Blair is not the only one with Iraq amnesia - the Lib Dems were NOT anti-invasion, just anti-that-kind-of-invasion

IT is one of the great myths of recent political history – that the Liberal Democrats were opposed to Britain joining with US forces to invade Iraq in 2003.

It is quite simply not true. In the run up to the 2003 invasion, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy addressed the infamous anti-war rally in Hyde Park on February 15.

He told the million-odd people who had marched through central London (including this author as a 17-year-old student) he had “yet to be persuaded as to the case for war against Iraq”.

He also told the Stop the War coalition-led protest he was “not personally a pacifist”.

These statements show Mr Kennedy was open to the idea of military action in Iraq, and he set out four criteria for Lib Dem acquiescence in the invasion:

Charles Kennedy addresses the Stop the War rally in 2003 (Ben Sutherland/Flickr)

1. The United Nations has the moral authority and the political mandate here.

2. United Nations decisions have to be based on adequate information - which means full compliance with the weapons inspectors.

3. The British House of Commons must have the right to vote on any actions taken.

4. All other options must be exhausted before there is any recourse to force.”

He added: “Without a second UN resolution, there is no way that the Liberal Democrats could or should support war.”

So there it is: Charles Kennedy setting out the circumstances in which he and the Lib Dems would be in favour of a military invasion of Iraq.

Get the second UN resolution and we back you.

That is not: “We are opposed to any invasion of Iraq”.

It may seem like a small difference – after all, Blair and Bush did not get the second resolution, and the rest is very recent, and very bloody, history.

But there is a world of difference from being the ‘anti-war party’, to the ‘anti-war-in-certain-conditions-party.’

Remember, the Lib Dems were not opposed to sending soldiers into Iraq. They were just opposed to doing it without a second resolution.

But Lib Dems still like to paint themselves as leading the crusade against the war back in 2003.

Also remember, the Lib Dems supported Britain’s military invention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and most recently Libya.

So when Nick Clegg accuses Tony Blair of attempting to “airbrush” his role in creating the current situation in Iraq, keep in mind the Lib Dems are not adverse to indulging in a spot of “airbrushing” when they claim they were anti-war.

Are knives out for Ukip press officer who "f*cked up Croydon" and is now trying to taking credit for party gains?

Ukip is now a 'proper political party' thanks to its successes in the Euro and local elections.

And to prove it, there is already a spat brewing in the party's machine.

Press office Alexandra Phillips has irked many Ukip activists with a rather self-congratulatory Facebook update.

Someone very close to the top said to me "It hasn't gone down well with the people who were victims of press stories or pounded the streets doing the canvassing!! She spent the last week in bed being *ill*, fucked up Croydon...and didn’t leaflet once."

Welcome to the jungle.

Scotland's divorce from the UK is inevitable, and Labour will lose the House

An independent Scotland is inevitable, if the latest opinion poll is to be believed.

But it won’t be the vote in September which sees Scotland cut itself adrift from the rest of the UK.

Alex Salmond won't be saluting victory in September

The Yes campaign is gaining support, hitting 40 per cent according to a Panelbase poll published on Thursday.

That puts support for an independent Scotland at a six month high.

But it is still incredibly unlikely the Yes campaign will be triumphant in September’s referendum, as those wanting to keep the union still account for 45 per cent of voters.

The Yes vote are targeting the 15 per cent of ‘don’t knows’, but that group tend to eventually split the same way as those who have already decided.

So the Yes campaigners will lose the battle in September, but they are on their way to winning the war.

The fact that support is increasing for the separatists is worrying when you consider the backdrop.

Since the turn of the year, SNP leader Alex Salmond’s version of independence has been ripped apart.

Currency union? – No, says Westminster.

EU membership? ¬- “Extremely difficult, if not impossible”, says European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso

No threat to jobs? – BP, Shell, BAE and Standard Life have all expressed serious concerns about Scotland going alone.

Yet, support for an independent Scotland has GROWN since all of these interventions; some might argue because of them as accusations of ‘bullying’ gain credence.

That means that between 40-45 per cent of Scots have made their mind up based not on economic and political factors, but for other reasons.

Wanting their own country; tired of being dictated to by Westminster; sick of suggestions Scotland ‘lives off’ England.

So how long can Scotland stay in its marriage to the UK when up to 45 per cent want a divorce – seemingly no matter what?

And this is something which Westminster needs to consider.

More importantly, it is something Labour needs to be incredibly worried about.

Harold Wilson after the 1964 General Election

Since 1945, the fortunes of the Conservatives and Labour north of Hadrian’s Wall have gone in opposite directions.

Between 1945 and 1955, there was no huge bias either way in how Scots voted in Westminster elections.
In 1945, Scotland returned 27 Tory MPs and 37 Labour.

In 1951, both parties secured 35 Scotland MPs and in 1955 the Tories actually won two more seats than Labour – 36 as opposed to 34.

It began to change in 1959, where Harold Macmillan’s Conservative Party won 31 Scottish seats, as opposed to Hugh Gaitskill’s Labour which won 38.

Since then, the Tories have been on a downward trajectory north of the border, culminating with them not winning a single Scottish seat in the 1997 General Election.

While Tory support has virtually disappeared in Scotland, Labour’s fortunes have gone in the other direction.
In Blair’s first election victory Labour won 56 out of a possible 72 seats.

I looked back at every general election result since 1945, and when you take away the Scottish seats from the results it is clear that Labour would have spent less time in Government, the Conservatives would have won more elections and the Liberal Democrats would not have found themselves in coalition today.

Analysing the figures shows Harold Wilson would have lost the 1964 and February 1974 General Elections to the Conservatives.

Clement Attlee would have been forced to try and rule with a minority Government in 1950 (he would have been 17 seats short of a majority).

The second election of 1974 would have also returned a minority Labour government – with Wilson having seven seats fewer than the rest of the House combined.

And the most recent General Election in 2010 would have returned a Conservative government with a majority of 19.

It makes you wonder why David Cameron is so determined to keep the union together.

If I was a Labour supporter, I would be incredibly worried.

Scotland will become independent – maybe not in this generation but almost certainly in the next, and Labour will lose a key pillar of electoral support.

Does whoever wins in Syria means Israel loses?

When the House of Commons voted against the possibility of military action in Syria on August 29, the Israeli public and politicians were angry.

Not just because it seemed Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people was going unpunished, but because of concerns the West was setting a precedent over Iran.

As the diplomatic correspondent at The Jerusalem Post Herb Keinon wrote: “If this is how the world acts when some 1,429 people are gassed, how should we expect them to act if Iran just crosses the nuclear threshold, but doesn't kill anybody yet?”

It is difficult to overstate Israel’s concern over Iran, and in particular its attempts to develop a nuclear weapon.

The international community has criticised Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and the United Nations, US, EU and other countries including Japan and South Korea have all imposed trade sanctions against Iran, which has led to a collapse in its economy.

But following the election of of Hassan Rouhani to the Iranian presidency in July 2013, there has been a change in rhetoric from the country in its attitude to the West.

Earlier this month the UN and EU held talks with Iran in Geneva to try and dissuade the administration from continuing its nuclear plans.

Although no agreement was reached, Israel believes any sign of easing the economic sanctions against Iran will play into the hands of Iranian hard liners.

A senior diplomatic source told me Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt betrayed by the EU and US negotiations with Iran.

The argument goes that if Rouhani is able to get sanctions eased without having to make any meaningful concessions, moderate voices in Iran will be undermined. Why turn back from nuclear development if the West is going to relax sanctions anyway?

A senior Israeli official told me Netanyahu believes the talks are being conducted under a “false dichotomy” as Rouhani has neither the intention nor authority to halt Iran’s nuclear plans.

The official also said Israel’s prime minister was “very concerned” about the Geneva deal.

So how does all this affect Israel’s view on Syria?

Assad is no friend of Israel, but as recently as 2006 he told an American journalist he was supportive of a cold peace between the two countries.

But the fact remains Assad is being kept in power in Syria thanks to the support of Hezbollah – an organisation based in south Lebanon which had its military wing added to the EU list of terrorist groups this summer.

Hezbollah – founded in 1982 – is fundamentally anti-Israel, and the last time the two actors clashed was in 2006, leading to the second Lebanon war.

Since then, military officials in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) estimate Hezbollah has acquired 200,000 rockets, making them militarily stronger than seven years ago.

It is believed the range of these rockets mean anywhere in Israel is vulnerable to attack.

Funding for the organisation comes mainly from Iran, which is estimated to pump approximately $200million a year into Hezbollah.

At the Israel-Lebanon border. Despite appearances I do have arms.

I went to Israel’s border with Lebanon, and from my vantage point was able to see villages, farm buildings and warehouses – many of which I was assured contained Hezbollah weaponry, including rockets.

A source in the IDF told me that when the international community was debating bombing Syria, munitions were seen being brought back from the country to Hezbollah’s base in southern Lebanon.

All this led to one IDF officer fearing it was not a case of “if, but when” Hezbollah launches an attack on Israel.

“It will be a black day for both countries,” he said, adding a humanitarian crisis would likely follow any fighting.

If Hezbollah is backed by an Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon, it may feel it can be more aggressive towards Israel.

But the alternative in Syria may not be much better.

The anti-Assad opposition are divided, and while there are moderate elements, there are also groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra – an internationally-recognised Jihadist group with links to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

If they were to seize control from Assad then there is the possibility of Syria turning into a fundamentalist Islamic state – hardly what Israel would like on its doorstep.

Overlooking Syria from the Golan Heights, I could see a village loyal to Assad surrounded by rebel-controlled settlements.

I was told by an IDF source the Assad-supporting villages had resisted attacks for now, but another rebel-led raid was on the horizon, and this time there would most likely be a “fight to the death” from the men in the village.

In public Israel is not supporting one side or the other, but in private it is clear a Syria not controlled by Iran is more palatable than a Tehran-backed administration.

At the beginning of the month, American news agencies reported that a White House official had confirmed Israel had launched air strikes against targets in Syria believed to be storing weapons for Hezbollah.

The Israeli government was furious with the leak, as it fears such statements could provoke a response from Assad, especially if pressured by Hezbollah or Iran.

And with 200,000 rockets capable of striking Israel from Haifa in the north to the Negev desert in the south, it is no wonder why Israel is concerned about a more confident Hezbollah.

 FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @owenjbennett

Please stop playing the racist card when people raise immigration concerns.

Last week The Daily Express launched a campaign asking David Cameron to keep in place labour market controls which are due to expire on December 31 2013.

The campaign references "people from Romania and Bulgaria", as residents of these countries will be able to move freely into Britain after the controls lapse.

A day after the campaign was launched, New Statesman columnist Frances Ryan took to Twitter to describe it as "racism" and said the Express is "exploiting fears to promote a blanket ban on a problem that barely exists."

Now, I'm not one to get involved in Twitter spats, as most of my tweets are about Tottenham and Manic Street Preachers, but I was frankly appalled by Ms Ryan's tweets.

I know Ms Ryan a little - we studied Politics together at the University of Nottingham and had some seminars together - and she always seemed a sensible person who would not get caught up in hyperbole.

But once again, the debate on immigration/migration/freedom of movement or whatever terms you wish you to use, was being couched in the term 'anti-immigration = racism'.

So I took to Twitter to point out to Ms Ryan "It's not a campaign based on their race. It's a campaign based on fears of mass migration. It could apply to any group."

Ms Ryan responded by saying the campaign is "edged in xenophobic racist fear", and laced "in filthy racism".

I simply do not agree with this. I do not think that people's concerns about immigration can be simplified in this way.

A YouGov study released in September showed 53 per cent of the public saw immigration as a national issue, and was "widely blamed for insecurity, low pay and the lack of social housing for people born in Britain."

When Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg took part in his weekly radio phone-in show on LBC last week the station was bombarded with calls, texts and emails from people who backed the campaign.

People are concerned about immigration. That is a fact.

I am not saying that everyone agrees with the Express's campaign - of course they don't.

But here is what really annoys me - jumping to accusations of racism in a debate shows the same lack of respect and understanding for other people's views as those who are racist.

It is lazy to label someone as a racist because they express a view which uses words such as "immigrants", "controls", and "foreign".

But if you think this petition is wrong, if you think the border controls should be relaxed as currently planned, then please explain why.

Why is immigration good? Why do we need it? What are the benefits?

Instead of trying to shut down the debate, please put forward a coherent, well-thought out argument outlining why you believe the thousands of people who signed the petition are wrong?

And try and do it without playing the racism - not race, racism - card.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @owenjbennett

Can Ukip bloom into a serious political force?

'Mention Michael Crick again and you won't be smiling'

After spending last Saturday at the Green Party conference in Brighton, I stayed closer to home this week and popped along to Westminster for the second day of Ukip's get together.

Alas, I missed the Bloom fireworks of Friday, but did manage to speak lots of Ukip members.

Read my interview with Nigel Farage.

And here is my opinion piece for the Express Online.

Make sure you follow me on Twitter @owenjbennett

Why isn't The Green Party the Ukip of the Left?

Natalie Bennett - Leader of the Green Party

RENATIONALISING the railways, keeping the NHS in public hands, free social care for the elderly, free school meals, an increase in child benefit.

All Green Party policies which should appeal to the Left in Britain – the section of society which frequently complains of being ignored by the Labour Party.

So why aren’t former Labour voters flocking to the Green Party in droves?

When the Right felt disengaged with the Conservatives, they turned to Ukip.

Here was a party which talked about, and took strong, clear, positions, on issues which former Tory voters cared: Europe and immigration, mainly.

Is there a more powerful politician on the UK political scene right now than Nigel Farage? Without a single representative in the House of Commons he managed to get one of his key policies – an in/out referendum on EU membership – on the statute books.

So why isn’t the Green Party seen as the Left wing equivalent? Why isn’t it able to force the Labour leadership to embrace some of its ideas on public ownership or social responsibility?

This question was put to Green Party members yesterday at their conference in Brighton, not by a journalist looking to stir things up, but by its own leadership.

With policies which tie in so completely with some of the ideals of the Left, why haven’t they broken through like Ukip have?

Well, in some ways, they have done better. The Green’s have an MP – Caroline Lucas from Brighton – and Ukip do not.

Greens control Brighton and Hove Council which has an annual budget of more than £200million. Ukip control Ramsey Town Council – budget around £160,000.

But Ukip are more powerful.

At the debate session, members talked about the popularity of Farage (“If he was run over by a bus tomorrow Ukip would be over,” one member argued) while others said Ukip were better at photo opportunities.

There was some agreement among members that the Greens had too many policies in too much detail. Ukip are seen as vague about some issues, but people know what the party stands for.

It is true. Ukip, and Farage, have done a brilliant PR job. Even if you have never heard a policy line from them, you can work out what it would be.

Banning advertising to children? Too nanny state.

War in Syria? Not our fight.

Foreign aid? Cut it, keep the money in Britain.

Perhaps the Green’s need to work harder on getting their values across instead of their policies.

But one of the big problems – and one which was whispered by some senior members of the party to me – is the reputation the Green’s already have.

You may have seen the pictures of the protests against fracking in Balcombe, West Sussex. And if you haven’t, I’m sure you can imagine what they looked like.

‘Hippy’ types, with ponchos, face paint and dreadlocks, sitting in drum circles eating vegan wraps.

That is the image of Green supporters, and be that fair or unfair, the Party doesn’t help itself by aligning itself with such people in the minds of the public.

Also, as one member pointed out, the Party is seen as the ‘anti-party’ – anti-fracking, anti-cars, anti-flights, anti-Page 3.

People don’t like constantly being told what they shouldn’t be doing.

But if the Green Party can instead put the emphasis on being a pro-party (pro-cheaper energy, pro-NHS, pro-social care, pro-public ownership), they might just be able to attract the disaffected Left in sufficient numbers to begin setting the agenda in the same way Ukip has.

And that is something else Ed Miliband may have to be worried about.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @owenjbennett