lib dems

The Lib Dems continue to emulate the Monster Raving Loony party by remaining uninterested in power. Although many like the broad thrust of their policies there has been an institutional ambition to, well, not be ambitious.

Nevertheless, they do hold the most interesting leadership contests and do add to the gaiety of the nation. We're pleased to read that Lembit Opik is standing for President, to take over from Simon 0898 Hughes.

Frightened yet?

Quarsan picked up on this quote by that extremist Murdoch-shilling taking dickhead of an ex-plod earlier, but it needs expanding on.  This is the new Prime Minister's future advisor on international security matters, telling us that the complete, utter, rank amateurish, balderdash of profoundly non-terrifying non-car bombs that the press and broadcast media have been having collective fear-wanks over for the last five days are worse than 7/7, an attack run on coldly professional lines by men who knew what they were doing, killed 52 people and injured many others, physically and mentally.  Now I reckon that's an insult to my intelligence, to my fellow Londoners and, I suggest, to anyone unfortunate enough to be caught up in 7/7.  It beggars belief that this man is listened to by anyone with an ounce more sense than a jam sandwich.  Oh, and I switched on my radio this morning to hear Tony McNulty in the same job sounding exactly as dull, stupid and unpleasant as he did when John Reid was in the hotseat.  Plus ca change.

I was in a pleasant poolside bar in Greece when the new Cabinet was announced, and was enjoying myself ('Bye, Doctor Reid!  Bye, Marge!') right up until I heard about Lord Stevens' appointment.  This is a man who, let us not forget, was appointed by the football authorities to investigate corruption in the game and dutifully found it was clean as a whistle.  What do we think will happen when he's appointed by New Labour to investigate whether, say, the Iraq War has led to an increase in the terrorist threat?  Perhaps he can invite Lord Hutton and Lord 'What's He Doing In The Lib-Dems?' Carlile along to help out with buckets of whitewash (supplied by Halliburton, naturally).  Mind you, I still think appointing Ruth Kelly to Transport is someone's idea of a sick joke, so perhaps the Stevens appointment (and that of the unacceptable fat of capitalism Sir Pigby Jones) should be seen similarly.

Actually, reading round the blogs to get some bleedin sanity back into the picture, Juan Cole points out that the known arrests are of medics from the Middle East, specifically Jordan and Iraq (I'm assuming that the people responsible are about as good at evading the polizei as they are at bomb-making here).  This points to another rather ironic bit of New Labour idiocy - the import of foreign doctors into the NHS to meet targets, followed by the MTAS junior doctor job debacle where there were more doctors than jobs.  If the quality of the medical care by the gentlemen arrested is anything like their apparent bomb-making ability, I'd run a mile screaming from any hospital unlucky enough to employ them.  Go in to see them with an infection and they'd probably prescribe antibiotics, but be unable to work out how to get the drugs into you ('perhaps you could just, like, sit next to them and wait?').  So much for record NHS investment and making the NHS a top priority.  We should send them back where they came from.  What do you mean, it's a blood-stained hell hole of our creation?

However, that's not the most amusing part - that must go to our old friend 'al-Qaeda General' Dhiren Barot, the numpties' numpty, the king of the jihadi muppet wing, who spent an inordinate amount of time devising unworkable plots, which were then obligingly published by the Met to show what a cold, calculating killer they'd caught, and seem to have been taken as such by other numpties.  With the Met on the case vectoring the PDFs, you don't even need to actually stage an attack to have influence.  We all knew Barot was a stupid, ignorant fantasist with an inflated opinion of himself and no apparent sense of irony, but then we read SpyBlog and others and form our own opinions based on the facts.  Perhaps it's a good thing wannabe jihadis watch Die Hard and read the News of the World and believe what they're told by the Met, then.  Much safer than actually working out how to build real bombs.

UPDATE - More from septicisle covering much the same ground rather better.

I'm a little slow off the mark here, as the following story came out in last friday's Guardian, but is Cherie being a little premature by auctioning off a signed copy [who's signed copy we don't know] of the Hutton Whitewash that got her husband off the hook?

Lib Dem, Norman Baker MP, that assiduous asker of questions who stood down from the front bench a couple of months ago is to dedicate the next year to filling in the gaps and intends to do his best to try to uncover as much of what was covered up.

The Hutton investigation into David Kelly's death covered 3 main areas, the role of Government, the role of the BBC, and how and why David Kelly died.

Despite the evidence that we all heard, Hutton absolved Government of any wrongdoing or responsibility for David Kelly's death, chosing to accept protestations that the state had acted in good faith at all times despite the evidence we all heard.

Hutton, as we all know took the opportunity to savage the BBC, who duly bent over and asked how far and how fast he would like to stick it in.

But as for the events leading directly up to, and circumstances surrounding Dr Kellys death, Hutton did little more than confirm the 'official' narrative of events. He was backed up in this by the refusal of the Oxforshire Coroner to hold an inquest after Hutton reported..

In the furore that followed Huttons findings[sic], the BBC vs Government spat became the story, and the nagging unanswered questions about David Kelly's death were pushed very much into the background.

Norman Baker outlines some of the questions he wants answering:
[my links]

He has already started asking the questions...

Unless, of course, you're fighting an election against an openly gay candidate...

Simon Hughes the enthusiastic candidate for party leadership has finally come out of the closet. Now, few people give a damn if a candidate is gay or straight, but this is important.

He's denied his sexuality for years, as recently as a few days ago. That's not a huge issue, but let's remember how he got into parliament in the first place.

In the Bermondsey by election the old MP, Bob Mellish who thought he owned the constituency, was deselected and the openly gay Peter Tatchell was picked for Labour. This upset the Labour Old Guard as their man had been booted out and this... this queer was selected instead. Waves of revulsion swept through the labour clubs.

In this atmosphere homophobia ran riot. Tatchell was bombarded with hate mail and death threats. An Anonymous leaflet appeared asking voters "Which Queen will you vote for?" Tatchell or QEII, apparently.

The Liberal Democrats played the homophobia card stronger than anyone else. Throwing away the basic 'principles' of their party and political philosophy, Simon Hughs ran a disgraceful campaign. Apart from leaflets describing himself as "The Straight Choice" they also sent canvassers around with "I've not been kissed by Peter Tatchell" badges and so on.

Simon Hughes has apologised but today, we finally learn the depths of his hypocrisy, when a closeted gay man beat an openly gay man in a by-election by smearing, lies and homophobia.

So, that's the Liberals. They get rid of a drunk and the replacements were going to be a tired old man, a complete nonentity, a man who pays rent boys to crap on him or Simon, who got there by crapping on a gay man - but only metaphorically, so that's some sort of progress.

But I must confess, I can't see Simon without thinking of Hi-di-Hi's Jeffrey Fairbrother.

Well, now the Whale, which was clearly in breach of the exclusion zone defined by the latest anti protest legislation is finally dead, maybe the media can finally get round to reporting some of the News they have ignored whilst hounding the creatures every move.

The Rendition story might be a good place to start. Fresh from the New Statesman leak earlier in the week, we learn this weekend that the government have lied about the meetings that they have had with UN representatives about the issue:

Presumably HMG 'forgot' the visit they recieved from the UN Human Rights Commission's special rapporteur, to question the fact the government position on Extraordinary Rendion is laughably unbelievable. they also forgot that he was not satisfied with the UK government's answers, and that he promised to follow up...

Without the Whale dominating the news, perhaps we will hear more on this?
Not to mention 24,000 children on the DNA database, the Iraqi election results, the widely disbelieved UK forces casualty figures, the defeats in the Lords over ID cards, Ruth Kelly's burial of reports that show the education White Paper to be the farce that it is, Friday's Human Rights Watch report, Craig Murray's appearance at the Bush Commission, etc etc etc

But now we have Mark Oaten's demise to add to the heady mix!

Priceless, Mark Oaten is not only standing down from the leadership contest, he is standing down from their front bench!

Over an affair with a rent boy...?
Something, finally had to get that now dead whale off the bloody news!

Heavy drinking and ilicit sex: the more I learn about the Lib Dems, the more fun they sound...;)

[I'll add some links, when there is something to link too.]

btw, Lembit Opik is showing himself to be a stunning jinx judge of character. Fresh from his bizzare protestations that Charlie had it all under control and there was no reason for him to step down, he became Mark Oaten's sole parliamentary supporter...

Not quite the king maker you would like to be, are you Lembit?
It does beg the question, which poor bastard is Lembit going to curse support next...

The news stories are starting to pop up now, [only 10 minutes after us] with all the lurid detail we have come to expect from the tabloids.

We should know in 45 minutes...

Watch Live here

Given all the talk of alcoholism and drunkenness, this seems appropriate...
DUI Sobriety Test
The moral of the story? You can get away with a lot when you're wasted, but the beer gets you in the end...;)

This is getting painfull, almost embarassing. How much of a hint does he need?!
The rumour from lunchtime today, that of threatened mass resignations looks like it is true.

Who the hell is advising Charlie that his position is tenable?

The farce of the Lib Dem leadership is moving apace.
Following yesterdays Public Statement, where Charlie admitted to the world that he was an alcoholic his inadequacies have moved the top of the news agenda.

Before I get stuck in to Charlie, I should be clear, he has my empathy and sympathy for his alcoholism. I had a problem with alcohol, and have been on the waggon for 6 years. I have some little understanding of what he and his family have been going through. Yesterday's statement must have been very difficult to make, and those 2 months without beer must have been tough. I also like the man, and he has achieved a lot for the Lib Dems in the past. But it is the distant past.

But, it is not as David Steel said on Radio4's World at One, "a private matter". It is a very public matter. His alcoholism has been one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood, and has underpinned much of the criticism of his disasterous performance.

Does being a recovering alcoholic disqualify somebody from doing a his job? In general no, but Charlie told us yesterday that for much of the time he has been doing his job he was not in recovery. He was an alcoholic. Two dry months is to be commended on a personal level, but not a professional one. Even George Best managed a year before they would give him a liver...
Indeed, on the lunchtime C4 News bulletin we were treated to Lembit Opik citing the fact that George Bush is a recovering alcoholic as evidence that alcoholism is no obstacle to power! Now that is beyond desperate. Oh, and by the way Lembit, alcoholism is not a "lifestyle issue" it's a fucking serious medical condition!

What has also become clear is that Charlie kept the extent of the problem from all but a select few around him. The problem with that is the fact he has repeatedly lied through his back teeth, and dispatched others to lie for him.

His supporters have been telling us that he has come clean, and he was under no obligation to disclose a medical problem. Except he didn't come clean in his own time, he came clean because he was told that the press were going to out him, and that forced him to make a statement. He had absolutely no choice.

What is clear is his absolute determination to hold onto his own job. Yesterday's statement was designed to circumvent a no confidence vote amongst MP's, and put his leadership to the membership, where he feels he has more support. This is a colossal misjudgement.
MP's are furious that they have been forced to stand against him, and that those frontrunners who have said they wouldn't stand against Charlie are de facto barred from running. This crude blackmail has not gone down well. To the extent that senior Lib Dems are now tearing strips of Charlie in public.

Aren't these traits characteristic of an alcoholic? Lack of judgement, desperation and unrealistic expectations? Does Charlie really think he will be able to beat an insidious illness, that will be constantly referred to by his political collegues, his political enemies and the media if he pulls off this leadership election in the face of serious opposition from his own parliamentary party by a scam? I can't think of a set of circumstances more likely to make a recovering alcoholic fall off the waggon.

Piling on the pressure, Vince Cable is to deliver a letter this afternoon signed by half the Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet, telling Charlie they have no confidence in his position with the clear message that he should step down and allow the party to move on. Today the first of these, Andrew George, made his intention to resign if Charlie doesn't do just that by monday, and BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson is reporting that the other signatories have had discussion about resigning en masse.

I take no pleasure kicking Charlie when he is down, but I will, and I will continue to do so untill he wakes up and smells the coffee. I was one of not enough ex Labour supporters who wasted my vote on the Lib Dems in the general election. They are keen to tell us that they have more MPs than they have had for 80 years, and the party has never done so well. Excuse me? In the face of a Blair govenment that was almost universally distrusted and loathed, a Tory party on it's knees and in disarray, the Lib Dems would have us believe that an extra 10 seats is a result? It was pathetic, and I belive that one of the reasons that the Lib Dems did not pick up a significant number of Labour votes was because of the problem with the leadership and credibility.

If their performance in the May election was poor, their performance since has been apalling. Charlie told us this is the era of three party politics. I'm sorry, but for three party politics, the third party has to take part. Again, the issue has been Charlie. When they have wheeled him out, he has either been pissed, or he has appeared to be pissed. That is why it is a public, not a private matter.

For gods sake Charlie, read the writing on the wall. Your recent performance, certainly over the last 12 months has been terrible. You are battling an insidious illness, that you have repeatedly lied about, and which underpins that terrible performance. Your chances of beating that illness are by definition slim, and are vastly reduced by the stresses and pressures of doing your job at the best of times, let alone with the parliamentary party against you. Give yourself the time to recover, and salvage some dignity from this. You are humiliating yourself by your pathetic attempts to hang on to your job.

Walk away now, get well and come back to politics. It is your only real option.

Once again, for the record...
[Skip to 4 mins into the clip]

More on the Lib dems and Carlie's recent performance archived here.

Charles Kennedy takes the first step and admits the blindingly obvious - he's got a drink problem. But he wants us to support him, and we do. However, we don't think a politician who has lied so comprehensively as he has is the answer to other politicians who lie.

Charles is claiming not to have had a drink for over two months.

Anyway, see this earlier post and listen to the interview that was conducted on 7/12/05, less than the claimed two months and make your own minds up as to how much he had been drinking...

And this is another scoop for blairwatch, even beating Andrew Neil by some time

For the full Poll Results go here.

I bet the Lib Dem malcontents are quaking in their boots. Charle has been threatening those who question him with the sack after a week where his apalling failings and apparent drink problem have been the subject of debate, again...

I heard somebody on the radio, I think it was via a sms from a listener to BBC Radio4's PM show, suggesting that
'if we are to wait for the Lib Dems to actually make a decision on Charlie's future, then he has a job for life...'

Given that Sir Menzies Campbell has been so reticent to back Charlie, and has been rather less than lukewarm in his support, perhaps the threats are directed at him?

I can't think of anything more likely to galvanise Lib Dems into action than the thought of being stuck with Charlie, and losing Sir Menzies from the front bench.

There may, as Charlie suggests be 'plenty of talent around these days', though I am not sure much of it is to be found in the Lib Dems. But there is only one Sir Menzies Campbell.

"I'll take the lot of you on" is the traditional cry of the Friday night drunk in many of Britain's towns and cities. It's also what Kennedy is pretty much saying:

Elsewhere the press are dropping as many hints as possible:
Guardian: Rumours that Mr Kennedy's failure to attend at least one important event were attributable to a drinking session
Scotsman: During the campaign, Mr Kennedy appeared disorientated, without a complete grasp of his party's policies
Telegraph: his leadership is seen increasingly as lacklustre, and his mind appears not to be entirely on his job.
Times: his unsure appearances at several engagements... His conduct at a Shadow Cabinet meeting and Prime Minister’s Questions around the same time also generated concern.

Similar concerns over his conduct surfaced in June and he promised to take better care of his health after missing the Budget through illness in 2004.

As I suggested earlier, this isn't about policy, it's about how long before senior party managers send him to the Priory.

It's either days or weeks...

For those of us who didn't understand a word Charles kennedy was saying last week on C4 News, the Lib Dems have released the text of his letter to Blair asking about our involvement in Extraordinary Rendition. [Someone must have written it for him, it is clear and concise.]
It contains some good questions, which doubtless will ilicit some creative answers, but misses some important points:

Similar questions have been put to the government before. When we see the Bliar's answer to Charlie's written question, we look forward to comparing that answer to the governments position as stated to the the Foreign Affairs Select Committee [They don't belive the government either]:

Jack Straw responded to the FAC's charges of "obfuscation", by repeating his original points, and qualifying them with an "I'm not going to tell you any more than that"...

More recently, Jack has wrigled more, but said even less. In this excerpt he also compounds his lies on the British Governments use of evidence extracted by torture, with another sly dig at Craig Murray's legitimacy and integrity.
But he holds the government line for a third time:

[FYI, to date Jack has refused to debate with, or appear on the same platform as Craig, including when they were contesting Blackburn in the 05/05/05 election]

Charles Kennedy cites Jack Straw's apparent lack of knowlege of Rendition based on his letter to Condi, contrasting it with Blair's apparent knowlege of the US policy of rendition.
In fact, Jack's letter never mentioned 'rendition'.
He politely raised concerns about "media reports suggesting violations of international law in the alleged US detention or transportation of terrorist suspects in or through EU member states."
Jack Straw has not, as far as I can see, ever said he was unaware of the existence of the policy. He has just never answered the question, and has always said that we know nothing about us being involved in it.

Blair has not aknowleged the use of British airports or airspace as Charles kennedy suggests in his letter. Blair dismissed these suggestions at PMQ. All Blair has done is acknowlege the existence of the US policy of Rendition.
He doged the question of British involvement in rendition at PMQ, but stood squarely behind Condi endorsing the practice as a valid tool in the war against terrorism. So presumably that answers the FAC's question about the government's position on the merits of the policy [above].

Jack Straw however, whilst doging questions about the existance and validity of Extraordinary Rendition has repeatedly answered the question about British involvement in the policy. The government position, or rather a government position is on the record.

If the mounting evidence about the use of British airports and airspace as part of the US programme of Extraordinary Rendition forces Blair answer to any of Charlie's questions in the affirmitave, then rather than focussing on Jack's letter to Condi, the Lib Dem's should be asking why Jack Straw has repeatedly lied and misrepresented the government position to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Given the evidence, either the government are take the line they are incompetent and had no idea what was going on. Or they are caught in a lie.