The Weaklings’ War

Prime Minister David Cameron and Presidents Sarkozy and Obama have published a letter declaring that they will keep pressure on Colonel Gaddafi until he is gone. Despite UN Resolution 1973 existing to ‘protect civilians’, the letter from the three leaders claims, ‘But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power...so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations.’ It is clear that these men wish to exceed the resolution and enforce regime change in Libya. Cameron and Sarkozy particularly want to escalate the military conflict and bring more hardware into the operation – a desire not shared by the other UN member nations. Some nations already believe that the resolution has been exceeded. Why would these three leaders so desperately want to exceed the resolution and commit greater military resources to the conflict? What are their motives?

In Britain we were told by Prime Minister Cameron to expect Libyan government defections: these have not materialised. We were warned of massacres that have not happened and were encouraged by promises of Libyan uprisings as the rebels made progress supported by the military might of the UN. There are no reports of country-wide uprisings. It seems that they will never happen. With little of the promised evidence materialising, Britain shouldering a much greater burden of operational responsibility than first envisaged and Cameron’s desperation growing, his own Conservative Party MPs are beginning to call for a parliamentary recall to re-examine Britain’s involvement in Libya.

David Cameron did not win over the British public in the UK election. He did not win enough seats to form a government and was forced to negotiate a coalition. The Conservative Party’s poll ratings have slumped further since then, Conservative Party membership is down and both Cameron and some of his key players – the Foreign Secretary William Hague, the Education Secretary Michael Gove and Health Secretary Andrew Lansley have made embarrassing public mistakes. The Prime Minister is not in a strong political position. Perhaps he believes he can recreate Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands War victory and following success in the opinion polls?

President Nicholas Sarkozy is bombing in the French polls and is regarded as an unpopular leader. He is despised by the Left and even criticised by some on the political Right. He routinely re-shuffles his own cabinet in response to public criticism and has been personally involved in numerous embarrassing incidents. He is quoted as calling French youth “racaille” or ‘scum’, he believes that paedophilia, depression and suicidal tendencies are “genetic” and, during a speech in Senegal, Sarkozy referred to “African peasants”, angering many Africans who regarded the comment as racist. He was also filmed telling a voter to “get lost” after the man refused to shake hands with him : he then called him a “dumb-ass”. Sarkozy has been accused of receiving illegal campaign donations by French newspapers. He has also distributed photographs of himself that were subsequently proved to be forged. With elections looming, this is a president badly in need of a foreign war to distract his people.

What of President Barack Obama? Obama was always onto a loser. He could never live up to the colossal expectations of his voters. He could never live up to the world’s expectations of the first black president of the United States. Unfortunately, he is a politician and so he indulged those unrealistic expectations. Like Cameron and Sarkozy, his job approval ratings are down. Oil prices are rising and no American president likes to see that. With the Democrats losing the House of Representatives, it is increasingly difficult for Obama to get through the reforms he promised his voters. The Mexican Gulf oil spill was very damaging to his presidency. This demonstrted Obama to have little power to effect change in the face of environmental and economic disaster.

These men are ‘weak’ in a political sense - whether we agree with them or not. Regardless of other very significant problems in their own countries, all three are facing the economic consequences of a global financial meltdown and have little in the way of a solid solution. They are trying to hide their weakness behind a largely unnecessary war: a show of ‘strength’ to disguise their desperation and political vulnerability. They should not be leading the charge in Libya. This is war for all the wrong reasons. A war of political weaklings. At present, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that Colonel Gaddafi is still more popular amongst the Libyan people than Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama are with their own.

The Most Dangerous Man in Politics?

Majority: Michael Gove won the constituency of Surrey Heath in 2005. Surrey Heath is considered to be one of the safest Tory seats in the country and so a high majority doesn’t indicate very much about Gove’s success as a politician. The vast majority of Tory candidates would be assured of a high majority in Surrey Heath.

Competence: Gove has been made Secretary of State and has been given responsibility for a key policy area: Education. It is quite apparent that this is not a result of his professionalism and expertise. He is part of ‘the Notting Hill Set’, and as such is and has been a devoted supporter of David Cameron. He has been rewarded with a position far beyond his standing and ability. He has been responsible for several high-profile blunders during office, including the cutting of the school building programme initiated by the last government, in which he released information riddled with errors and was forced to apologise to the House of Commons.

He was also forced to make embarrassing funding u-turns on the Educational Maintenance Allowance and School Sports. The most damaging blow to Gove’s reputation has been a Judicial Review in which a judge stated that Gove’s failure was "so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power" and that "however pressing the economic problems, there was no overriding public interest which precluded consultation or justifies the lack of any consultation". Gove was then forced to reconsider axing projects on the Building Schools for the Future programme. Previous Secretaries of States have resigned over single, public blunders, but Gove shamelessly continues. The real danger resides in the decisions Gove has rushed through parliament - similarly ignoring the need for appropriate consultation - the blunder of which will only become apparent in the damage it will do to a generation of the nation’s school children.

Representation: Politically, Gove is considered to represent the centre-right, like his ‘moderate Conservative’ Prime Minister. He joined the Conservative Party at university and became secretary of the Aberdeen South Young Conservatives. As a journalist he primarily wrote for right-wing publications like The Times and The Spectator. He wrote speeches for Conservative Cabinet ministers Peter Lilley and Michael Howard and was chairman of the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange.

He is less representative of influences in his early life. He was adopted at 4-months old by a couple in Aberdeen. His adoptive father ran a fish-processing business and his mother worked as a lab assistant. They were both Labour Party supporters and Gove used to canvass for Labour door-to-door. He attended a local state school but won a scholarship to a nearby private school, from where he went to Oxford University and joined the Conservative Party. Since Gove benefitted from a private education on a scholarship, is seems unlikely under the present changes to university funding and fees, that Gove would have been able to attend Oxford, regardless of ability. Gove’s rags-to-riches story is hard not to appreciate: he has undoubtedly benefitted from some good fortune in his family background and with his scholarship. Unfortunately, he has used his gifts – those natural to him and those bequeathed by fate – to cripple the chances of those people that face the same challenges today. That is unforgivable.

Honesty: Gove has had to apologise for publically misrepresenting facts by delivering "not-quite-true information to Parliament" over the fees paid to school architects. His most disingenuous, public acts involve reportedly claiming £7,000 on taxpayer-funded expenses to furnish one of his London properties. One third of this claim went to an interior design company owned by his own mother-in-law. Gove also claimed money for children’s items, despite these being banned under Commons rule. He then 'flipped' his designated second home to a house in his constituency, a property for which he claimed £13,000 to cover stamp duty. While he was moving between his multiple homes he charged the taxpayer more than £500 per night to stay at the Pennyhill Park Hotel and Spa. This is disgusting given that, based on assets alone, Gove is estimated to be a millionaire.

Danger: Gove is notorious for not listening to advice. He is a politician of complete conviction and not in a good way. His belief burns with the unshakable fervor of a convert. His desire for absolute control is clear in the unprecedented number of powers he has freshly attached to his role as Education Secretary. His habit of taking his own personal preferences and applying them for all, borders on the almost-megalomaniacal. The perfect example of this is his introduction of the English Baccalaureate, which is only awarded to students who have selected a specific combination of GCSEs: a combination chosen by Gove himself. This is irrespective of an individual student’s abilities in those subjects. Students that are gifted musicians, artists, technically able with Information Technology or linguistically adept at the languages that are not included on Gove’s prescribed list, will not achieve the benefits of his Baccalaureate, even if they pass their core subjects with flying colours. Gove is an absolutely lethal Education Secretary, armed with an unwieldy raft of changes, applied at a reckless pace. If he was ever to become Prime Minister, the country would be changed from top to bottom – the average citizen’s choices reduced to those preferences approved by Gove personally. A democratic dictatorship.

Blood On ‘Our’ Hands...

The most recent polls suggest that support for Great Britain’s military intervention in Libya is waning. The British Parliament voted 557 to 13 in favour of military intervention: a no fly zone over Libya. Members of Parliament should be representing their constituents’ opinions: this would suggest overwhelming support for the action in Libya. A poll conducted by ICM for the BBC has revealed that 38% of people support such military intervention, whereas 35% said that it was the wrong decision. This is a fairly even split and says worrying things about the way politicians represent their constituents. How can 557 politicians vote for military action if 35% of the country opposes it? Political representation is complex. If our present voting system can create such an extreme skew then it definitely needs overhauling.

The present figures suggest that politicians are prioritising their personal opinions over the views held by thousands of their constituents. Those politicians who are voting because of party allegiance are certainly not taking into account opposing voices: voices that are as strong as those calling for military action. The fact that this has support across many countries in the UN has given these politicians the confidence to push the agenda for military action. If the politicians in these other nations have voted similarly and under comparable circumstances, then this would result in strong support across the UN member states. If the eventual acquirement of continued and cheaper oil reserves is the ultimate goal in Libya for these nations, then it is no surprise that the political votes in these countries are going to become self-fulfilling prophecies. Which of the UN member states is uninterested in securing the future of its energy sources?

Perhaps this has something to do with ‘mission creep’. The majority of people are probably behind the idea of a no-fly zone – as it was first described. NATO jets would keep the Libyan skies free of Gaddafi’s jets: an air force that ultimately would destroy any chance the rebels have to take the country. Almost immediately NATO, amongst a great deal of controversy, started airstrikes across Libya and in the capital city of Tripoli, at great risk to innocent Libyan civilians. Attacks committed by NATO jets - that are supposed to be keeping the skies safe for the rebels - have resulted in friendly-fire incidents and rebel deaths. How long will it be before a UN, frustrated with the lack of progress made by a disorganised rebel force and confronted with public disillusion in the face of a drawn-out engagement in Libya, resort to putting ground forces into action? Undoubtedly a way will be found to achieve this without ‘strictly’ breaking the UN resolution.

The situation in Libya is troubling for a whole host of reasons beyond the collateral consequence of military intervention. After Libya, agreement across the UN will no longer carry the legitimacy it has (for example, in relation to the invasion of Iraq). It will have been tarnished by oil-driven motivations, the blood of innocent Libyan people and its seeming refusal to assist rebel elements in other countries throw off their dictators, simply because those countries have less to offer in the energy-equivalents of victory spoils. Countries cannot be invaded – even with UN agreement – on the basis of what their leaders ‘might’ do. Colonel Gaddafi is undoubtedly a very shady figure. When Libya is over, however, and no mass graves are found as evidence of his ‘actual’ dictatorial brutality (on scale that would necessitate an invasion by the United Nations), then we are all going to look very foolish and greedy. It is going to be ‘weapons of mass destruction’ all over again, except this time it will be the evident reality of the Gaddafi threat under scrutiny, and David Cameron in the dock rather than Tony Blair.

‘We Are All In This Together’ (Aren’t We?)

When David Cameron promised the country that ‘We are all in this together’, there was the rallying suggestion of being partners in pain. The core of the Conservative Party’s backing comes from the wealthier segments of society, but Cameron’s promise indicates that he intends the wealthy to feel the pain of the cuts as much as the moderately well-off and the poor. Regardless of what different economists claim, the easiest way to put Cameron’s promise to the test is to simply examine the current spending habits of consumers. Most people don’t understand complex economic models. If the spending of all groups in society is down then we can presume all groups are at least being hit by the cuts, even if they aren’t necessarily being hit equally.

The latest financial figures show a worrying trend for society, however, bringing the Prime Minister’s word clearly into question. Companies like HMV, Currys, Next, Matalan and Mothercare are all suffering terrible trading currently, indicating that their profits are down. These are places the poor and moderately well-off do their shopping. Marks and Spencer’s profits were unexpectedly up, however. Marks and Spencer is traditionally a place where the wealthy tend to do their food shopping. Food is one thing but what about the expensive commodities that you would expect even the wealthy to be cutting down in on these lean times? If Cameron is to be believed and the wealthy are being hit also, then surely they’re not updating the models of their prestige cars. Apparently they are. Jaguar Land Rover has just reported its best sales month in its 63 year company history. More prestige Jaguars and Land Rovers (the land-owner’s favourite vehicle) are flying out of the showrooms than ever before. It seems that the Conservative Party are still serving the interests of the wealthy by ensuring that, at a time when everyone is paying dearly for the economic crisis, somehow they can afford to spend even more on expensive food and transport.

The Children of Thatcher

In April 2008, the now Foreign Secretary William Hague sent a cable to American officials reassuring them that Hague, David Cameron and George Osborne were all ‘Children of Thatcher’. The three most powerful men in the land, controlling our country, our economy and our interests abroad are self-confessed acolytes to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: one of the most reviled and destructive leaders of recent times. Presumably they share her appetite for mass unemployment, riots on British streets, privatisation and armed conflict – all of which dominate the headlines now that the Conservatives are back in power.

We all know this, but Cameron and his crew do quite a good job of hiding it from the general public with misdirection, Liberal Democrat stooges and this irritating insistence that unimaginative and painful decisions ‘have to be made'. ‘There is no other choice,’ the Conservatives tell us, forcing us to draw the conclusion that it was a waste of time replacing the previous government with these ‘Children of Thatcher’. If there are no choices, then it hardly needs a new government to make them. If a new government has no fresh ideas in respect to dealing with the country’s problems, then they really have little business asking for our votes.


That is unless their objective in government is simply to re-install their favoured ideology: Thatcherism. You have to ask yourself, what are three millionaires doing in the high echelons of the government anyway? Haven’t they got better things to do? Shouldn’t they leave government to clever people with new ideas who really want to change things for the better? If the country wanted cuts, they could have voted in anyone to do it. It might have been nice to see a party – even an individual – with an original idea with regard to the economy. Although we suspect that Thatcherism and its aims are David Cameron’s objective, and we see it in William Hague’s own fair hand, it is difficult to imagine that they would try to pull such a thing off right before our eyes. It’s nice then to be reminded by the smug Conservative Environment Minister, speaking to an American audience, that Cameron would have made his Iron Lady proud with cuts “Thatcher could only have dreamt of”.