'Necessary, Legal and Right'

I made the mistake today of getting involved in one of the BBC's fiscal blogs, when I became incensed at a suggestion on the website that the ideal way to tackle the country's financial crisis was to do away with the minimum wage and send those Jonny Foreigners back where they came from. What an idea! Let's add skills shortages and an ever-decreasing wage spiral to our many, many problems. Just don't tell Dave, right?

Fortunately, David Cameron is currently distracted from bothersome domestic difficulties by channelling the spirit of Tony Blair and carving himself a Legacy as a Politician on the World Stage.

Except of course, he's at great pains to point out that he is not Blair and this is not Iraq. In Libya, France led the charge to force the resolution through the UN and has seized the moral high ground by doing so. The US has shown that it has learnt from past indiscretions by indicating its desire to transfer its lead role in Libya within days of becoming involved. The Arab League has skirted around the issues raised by the situation in Libya, but has carefully avoided supporting the idea of further regime changes in the region. In the midst of the maelstrom Britain strode around, an overzealous and wizened schoolteacher with an ever-shortening ruler, looking for a way to assert some authority over proceedings.

It was a familiar feeling for me as I turned on the evening news. Hand-wringing MPs jostled uncomfortably in the House of Commons as justifications for British involvement in the conflict were bandied around. The news cut to eerie green night-vision pictures of tracer fire in the sky over Tripoli and I thought, 'Here we go again.' Just once, it would be nice to get through a five-year political term in Britain without our involvement in another yet another futile, expensive and unnecessary war.


After reading an article in the 'i' newspaper today by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a writer I am really beginning to appreciate, I have taken the time to consider the position I felt initially when the bombs began to drop.

As an self-described Arab exile in Britain, Alibhai-Brown admits to a feeling of political anxiety about the UK's involvement in Operation Odyssey Dawn. I'm not of Arabic descent but I can assure her that she is not alone. I am in agreement that allowing the conflict (note that no-one uses the word 'war') to escalate would be to offer a permissive stance towards a potential civilian genocide, but nonetheless I am still very uncomfortable about our role in proceedings.

While I am willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt with regard to the genuine issue of defending human life, it is unfortunate (or very fortunate, depending on your viewpoint) that supporting this cause has so many potential positive aspects for Britain that could be viewed sceptically from a retrospective standpoint. Yes, we are defending civilians by bombing strategic military targets - in the full knowledge that contracts will surely be offered to British firms when rebuilding work needs to begin and new military hardware is purchased. If we go the whole hog and support the removal of Gadaffi from power entirely, we do so knowing that any potential replacement will make their gratitude clear when determining the price of their oil.

The irony is that the Libya conflict could potentially be a watershed for the countries involved in the coalition force. Britain can go a long way towards cleansing our international reputation by making it clear that our loyalties are not determined solely by the money that lines our pockets. The true measure of our role in this saga will be determined by what happens next. So far, what we have done is indeed, to use David Cameron's own words, 'necessary, legal and right'. It is a phrase he will do well to remember and observe in the weeks ahead.

Killer Shrimp Take Cardiff

This spoof entry looks at a theoretical version of events whereby the city of Cardiff is overrun by a large number of 33m-long killer shrimp. The chain of events that led to this improbable tragedy is too long to recount here, but the following is a report taken from a press conference attended by a number of journalists and senior government figures shortly after the story breaks.

This entry is dedicated to Erin Whiley.


Assembled journalists and senior government figures were clearly shocked to be told of the events that had seen the city of Cardiff fall to the Killer Shrimp, but David Cameron looked stoic and statesmanlike as he stepped forward to the podium.

It was Sun reporter Tom Wells who asked the first question. 'Mr Cameron, why did the government not anticipate the attack which has seen Cardiff fall to the Killer Shrimp?'

Cameron replied, 'I think it can be said that there were not very many people who saw this attack coming. None of us came into politics to face accusations about being unprepared. Rather, I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service.

'And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead.'

There were appreciative murmurs and nodding from the crowd and the Prime Minister posed for photographs before stepping aside for his Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Guardian journalist Ben Dowell asked, 'Mr Hague, why are you, as Foreign Secretary, involved in this briefing?'

The former Conservative leader adjusted his suit and said, 'Well, Ben, I think we can all agree that being engaged in the world is an indispensable part of the British character.'

'But Mr Hague, Wales is part of these British Isles.'

Hague nodded approvingly. 'Indeed it is, and the fact that no-one there votes Conservative has barely registered in our strategy. Talks are currently ongoing about the establishment of an American-sponsored no-fly zone over south Wales that will prevent the shrimps from parachuting in reinforcements.'

There was a brief hiatus as tabloid journalists in the front row argued over the subject of whether shrimp can fly. When calm was restored, Mr Hague intimated that he had information that the leader of the Killer Shrimp had abandoned Cardiff and was now on route to Venezuela. When challenged on the assertion, Hague admitted that he really had no idea if shrimp even had leaders, but that everyone was in agreement that if they did, it was only just and fair that they should be selected via internationally-observed democratic elections.

It was the Times who put the next question to the government. 'Do you feel that the government's recent decision to make the entire armed forces of Britain redundant in order to save money has proved to be a good one in the light of these events?'

Hague pulled himself up to his full height (5'6") and calmly insisted that despite the decision, the UK would remain a military power 'of the first rank, made up of flexible, highly deployable forces.' Upon hearing expressed doubts about this, the Foreign Secretary reminded the assembled crowd that the UK defence responsibilities had been privatised and the contract sold to the highest bidder, which had turned out to be Libya.

Mr Hague said that despite the problems the Middle East was currently experiencing, international contract law meant that he was confident he could force Libya to meet their military responsibilities to the UK. 'If not,' Hague boomed, 'they can expect to receive a big fine.' The crowd agreed that this would certainly make Colonel Gadaffi think twice before breaking the contract.


A keen-eyed journalist in the back row noted an election manifesto pledge by the Liberal Democrats to buy and thaw out Mega Shark (who had been previously frozen by Icelandic counter-terrorist forces to prevent it from swallowing Reykjavik) as a means of dealing with a potential Killer Shrimp problem. A clearly-reluctant Nick Clegg stepped forward and made the following statement:

'The Mega Shark proposal has proven to be something of an impediment to social justice.' When he was greeted with silence, Mr Clegg continued, 'It was determined that the mere existence of such a beast was due to inequalities that had occurred in the social system at a much earlier stage.'

When the journalist who had asked the original question stated that he did not understand the response, Mr Clegg stammered, 'The current government policy is a much better way of making Britain a fairer place!'

The journalist then asked Mr Clegg if he actually understood the original question. Clegg glumly replied that he didn't actually know what he was doing at the press conference, but said that he was told by David Cameron that if he publicly agreed with all of the government's policies, he would be allowed to run the country on his own for a few minutes. Clegg then began to cry and had to be led away by Theresa May.

The Daily Mirror then voiced rumours which had begun to surface on the internet that a passing contingent of Welsh choristers, who were involved in a medieval battle reproduction outside the city, had managed to capture one of the Killer Shrimp and hand it over to local council officials. 'It's all utter bollocks,' Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles said, before belching loudly and suffusing the room with the unmistakeable smell of prawn bhuna.


Cameron stepped forward again and fielded a question about the possibility of a nuclear response. 'As you will all know, it was part of our coalition agreement to consider the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent system with something suitably fit-for-purpose that would not cost an arm and a leg. Ladies and gentleman, I would now like to reveal that replacement. I give you...Trident Mk II.'

Mr Cameron stepped back as the cameras began to flash and held aloft a three-tined fork made of dull metal roughly four feet long. As soon as it began, the applause abruptly died away and the crowd stood open-mouthed.

'It might not look like much,' Mr Cameron enthused smoothly, 'but this trident was available very cheaply as part of a larger package of economic assistance from Greece. It is the actual trident once owned by the Greek god Poseidon, and it will ensure that once again, Britain will rule the waves!'

At that point, the press conference broke down as pro-European MPs stormed the building, citing that Britain's attempts to rule the waves were in direct contravention of EU Common Fisheries Policy. As police waded into the scene and set about the crowd with metal truncheons, the Spanish foreign minister, who was on a visit to Britain, was heard to say, 'We can sue for that.'

Should the UK cease production of arms and their sale to foreign powers?

I'm going to polarise opinion today. I apologise in advance but I have to do it once in a while or otherwise the doctors won't give me my pills.

I was watching the Ten o'Clock Show on Thursday night (sad that a comedy show should be the best way to educate people about politics, but never mind) and there was a very interesting debate about Britain's role in supplying arms to foreign countries.

Britain has a long and proud history of supplying munitions to despots, and you may already know that in the last week alone, British tear gas was used on peaceful protestors in Bahrain, and British missiles supplied to Colonel Gadaffi are at this very moment killing innocents in Libya. UK readers, I hope you're forming an opinion on how you feel about this. It's being done in your name, and chances are you're barely feeling the benefit of the corporation tax.

Dominic Raab MP made the point that 55,000 UK jobs rely on the arms industry. War on Want's Yasmin Kahn made the counter-point that while these jobs may be important to the UK's commerical interests, this is not enough to justify the inevitable suffering and death that results from the sales.

This represents a massive dilemma for a union representative. I do not represent workers within the arms industry but unions are supposed to promote employment and I would not want to be the one telling these communities that they can expect their jobs to vanish and their standards of living to plummet. That said, 55,000 jobs is a relative drop in the ocean and there could be alternative job options made available to the redundant workers. This is, after all, what our current government is saying to the 500,000 public sector workers who will be jobless by the end of 2014 if events continue down their current destructive path.

On a personal level I am absolutely opposed to arms sales. As Yasmin Khan said on Thursday, we may be able to make even more money by dealing in crack cocaine, but that doesn't make it the morally correct thing to do (notice that a legal comparison is not the issue here.)

Of course democracies need to defend themselves but once we have handed over those tanks and sophisticated military aircraft, we have no way to determine whether they will be used for defensive or offensive purposes. I further believe that we shouldn't try to cloud the debate by saying that just because we sell guns doesn't mean we are the ones pulling the trigger. As far as I can see, that is an irrelevant debate. If we don't sell the gun, it will be sold by someone else and we will lose a competitive advantage while the recipient of the bullet will still be just as dead. However, at least then we can be sure that the blood is not on our hands and this would allow us to go some way towards setting a moral example to the rest of the world in the manner that we previously did with landmines.

Of course, the economic system in the UK means that each individual has the personal power to resolve their ethical dilemmas via the free-market system. You do not have to buy meat if you are a vegetarian, or petrol if you are an environmentalist. However, you cannot divorce yourself from the ethical implications of this debate, because the benefits that we receive from the industry are partly intangible (thinking back to those workers, their communities and their social cohesion rather than just the monetary consideration).

So the question I ask you is this: Do we, as Britons, want to be a producer of weaponry sold to other countries? In comparison, how do my US readers feel about their country selling weapons to others?

Each To Their Own

It's been a few days since I had time to sit down and commit a few of my thoughts to the keyboard. With all currently being quiet on the domestic front, the newspapers continue to follow the amazing progress of the Arabic democracy movement, which has now spread as far as Libya and Bahrain.

My colleague Alun Jones contrasted the successful uprising in Egypt with the actions at Tiananmen Square in China, and it is possible to do the same with Bahrain and Libya.

Where Tahrir and Tiananmen went before, Pearl Square in the city of Manama has become a focal point for Bahranian protestors, who seized it joyfully earlier this week following a full military withdrawal. Sunny and Shia alike raised national flags, waved placards and cheered as the hated local police force simply upped and left.

Egypt has become a template for uprisings in the Middle East. Now, as happened before, the younger protestors have camped out in the square as negotiations begin with the ruling royal family to implement a full constitutional reform. There are those who envisage a British-style consitutional monarchy, but at the current time, nothing seems to be ruled out.

Events in Bahrain were speeded to conclusion following a massive uprising earlier this week in response to troops loyal to the ruling family firing live ammunition into crowds. This is the preferred option in Libya, where Colonel Gadaffi has directed soldiers to flashpoints in Tripoli and Benghazi.

Libya has long been a difficult place for foreign journalists to access and report from, and many of the headlines about the beleaguered country have come from unconfirmed reports from social networking sources such as Facebook and Twitter. In response, the regime has clamped down upon access to the internet - much as Mubarak tried in Egypt, unsuccessfully, some weeks ago. Accurate information is difficult to come by, but reports suggest that several hundred people in Benghazi may have died since the riots began on Wednesday.

The willingness of Libyan troops to fire so readily on their own people has echoes of the massacre at Tiananmen, but with the context of the demonstrations so utterly different, the outcome here could be different too. A nation so dependent on oil exports for wealth sees itself under the watchful eye of a dozen Western regimes, who are growing increasingly uncomfortable as violence escalates. Within the country itself, the aggression of the military seems only to spur on the protestors, buoyed as they are by the seemingly-unassailable wave of unrest that has spread across the region.

Where next will fall to the sudden demand for democracy, accountable governments and fairer distribution of wealth? Morocco has seen unrest following Wikileaks allegations of corruption amongst those close to the King. Riot police have already violently dispersed protests in Algeria that were prompted by sharp increases in commodity prices. Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have all seen anti-government demonstrations in recent weeks, to say nothing of the continued fallout of the disputed election results in Iran.

Could the unrest spread from the Middle East? There is certainly signs that all is not well within Europe. With a strong revolutionary past and Arab-minority communities, you can be sure that France is watching events very closely indeed. Italy has been the recipient of many political immigrants from North African countries and the Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is set to stand trial accused of abuse of power and paying a minor for sex. It is an inauspicious backdrop to growing domestic discontent. Germany is suffering from something of an identity crisis, as nationalist groups grow in strength and the political storm caused by the global economic crisis continues to rage unabated.