I’m certainly not the first to say it and I certainly won’t be the last, but it’s time for Tony Blair to go. Time too for Sir Ian Blair to shuffle off as well.
There is no question that politicians ought to listen to what the professionals have to say, but that doesn’t mean that you should switch off all critical faculties. Rarely when a political class calls for something do politicians respond by meeting their demands 100% – T. Blair is a remarkable exception in this case.
And we have good reason to question the police’s claims. I won’t go into much detail here, but just four reminders:
This was a case of a person with a massive credibility problem asking us to believe a professional class with a massive credibility problem. Is it any surprise that a critical mass of Labour MPs couldn’t stomach it?
T. Blair bet his shirt this week and lost. He needs to go. I. Blair’s intervention this week was unprecedented. He had made it plain that he would not be able to tolerate anything less, so he too should go.
Who wants the pearl handled revolver first?
The ironies underlying today’s debate on the Terrorism Bill just seem to be multiplying:
- The current situation in France;
- A Prime Minster avowing defence of civil liberties while warmly embracing the President of China;
- Ministers with poppies on their lapels po-facedly claiming that the country has never faced a greater threat.
Add to that this pantomime of Gordon Brown and Jack Straw flying to Israel and Russia respectively, only to fly straight back again. They would have known days ago whether Brown and Straw’s votes were needed – this to-ing and fro-ing around the world is just party political theatre being paid for by the taxpayer. As I don’t think the Lotteries Commission cover this sort of thing, I do hope that Labour will agree to foot the bill.
Whatever you might think about nuclear power, it is clearly deeply worrying that a science minister appears to think that it is renewable energy:
In a debate on energy security in the House of Lords, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, the Science and Innovation Minister, was asked whether he would reclassify nuclear as renewable energy. He said: â€œLady Oâ€™Cathain offered me the opportunity of . . . agreeing that nuclear is a renewable source of energy â€” it clearly is so.â€
For the record, what we call nuclear power is the generation of energy via the fission of uranium-235. However plentiful the ultimate supply of uranium, a hotly debated topic, it is clearly not infinite – and arguably less so than oil.
One thing that the pro-nuclear lobby has yet to explain is why we would want to replace an oil-based economy that sees a number of unstable, oil-rich nations with a disproportionate amount of global influence, with a uranium-based economy that would see a number of unstable, uranium-rich nations with a disproportionate amount of global influence. The old line about history repeating itself – first as tragedy, then as farce – would appear to apply.
And that’s leaving entirely aside the environmental issues.