by Alex Evans | Jan 25, 2008 | Conflict and security, UK
Reading Dominic Sandbrook’s excellent Never Had It So Good – a history of Britain from Suez to the Beatles last night, I came across this interesting observation about why McCarthy-style witchunts never took off in the UK:
A Whitehall committee set up to examine the case for positive vetting reported in 1950 that the procedures in the United States … were certainly ‘extremely elaborate’, but also concluded that ‘any such procedure would be repugnant to British thinking’ … McCarthyism was therefore condemned on all sides as ‘a disreputable form of politics’, the result of what [the historian Richard] Thurlow calls ‘a conscious decision to maintain civility in public life’.
Fast forward to the current debate over the Counter Terrorism Bill, and how it’s all changed. As Sir David Omand showed at the Fabian conference last weekend, the instinct for restraint and sense of proportion that was so useful to Britain in the 50s can still be found among the best senior Whitehall mandarins. The real culture shift can be found among ministers responsible for counter-terrorism, with their desire to appear ‘tough’ on terrorism and retain political momentum – and with their credulous attitude towards what the security services tell them, Stockwell and Forest Gate notwithstanding.
by Alex Evans | Jan 25, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development
One I missed from December last year:
A struggle by nations to secure sources of clean water will be “potent fuel” for war, the first Asia-Pacific Water Summit heard yesterday. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, told delegates from across the region that the planet faced a water crisis that was especially troubling for Asia. High population growth, rising consumption, pollution and poor water management posed significant threats, he said, adding that climate change was also making “a bad situation worse”.
Mr Ban went on to condemn the lack of heed paid by governments to these warning signs: “Throughout the world, water resources continue to be spoiled, wasted and degraded. The consequences for humanity are grave. Water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict.”
Say what you like about Ban, he’s running with resource scarcity and climate change in a way that Kofi Annan never did…
by Charlie Edwards | Jan 24, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks, UK
Benedict Brogan on Jacqui Smith’s experience on the Today Programme this morning (listen):
Carolyn Quinn can’t have been the only person who burst out laughing as Jacqui Smith tried to explain the Government’s terror package, except that she was able to do it to the Home Secretary’s face. Can anyone blame her? Ms Smith insists that something that might happen – but has not yet – is not unhypothetical. Before I confuse things further, this is what she told Ms Quinn. See if you can work it out:
“It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place.”
Very Rumsfeldian.
by Charlie Edwards | Jan 24, 2008 | UK
Paul Murphy is to take over as Welsh Secretary from Peter Hain, who quit today after his deputy leadership campaign donations were referred to the police. Mr Hain has been replaced in his other cabinet role as Work and Pensions Secretary by James Purnell (btw elsewhere in Europe – Prodi has resigned as Prime Minister – not that we or the Italians will notice… much).
Murphy’s departure leaves the Intelligence and Security Committee without a Chair at a time when the Government is consulting on the future of the committee. Here’s what Brown said on the subject last summer:
As the security agencies themselves recognise, greater accountability to Parliament can strengthen still further public support for the work they do. So while ensuring necessary safeguards respecting confidentiality and security, we will consult on whether and how the Intelligence and Security Committee can be appointed by, and report to, Parliament. And we will start now with hearings, where possible, held in public; a strengthened capacity for investigations; reports subject to more Parliamentary debate; and greater transparency over appointments to the Committee.
So who will replace Murphy? The current committee looks like this:
- Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP (chair)
- Rt Hon Michael Ancram QCDL MP (Conservative)
- Rt Hon Alan Beith MP (Lib Dem)
- Mr Ben Chapman MP (Labour)
- The Rt. Hon. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
- Rt Hon George Howarth MP (Labour)
- Rt Hon Michael Mates MP (Conservative)
- Mr Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative)
- Ms Dari Taylor MP (Labour)
Not since Tom King has there been a Tory Chair… but if you were the PM would you appoint one at a time like this?
by Charlie Edwards | Jan 24, 2008 | Influence and networks
The next James Bond film is to be called Quantum of Solace. The name is taken from one of a collection of short stories published by 007 creator Ian Fleming in 1960. The orginal story has no super-villains, guns, or global conspiracies. It centres around a dinner party conversation in the Bahamas between Bond and the Colonial Governor.
Bond is told of a young Diplomatic Service man who marries a flight attendant. When she becomes disillusioned with her life she begins a blatant affair which ruins her husband. He retaliates by ruthlessly crushing her spirit over the course of a year, leaving her financially and emotionally ruined. The crux is the emotional phenomenon the Governor calls the Quantum of Solace, the smallest unit of human compassion that two people can have. As long as that compassion exists, people can survive, but when it is gone, when your partner no longer cares about your essential humanity, the relationship is over.
All very well. But seriously – no super-villains, guns, or global conspiracies?
