to the Tories, I voted Lib Dem. Not much better but at least it wasn't Blair.

Not long after the election, I began to realise that Blair was preparing to be the very thing I feared he might become - the spawn of Thatcher. And here is where his legacy begins. Barely two months after the election, on a wave of 'goodwill', Blair did the unthinkable. He introduced top-up fees. Essentially, he opened higher eduction up to market forces. Now, I know it is a controlled market at the moment, with no flexibility to set varying fees and thus create 'competition' and 'choice', but the foundations are certainly there. Besides, education is a right, not a privilege. Any attempt to put a price on education, makes it exclusive to those that can afford it. Surely this was the antithesis of a socialist government? Was this the Tory party in disguise? Of course it was. And as they have proved ever since, the re-branding of Labour as 'New' Labour might as well have been labelled Tory 'Lite'. Furthermore, under Blair's Labour party, the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider. Who would have thought that this would be possible with a Labour government? It is very clear who truly inspired Blair.

Not long after the introduction of tuition fees, Blair then showed how close he was to big business. In October 1997, Blair decided to exempt Formula One from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. It then emerged that the decision was not as simple as was first thought. It transpired that Blair had accepted a £1 million donation from Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone before the general election. As part of his defence, Blair claimed that:

"I don't believe I have been tarnished - no ... I am a pretty straight sort of guy."

Aaah, hindsight eh? Again, the suspicions about his support of the business community (not to mention the accusations of being bought by business leaders), raised serious questions about where this country was heading under Blair. First, restricting universal, free education, then seemingly bowing to the will of big business. Were we in fact seeing a Tory 'Lite'? A government with roots in Thatcherite economics? A centre-right Labour party?

There then followed a series of scandals as Blair became embroiled in a culture of sleaze. This was turning into the Major years all over again. Blair resorted to spinning himself out of every mess he found himself in. However, many people were starting to see through the culture of spin that Blair had created around him. As one commenter put it on the BBC website in 1999:

Tony Blair and the New Labour Party now represent nothing more than the sneering face of New Thatcherism. How else can one describe a party which embraces privatisation of core public services (through the PFI), cynical pre-election tax cuts ahead of real investment in schools and hospitals (and New Labour is proud of the fact that it spends less on public services than any British government in 40 years), an "ethical" foreign policy which sees British weapons sold to some of the most opressive regimes in the world?

Privatisation became a massive priority for Blair over this period. The NHS and the education system both became prime targets for Blair's infatuation with PFI. Blair's determination to get the private sector involved in public services was the clearest indication yet of his passion for Thatcherite economics. Despite the protestations of unions and some backbenchers, Blair continued down the course of privatisation. In fact, one might say that privatisation was re-invigorated by Blair throughout his premiership.

Then there was his disastrous foreign policy. Not only has the war in Iraq itself proven to be such an unmitigated disaster, the conduct of Blair and his government in the run-up to the invasion led to numerous high profile scandals. First, and most importantly, was the death of Dr David Kelly. Dr Kelly was Andrew Gilligan's main source for the claim that the 45 minute claim was exaggerated by Alastair Campbell. After his subsequent hounding by the government, Dr Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill, having apparently committed suicide (although this has been disputed by some doctors). Perhaps one of the most shocking events of Blair's tenure, the sense of distrust of Blair over this was exacerbated by the revelation that Alastair Campbell and Cherie Blair had signed a copy of the Hutton report (which investigated Kelly's death) that was subsequently put up for auction. When questioned on the auction, Blair merely answered:

"I do not believe that any offence to anyone was intended".

Progressive? I guess not. Up until this point I had deep reservations about Blair's government. The events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly simply re-affirmed what kind of government we were dealing with here. A ruthless, hard government, that would steam-roller opponents in the most callous way possible. Perhaps it is no surprise that a man like Alastair Campbell would be central to just such a regime.

After the events of September 11th, Blair announced that the UK would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. It didn't take long to find out what this meant. Blair refused to speak out about many issues that concerned progressives around the globe. Guantanamo was ignored, renditions were permitted, Iraq was invaded, Israel's actions in Lebanon were effectively endorsed and a strategy of pre-emptive strikes was put forward. Blair was leading the country into a new and dangerous direction. No longer would the British government concern themselves with international law, now it would be a case of following the lead of Bush and the White House. Human rights were wilfully discarded as part of the fight against terrorism that Blair and Bush put at the centre of their ideologies. Out went any remaining semblance of socialism, and in came neo-conservatism. Blair had clearly lined himself up with the far-right, who were willing to accept Blair as an ideological partner. Was anymore proof needed that Blair had abandoned the progressive left and was making a play for the conservative right? Was it really a surprise given Blair's underlying conservative (and indeed, Thatcherite) tendencies at the very beginning of 'the project'?

So where does that leave us? Well, it seems clear to me that Blair's overriding legacy is consolidation. Consolidation of the very things that the Conservatives put in place over 18 years. In fact, in some areas, one could argue that the Blair has gone further than even the Conservatives would dare (particularly in regard to creeping privatisation in the NHS etc). He has proven to be an ally and a close friend to the business community. He has developed conservative allies across the globe. Bush, Aznar, Merkel, Berlusconi and now, Sarkozy have all been friends to Blair. It would be fair to say, that he has tried to distance himself from progressive left-wing leaders across the globe. In terms of foreign policy, he has put this country at risk like never before. His foolishness has cost the UK dear in terms of respect. Iraq and Lebanon have seriously damaged our abilities to conduct diplomacy throughout the Middle East, if not the world. By aligning himself with the neo-conservatives, Blair has shown how he views the world. Democracy is something that must be imposed. It does not grow organically from grassroots movements. It is brought to the people by blood and guns. Blair's legacy has been the shift in UK politics to the centre-right. When politicians talk of the 'centre-ground', they mean centre-right. It is this policy that pushed the Conservatives further to the right, and that dis-enfranchised millions of people who were left without a credible alternative to the voices of the establishment. This will be Blair's legacy. The consolidation of Thatcherite economics and the almost fatal blow to socialism. Thanks to Blair, the true legacy that will linger, will be the legacy of Margaret Thatcher - seventeen years after we thought we had seen the back of her.

(And I haven't even mentioned cash for peerages..., BAE or the recent Official Secrets prosecution.)

Satan's Little Helper

Could not believe this evil fuckwit on Question Time last night. When attacked over the war in Iraq, Bolton's standard response:

'I bet you wouldn't have liked to live under Saddam'.

Wow, you cut me down with that one John. Even better was the standard:

'Iraq attacked two of her neighbours.'

Mmm, two you say. Now, one was Kuwait, right? I remember that. Saddam rolled into town and we heroically stepped in. That's right isn't it?? Now, what was the other one? Mmmmmm. Oh yeah, hang on, it was Iran. But didn't we back that war? Yes, I think we did didn't we? And isn't that the country that we are now threatening to invade? But that's ok because we are like the good guys, yeah? So that's ok. And this thing about gassing the Kurds, didn't we play a part in that too? Weren't chemicals sold to Iraq by the West? But, I guess we didn't know what he would use them for. I mean, he seemed so friendly back then. Not like those nasty Iranians. These neo-cons certainly seemed to have mastered the art of double-speak, or talking bollocks if you prefer.

This guy just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. On last night's QT he came across as an intellectual lightweight, which is probably unsurprising given the current resident at the White House. These Republicans sure do crumble when they are faced with an English audience (although for the record I did wish that a few more people would take apart his weak arguments. Actually, I was screaming at the TV with incredulity, again). And as for his response to Tony Benn:

'It isn't worth replying to Mr Benn.'

Is that perhaps because you are unable to justify the actions of a criminal cabal who have contrived to fuck the planet up for a very long time? Cunt.