The Bewilderness

Londonistan: The Bomber Will Always Get Through

Further to questions arising from the 7/7 bombings and the competence of our security services comes news that the Met are desperate to find a lost rucksack:

Anti-terrorist police have been ordered to revamp security procedures after a bag containing details of bomb plots and suspects identified for surveillance was lost in the street.

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, has imposed strict new rules on the carrying of sensitive material after files were accidentally lost in a rucksack in south-east London. Sources yesterday told the Guardian the files held important information and that anti-terrorist officers were desperate to get them back before they fell into the wrong hands.

A series of questions arise from this: but if there was a risk of this event, why weren't they imposed in the first place?  Note that Sir Ian "after the event" Blair again makes his play....

Indigo Jo provides a British Muslim perspective on these activities whilst Vox Verax links to an article in the New Yorker that argues against complacency.  

England and Terror

Working in Terrorist Target Central, I am always minded to listen to the whispers and thoughts emanating from the security services. It is currently a dark cloud, with lightning flickering across the sky and our masters don't have the lightning conductors to earth the shock. It is a litany of bad news.

It is inevitable that Islamist terrorists will attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against a western city, preferably a capital. London, Paris, Rome and Madrid must count as the frontline here. The number of suspected terrorist conspiracies has headed north:

This newspaper has learnt that the claim by John Reid, the Home Secretary, that there are currently 20 active terrorist conspiracies under way in Britain, is now regarded as a "modest" assessment, and that the actual number, according to Whitehall sources, is significantly more.

It is also understood that the number of terrorist suspects believed to be operating in Britain is now in excess of 1,200, almost 400 more than the figure in the intelligence and security committee report into the July 7 attacks, which was published last month.

Security sources admit that they do not yet know the full scale of the Islamist terrorism problem which is facing Britain.

One source said: "We are still operating with the realm of unknown unknowns. Without wishing to sound too much like Donald Rumsfeld [the US defence secretary], we still do not know how much we don't know."

Given these depressing estimates, suspicions that the security services are not sufficiently competent to ward off all of these threats was heightened by the news that they had received tip-offs about the 7/7 bombers two years before they struck.

Forest Gate, De Menezes and the security round-ups indicate that the security services do not know enough, panic and pursue disastrous actions in terms of innocent lives and effectiveness. They cannot be helped by a government that hypes terror to promote policies that will not deter or prevent attacks. It is no longer possible to assess the threat without taking into account the political context.

The outlook is not good. England in terror has been as lucky as the English football team. That cannot last. Luck will always run out.

Brown's Ballistics Blast Barnett's Barnacles

Epolitix reports that Gordon Brown plans a review of the Barnett formula (the formula which allocates public expenditure across the countries of the Union) as a strategy to placate the strong opposition to the 'Scottish issue'. Anthony Wells also noted the interesting fall in support for  English devolution over the last two years and reported that the sharpest distinctions circled around the Barnett formula.

On the Barnett Formula there were far sharper differences in opinion between Scotland and the rest of the country. Only 11% of respondents in England thought that Scotland should continue to receive extra spending, while 74% of Scots agreed; 70% of English respondents thought that the Barnett formula should be scrapped, only 12% of Scots did.

Brown is attacking a division where he has polling evidence that he can blunt the effects of Tory 'Englishness'.

Pluto's Moons

The two satellites discovered circling around Pluto have now been named as Nix and Hydra by the International Astronomical Union. These two deities, reminiscent of the underworld and death, replicate the N and H of the New Horizons probe that will pass Pluto in 2015. The first two letters in Pluto were chosen to commemorate the famous US astronomer, Percival Lowell.

Loathing West Lothian

The Daily Telegraph has published a valuable Yougov poll on the separate views of English, Scottish and Welsh voters to the West Lothian question and higher public spending on services in devolved countries than in England. This forms part of their preparatory campaign against Gordon Brown as Labour leader; they wish to raise awareness of these issues amongst English voters. One of their reasons for doing so is that the numbers supporting English only votes in Parliament have declined.

On the question of all Westminster MPs voting on matters concerning England and Wales, 18% of all UK voters supported that option in February 2004 whereas 31% support that option now. On the question of disallowing Scottish MPS on voting upon English and Welsh matters, 67% supported that option in February 2004 whereas 55% support that option now. The numbers demonstrate that adherence to the current model at Westminster has increased amongst the electorate or returned to its normal level.

On the question of finances, the Scottish were wedded to their subvention, and their numbers supporting the West Lothian "status quo" suggest that they are aware of the link between Westminster and higher public spending. This provides stronger support for the current model. The dissatisfaction with finance amongst English voters and their support for the "status quo" show that there is possible political leverage to be gained from emphasising these links.

The Meaning of England vs Sweden

On June 20th, England drew 2-2 with Sweden in the final group game in Group B of the 2006 World Cup.  There follow some observations on the game:

• Sweden outthought England.
  During the second half, the Swedish side explosed and then exploited a weakness in the organisation of the English defence.  They scored 2 goals, hit the bar twice, and had a ball cleared off the line, all from corners, free kicks and throw-ins.

  How and why did this happen?  Well, in the previous games, the English defence had been poorly organised, but the goalkeeper, Robinson, had taken the risk of committed himself and plugged the gaps.

  The Swedes observed this, and placed a screen of players between Robinson and the area where the ball was to be delivered.  There was neither defensive organisation, nor the plug available.

   

• England don't manage their effort.
  Many criticisms I've read discuss the fact that England failed to play cohesively.  However, the exploitable weakness is more that England run themselves into the ground, without achieving much if anything.  In each of the group games, England have started the second half less effectively than they finished the first half. 

  This is not a coincidence.  Smart oppositin management will encourage England to tire themselves

   

• The wrong man got injured
  Michael Owen seriously injured his knee against Sweden, removing himself from the rest of the competition.  However, unlike in 1986 or 1990 (where injuries to Brian Robson forced reorganisation to good effect) this injury is unlikely to be sufficient to fix England's problems.

  England's most pressing problem is the captain, media tart, David Beckham.  Beckham has always been a slightly limited player due to his lack of pace.  Other aspects of his game, particularly his ball striking at free kicks and corners are supposed to compensate for this.  However, Beckham has failed to threaten in dead ball situations for the most part, in spite of having a 6' 7" striker to aim at.

  His lack of mobility hampers the whole team, since there is little to to worry about from the right side of the field.

  The one time that he was effective in open play (the cross for Crouch's goal against Trinidad), he benefited from the space created by the mobile threat from Aaron Lennon.  It is precisely the lack of such a threat from Beckham which makes the rest of the team so sterile.

   

• The Walcott alternatives

When choosing the squad, the manager, Sven-Goren Eriksson gambled a number of times in selection.
1. He only selected 4 strikers, where the conventional wisdom dictates that 5 are necessary.
2. His strikers weren't fit.  Rooney and Owen had serious injury problems prior to selection.
3. One of his strikers had never played top class football.  Theo Walcott is 17, and while extremely promising, hasn't played a first-team club game since his transfer in January.

Before yesterday's game, England had already qualified for the knockout stages, and their goal was to avoid Germany in the next round.  As such, Erikson rested Crouch.  Did he play Walcott last night?  There were two opportunities, since both Owen and Rooney were brought off at different time.

After Owen's collapse in the first few minutes, it was perhaps understandable that Eriksson brought on the Crouch, despite the decision to rest him, and avoid the danger of his being banned due to a second yellow card.  The logic was that essentially, there was a full match ahead, and Walcott should only be given a 20-30 minute run out.

However, Rooney was withdrawn after 69 minutes, and even then, Eriksson turned to Gerard rather than Walcott.  This, it seems to me, suggests that the Walcott selection was pure PR, and Eriksson actually only selected 3 credible strikers, two of whom were carrying injuries.   And this is the most highly paid coach in international football.

Ahmadinejad is apparently a Holocaust Denier

The Guardian headline states that President Ahmadinejad's support in Iran is "soaring" although there are no political polls to provide any firm evidence. Cue the quote from a Professor of political science at the University of Tehran that provides a figure without any indication of its accuracy:

"He's more popular now than a year ago. He's on the rise," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. "I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He's comfortable communicating with ordinary people."

Other sources are "Iranian officials and western diplomats" although why their information should be treated as honest and impartial is not provided. We must assume that Iranian bureaucrats provide information about their elected President from a neutral stance. The article then states that the President is favourite to win a second term in 2009, which is only three years away. He may already be a lame duck given the electoral cycle! It is also attributed to his obigatory resistance to the United States.

Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said that as matters stood, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a second term in 2009. The perception that the president was standing up to the US on the nuclear issue was also boosting his standing.

Further down, balance returns with alternative views that Ahmadinejad's popularity stems from his lack of corruption and a high oil price that allows subsidies to be sprayed at the peasant and poor urban classes who voted for him.  However, the recent unrest amongst minorities is wrapped into "US claims": "US officials have described the Iranian president as a threat to world peace and claim that he faces a popular insurrection at home". His denial of the Holocaust is only "apparent".

Here, Iran is represented in the reporting as another democracy. with an emphasized subtext that Ahmadinejad's popularity stems from threats by the United States as he is merely standing up for the rights of his country and resisting the demands of the West. An unbalanced article informed by unattributable sources, a lack of hard evidence, and a series of talking heads that are supposed provide a middle point from which readers infer the truth.

Oh Noo, The English have woken up!

The Scottish Committee has reported that polls concerning English discontent over the West Lothian question could unsettle the devolution established in 1998.  The polls show that a majority in England oppose a further Scottish Prime Minister, spelling danger for Gordon Brown, if he were to replace Blair. The Committee argues that there are four possible alternatives:

The committee appeared to accept that a reduction of the power of Scottish MPs was the only way to go, noting four possible solutions: dissolution of the United Kingdom; English devolution; fewer Scottish MPs; only English votes on English laws. It did not express a preference.

This spells real danger for the Scottish New Labour mafia. In order to maintain their power, they will have to further the variable geometry built into theconsequences of devolution. The Telegraph takes some glee in reporting this:

Growing anger in England over the power that Scottish MPs wield at Westminster could destroy the 1998 devolution settlement, a powerful Commons committee said yesterday.

The report by the Labour-dominated Scottish affairs committee makes grim reading for Gordon Brown by highlighting how a majority of people in the United Kingdom now oppose a Scot becoming prime minister.

The MPs say that the West Lothian Question - the anomaly giving Scottish MPs a say over English laws but English MPs no similar rights where power has been devolved - is a time bomb that urgently needs to be defused. "It is a matter of concern to us that English discontent is becoming apparent," they said.

A Gordon Browne ally, Michael Wills, has argued through the IPPR, that lobbying velocipede, that a convention composed of the 'public' should  be set up to consider constitutional reform. If this is like the European Convention, we can expect rigged conclusions and handpicked appointees. A bad idea from a man who still does not understand the public or the Cameron effect:

He asserted that the public was no longer listening to Labour's message, and some dramatic step was needed to show Labour understands its problem. "The circumstances that sustained Labour for so long are evaporating and that the government requires radical renewal to win a fourth term," he says.

Mr Wills also describes David Cameron, the Conservative leader as "a political iPod from whom anyone could download whatever they want". He argues that the question for Labour is why the public is so willing to give Mr Cameron an endorsement based on so little.

Likes a soundbite does our Wills.

New Labour's Insecurity State

No doubt Politicalbetting will analyse Labour's evident decline at the polls. ICM maintains Labour at 20%, a twenty year low. Meanwhile the newspapers maintain the contiinual drip of mismanagement and incompetence that now dogs Blair's administration:

Lord Carlile's annual report on terrorism concludes that the stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are misused whereas there is a shoratge of customs officers at major airports, heightening the lack of border security. Huge doubts remain over the ability of the government to prevent further attacks.

The Department of Education and Skills is criticised by the educational regulator, Ofsted, for providing conflicting and useless advice that resulted in a lack of vetting for teachers for criminal records or sexual offences. Just when the Home Secretary, Reid, hoped to overturn  perceptions of complacency by taking strong action  on paedophiles by publicising their  locations, importing laws from the United States.

With the continual incompetence on issues of security, and possibly disastrous consequences this summer in terms of further bombings, the government is increasingly hostage now to the consequences of terror, as the competence of the whoel security apparatus is in question.

Cherrypicking that Lively Corpse

What do you call a structure where a rejected constitutional document is still implemented on a piecmeal basis. The latest wheeze allows national parliaments to "duly consider" European laws and make comments. This may have proved a stronger power if the Belgians had not worried that national parliaments could undermine the powers of the European Commission.

The Constitution has been cherrypicked and inplemented after it was rejected at the polls. The contempt for votes by the Europhiles is now complete. They know that they can set up institutions without accountability or consent, speeding the 'authoritarian turn' that Britain has enthusiastically supported.

If a Constitution is no longer needed to reflect institutional reality, then  it may be replaced by a smaller 'foundation treaty' for those  countries  unwilling to ratify, re-establishing the Constitutional ground floor without the  four walls. The referendum campaign will be reborn. The steam roller of the pseudo-Constitution moves forward obliterating liberal  democracy.