The Future of Spin
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
Conservatives would perpetuate New Labour control freakery Hand to hand combat between the government and political correspondents would continue if the Conservatives were elected because an administration led by David Cameron would be just as determined to try to control the news agenda. This was the conclusion of journalists and press officers at a seminar held by the Westminster Media Forum (1 July, 2008). The two sides felt that the politicisation of civil service information officers, and the likelihood that any future government would find itself on the defensive, meant that further trench warfare was inevitable. There had been a fundamental shift under New Labour because Tony Blair’s government realised that unless it imposed control over the flow of information from the state to the public it would be “torn apart” by the media. Opening up the Downing Street lobby system to televised briefings was put forward as one option for improving the government’s relations with the media. David Hill, who was Alastair Campbell’s successor as Blair’s director of communications, said the existing structure of lobby briefings for political correspondents had become counter-productive. He proposed that the twice-daily briefings should be opened up to public scrutiny and whenever possible a senior minister should attend to answer the key questions of the day. Guidance given by the Downing Street spokesman would not only be on the record but televised. And, by forcing senior political correspondents to ask their questions in public, the government would be adding another element of transparency. Hill, now a director of the Bell Pottinger group, said the problem with the existing system of briefings was that they had become “almost wholly defensive” and rarely gave the government the opportunity to get on the front foot. Because of the frisson caused by the briefings within the Whitehall machine, government departments were only asked to supply defensive information for the rebuttal of questions and civil servants found the process was entirely negative. A description of how the civil service was politicised was given by Eben Black, formerly political editor of the News of the World and now a director and head of media at the public affairs practice DLA Piper. Black said that soon after Labour won the 1997 general election he telephoned the Department of Education and asked for a county by county breakdown of school class sizes. With ten minutes of the call he was rung back by Conor Ryan, special adviser to the Secretary of State, David Blunkett, and asked why he wanted the information. A Labour spin doctor was checking out the reason for his request in a way which would never have been done by a civil service information officer. “Given the intensely political way in which the Whitehall information machine has to operate under Labour, I think a Conservative government would behave in precisely the same way. The days of an impartial relationship between the civil service and the news media have gone and given that Whitehall is no longer above the political fray, I think there will never be anything but war between government spin doctors and journalists”. Tony Collins, executive editor of Computer Weekly, said he had detected an increasingly aggressive mentality on the part of government press officers. “We often get supplied incorrect information. We know ministers are given incorrect information?the Prime Minister has even been given incorrect information about the NHS computer system”. Collins claimed that another ploy used by government press officers was to tell Computer Weekly that news conferences were full and there was no more space. “I was told one press conference would not be of interest to Computer Weekly?at another a press officer barred my way. I have seen manipulation of information and control of journalists which I have never seen before”. Although David Hill was not optimistic about the chances of any future government establishing a more stable relationship with the media, he was still convinced that the government would like to be more open and transparent. But given the fiercely competitive nature of an increasingly fragmented media, all governments would continue to be under pressure. It would be harder for governments to respond if there was no incentive from the media to offer a calmer analysis. Whitehall press officers were ultra cautious because they feared they would get into difficulty. “There should be confidence in the government to field officials who have detailed information and who could answer questions but Whitehall falls down and fails to deploy them because they are fearful of being identified and personally attacked in the media”.

An Example to Others
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
Parading with our trade union banners at Tolpuddle and enjoying the music, speeches and stalls on offer is fun for all the family. But Tolpuddle is not a monument to an ancient historical period. It is of sharp relevance to the present. The judge told the six comrades that they were being transported to a New South Wales penal colony “not for anything they had done but as an example to others.” He understood that the law is not neutral in industrial relations and that, as long as capitalism exists, its political representatives will seek to skew the legal balance in favour of those who own the means of production and against those who sell their labour power. In the early 1970s, conspiracy laws were used, after a successful national pay strike, to fit up building workers at Shrewsbury, with six of them being sent to jail. The late Des Warren, who served his three-year stretch in full, told the court that the only conspiracy had been between the government and the building employers. Their victimisation too had been intended as an example to others. He pointed out that the employers, “by their contempt of the laws governing safety regulations, are guilty of causing the deaths and maiming of workers, yet they are not dealt with by the courts.” That struggle continues with a campaign for a public inquiry into the political conspiracy against the pickets. Gordon Brown and his new Labour acolytes are fond of reiterating that there can be no return to the 1970s, as though this was some kind of nightmare era. At that time, trade union membership stood at 13 million and 82 per cent of workers were covered by collective agreements. Today, membership is 6.8 million and collective agreements cover only a third of the workforce. The Tory governments that held sway from 1979 until 1997 brought in no fewer than nine measures of anti-union legislation, weakening the ability of workers to defend their pay and conditions. Labour has failed, during the past 11 years, to repeal this body of discriminatory laws. It has championed less regulation for business but not for trade unions. And the party set up by the trade unions over a century ago continues to take the side of the employers in industrial disputes. Gate Gourmet workers ought to have been working for British Airways, but privatised BA contracted out cleaning and catering, so that, when other BA workers walked out in solidarity with Gate Gourmet staff, they and their union were threatened with legal action. Trade unions are due to raise the question of union rights at Labour’s forthcoming national policy forum at Warwick. Legalisation of solidarity action should be their core demand. How can the unions continue to throw money at a party that forces their members to fight with their hands tied against employers for their basic rights? How many more trade unionists must be victimised as an example to others?

Break with the US war drive
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
This autumn marks the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, by British and US troops, and next March will be the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Both wars have now lasted longer than all theatres of operation of World War II. The total death toll in Iraq hovers at around three quarters of a million, with two million people living in internal exile, and 2.5 million in external exile, mainly in Syria and Jordan. The total death toll in Afghanistan is not known but runs into many thousands, and both wars have been accompanied by an abuse of international law on a grand scale, through the use of illegal imprisonment, extraordinary rendition, deception of allied governments, and of course the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, where the US president has personally intervened to enable water boarding torture to continue. Britain has been the most loyal cheerleader for the US in both these countries, and therefore makes us culpable in the disasters that have followed. The total of the war, so far as Britain is concerned, runs into 1 billion according to answers to parliamentary questions I have asked. The past six years have also seen a huge increase in concerns about international politics and peace, and this led to the first ever global demonstration for peace in 2003 and continuing pressure on the British and US governments. Tony Blair lost office as a result of the war, and George Bush leaves in disgrace in a few months time. That pressure for peace in the US, where over 4,000 families are grieving for their lost sons and daughters in Iraq, forced Congress to vote for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops, a decision subsequently vetoed by President Bush. This pressure also forced both Democrat candidates Clinton and Obama to declare opposition to the war, and support for a withdrawal from Iraq strategy. This strategy, whilst on the face of it highly commendable, is deeply flawed by the Bush administration plan to withdraw the troops but leave behind a large number of virtually sovereign US bases. The US press are touting the figure of 50, which would undermine any claims of Iraqi independence. Clinton and Obama have both said the real war is in Afghanistan and indeed the pressure from the military establishments on both sides of the Atlantic are for some kind of reduction in direct military involvement in Iraq, in order to shift the emphasis eastwards, where they believe the real war is taking place. Afghanistan has shown that the opposition is based on a search for national identity, and whilst the Taliban, who are a far from unified force, are leading the battle, there is clearly a political agenda that the occupying powers must contend with. The Taliban tactics have now switched to guerrilla war. The number of NATO forces are continually increasing, and the death roll rising. The fighting has spilt over into Pakistan, and the Pakistan army has shown itself to be unwilling to intervene in any conflict in the Pashtun areas of the borderlands with Afghanistan. Meanwhile, back in London, our own Ministry of Defence talks grandly of a 30 year strategy. These two wars have cost billions, taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and have made the world more dangerous and less secure. The only people who have profited to date have been the arms manufacturers and supply companies, as well as the burgeoning industry of private security firms that are acting more like mercenaries every day. The real long term winners are the oil companies, who were expelled from Iraq more than three decades ago, and are now proposing to re-enter and cream off the profits of record high oil prices at the expense of the Iraqi people. The millions who opposed the war in 2003 still feel angry, misled and unrepresented by the British political system. The Labour Party has been the most damaged by the war in Iraq. It is past time that the government learned the lesson and set a specific and absolute timetable to withdraw from both countries, with a promotion of politics rather than mass destruction as a way forward for peoples in both countries.

Just when you thought it was safe
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
Iran, the world’s apparent resident evil, according to the axis theme brigade at least, is at it again: ‘Iran test-fires long-range missile capable of hitting Israel’ was the headlines in the British Daily Telegraph (Wednesday, July 9 th 2008) but no mention of Israel’s estimated 150-200 nuclear warheads in the text; no mention of Israel being the nuclear power in the middle-eastern region; no mention either of superior British or US nuclear capability. Images of nine medium and long-range missiles without nuclear capability were screened globally courtesy of Iranian television … oh dear the secret is out! The headline capture for most media was a deliberately placed quote from Hossein Salami the Air Force Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard: ‘Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch’ ... chill winds are apparently blowing across the middle-eastern sands, as if they weren’t already. Whatever we may think about the US and European approach to Iran, particularly the British and French wing of Europe at least, it’s always worth bearing in mind that the incumbent Iranian leadership use Israel and the US as justification for its continuation in power not so different, tactically at least, from the way Mugabe uses the British as justification for his repugnant reign to continue also. It’s often the case that many on the Left jump to the wrong conclusions once Israel and the US are mentioned in the same sentence, often forgetting that the Iranian leadership, and Hizbollah whom they support, aren’t what we would call enthusiastic advocates of democracy even in a socialist sense. However, despite the fact that Iran has a pretty deplorable human rights record and is continuing to harass women activists fighting to defend the rights of women detailed by Amnesty International (see link below), nevertheless it’s not entirely unreasonable for Iran to indicate to the world, as it is so obviously and publicly doing currently, that it has a right to defend itself from both Israel and the US, who both have far superior weaponry power. An Associate Press (AP) report (Thursday, July 10 th , 2008) created their own version of events quoting ‘official analysts’ who claimed that the show of strength wasn’t just about ‘retaliation’, as the Iranian’s have constantly claimed, but also about going on the ‘offensive’, which the Iranian’s have claimed would be nothing short of a farce, not to mention suicidal. AP wheeled out Suzanne Maloney from the so-called ‘independent’ Brookings Institution based in Washington D.C., who spoke of the danger posed to Israel by Iran. But it’s always worth remembering that one Haim Saban donates generously to the Brookings Institution, funding the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Saban and Director of the Center Martyn Indyk, described by ABC News ‘On the Issues’ as a ‘Brookings Expert’ are fervent pro-Israeli supporters, with Saban also a major financial backer of the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, who spent many hours of the campaign lecturing on pro-Israeli issues. Maloney is also a Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy… it’s making a lot more sense now! And the right wing in the US are also at it again; yes it is time to think about how fear can be generated amongst the public once again. Here’s a clip from an interview with Ivo Daalder conducted by Diane Rehm that demonstrates this point clearly (Thursday July 10 th 2008): Rehm: Ivo, if I could start with you, talk about these missile tests. What’s going on, are there new capabilities about which you believe the U.S. needs to be concerned? Daalder: Well anytime someone shoots a missile off we have to be concerned. These are systems that, if deployed with weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical or biological), could do a lot of damage — and they could do a lot of damage over significant ranges. Ah yes, it’s the old ‘weapons of mass destruction’ routine happening all over again. If at once you don’t succeed, try and try again! But perhaps the real player who may just have most to lose is Russia, because for all the blustering of Iran many in the US are using the Iranian ‘threat’ as justification for the missile defence system they wish to strategically place in Europe. According to Seymour Hersh on BBC’s Newsnight (Wednesday, July 9 th 2008, 10.30pm) whilst power shifts between Cheney and Rice on a casual basis, he believes that Cheney has the upper hand recently. Russia will therefore only be too aware that Iran, whom they support, may have handed Cheney and Co., the ideal excuse they were so desperately looking for. And perhaps we now know why Russia refused to back the US and Britain on new sanctions against the Mugabe led regime in Zimbabwe. But perhaps the ‘show of strength’ has been exaggerated as Mark Fitzpatrick of the Institute of Strategic Studies has claimed in an interview with the BBC: ‘It very much does appear that Iran doctored the photo to cover up what apparently was a misfiring of one of the missiles’ claims Fitzpatrick … but will anybody be listening? Links The Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2273986/Iran-tests-fires-long-... Amnesty International Report Women act against repression and intimidation in Iran http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/women-act-against-repr… ABC News ‘On The Issues’ Martha Raddatz interview with Martin Indyk http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2008/0506_issues_indyk.aspx SourceWatch on Haim Saban http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban Rehm-Daalder Interview under ‘Iran and U.S. Missile Defense’ http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2008/0710_iran_daalder.aspx Mark Fitzpatrick interview on the BBC under ‘Iran faked missile test image’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7500917.stm

US tells lies about torture, say MPs
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
Britain can no longer believe what Americans tell us about torture, an MPs’ report to be published today claims. They also call for an immediate investigation into allegations that the UK government has itself ‘outsourced’ the torture of its own nationals to Pakistan. In a damning criticism of US integrity, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said ministers should no longer take at face value statements from senior politicians, including George Bush, that America does not resort to torture in the light of the CIA admitting it used ‘waterboarding’. The interrogation technique was unreservedly condemned by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who said it amounted to torture. A change in approach would have implications for extradition of prisoners to the US, especially in terror or security cases, as the UK has signed the UN convention which bars sending individuals to nations where they are at risk of being tortured. During waterboarding, a person is tied to a board with their feet raised and cellophane wrapped around the head. Water is then poured on to the face, causing the victim to start to drown. Today’s committee report said there were ‘serious implications’ of the striking inconsistencies between British ministers continuing to believe the Bush administration when it denies using torture. ‘The UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the government does not rely on such assurances in the future,’ said the committee. ‘We also recommend that the government should immediately carry out an exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques on the basis of such information as is publicly available or which can be supplied by the US.’ It also urges the government to press the US authorities for information on whether any American military flights landing in the UK were part of the ‘rendition circuit’, even if they did not have detainees on board at the time. The government has repeatedly accepted US assurances that UK territory has not been used for ‘rendition’, the extra-judicial transfer of suspects between countries. But in February, Miliband told the Commons he had been informed by the US that two rendition planes refuelled on the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The MPs also urged the Foreign Office to investigate a Guardian report that six British nationals claimed to have been detained and tortured by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, where they were also interrogated by British intelligence officers. Foreign Minister Lord Malloch-Brown told the committee: ‘We absolutely deny the charge that we have in any way outsourced torture to Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] as a way of extracting information, either for court use or for use in counter-terrorism.’ The report also called on the Foreign Office to seek consular access to all British citizens, including those of dual nationality, detained in Pakistan and asked for an explanation from ministers why one of those detained was apparently denied consular access but was visited by a British official, who may have been an intelligence officer.

Channel 4 ?did not mislead? on global warming
UKWatch.net - 20 Jul 2008
Ofcom will rule next week that Channel 4 did not mislead the public over the science of climate change with its programme the Great Global Warming Swindle, according to Owen Gibson in the Guardian this morning. There is some criticism of Channel 4 and the GGWS programme, produced by Michael Durkin: Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme… Complaints about privacy and fairness from the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts… But the bigger story is around what Channel 4 won’t be censured for: But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator’s broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers. Have a look at an example complaint made to Ofcom from Josie Wexler (via Flet) which suggests the programme broke the “Broadcasting code clauses: 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 7.1, 7.6, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 and 7.13.” As Josie points out in her letter: The director Martin Durkin is well known for his unscrupulous approach as shown by the fact that he has a previous ruling against him for his programme ?Against Nature.? And yet despite having had to apologise for broadcasting this Channel 4 have now broadcast another of his programmes on the same subject without warning the public. [my emphasis] So, Channel 4 had already had to apologise for a previous misleading programme of Martin Durkin’s? What is even more worrying is that, again, the ’six-to-one’ evidence (six times more people supported the programme when phoning in or leaving messages on the message board) was used as a justiification of airing this programme: Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate… The producers claimed that after it was broadcast, Channel 4 received a record number of phone calls that were six to one in favour of the arguments made. The film was subsequently sold to 21 other countries. Why this justification is wrong This justification suggests that a particular percentage of a particular number of members of the pubic with a phone and a gripe is enough to warrant a progamme that flies in the face of over 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists publishing the 4th Assessment Report for the IPCC. So, a couple of questions for Ofcom and Channel 4. 1. How many people phoned in exactly, and what percentage of the audience figures is this? 2. What is the average repsonse to a political/provocative programme such as this? 3. What kind of people would self-select to watch a programme called the Great Global Warming Swindle? 4. What kind of people would want to phone in to support or criticize such a programme? 5. The Royal Society, scientists, academics, press, columnists, at least 1/7th of people who watched the programme, and media monitors have all come out against the programme. Do around, for example–and I’m guessing here–600 people who phoned in to watch the programme, 6/7ths of all those that phoned in, mean that Channel 4 can extrapolate out so that “6/7ths more people in the country” are behind them on this? 6. Or, in reality, do ONLY, say, 600 people who watch Channel 4 support them on this? In total. And if Channel 4 get this many viewers for one programme, does it justify its airing? (That last one is probably unfair. Different polls at different times show different levels of support and understanding for, or disbelief and scepticism in, global warming.) But I think Ofcom has made a mistake here. I’d like to see the numbers, so will come back to this when the report is out. I’m also going to do some digging around the code, and the definition of ‘material’ misleading. But it may be the case that they a) either do not have the scientific experience to weigh up whether or not the programme misled the public, or b) they’ve been cowardly. Want more? Some reviews from the time: Robin McKie in the Guardian condemns Channel 4 Martin Durkin defends his programme The Royal Society’s Rebuttal the Independent attempts a he-said-they-said balancing act