The police should be accountable

We need a police force which serves the public and is properly bound by the rule of law. Police forces, if not subject to proper political and judicial control, attract authoritarian personality types and expand their remit, threatening civil liberties and personal freedom. That something like this has been allowed to happen is mainly the fault of the New Labour government.

Self Defence

The rules are clear on this matter. You can use reasonable force to defend yourself or others from attack, which might involve on occasions killing your assailant. You may also use reasonable force to apprehend and detain an assailant until the police arrive. You may not, however, inflict corporal punishment on the assailant, if s/he comes under your control. No civilised country could have it otherwise.

Postal Voting

Postal voting is by its nature open to abuse. It is wrong that the number of votes cast for candidates is determined in major part by party organisation of the indifferent and senile.

If able-bodied people can't be bothered to walk to a polling station, then they should lose their vote. Election officials, if requested, should visit the sick and elderly in their homes on election day so they can cast their votes. Persons who will be away from home should be able to register at other polling stations or, if abroad, at British Embassies.

The timing of General Elections in Britain

The Prime Minister should not be able to time a general election merely to suit his political advantage.

Britain should have fixed term Parliaments of four years.

Blair now admits Iraq War to change regime

It is now firmly established that Blair took Britain to war in 2003 on false pretences. He stated in Parliament that Britain would not go to war if Saddam complied with UN resolutions and abandoned his WMDs. Yet his ultimatum was dishonest in two senses. First, Blair, as he now admits, had already made the decision to join the US in a war of regime change. And second Blair had no credible evidence to that Saddam had WMDs.

In international law there is the issue of Britain having taken part in a war of aggression without any legal basis. Just as important, however, is the domestic implication.

What should the penalty be for a man who takes Britain to war by means of telling lies to Parliament and people? This is no small matter. Certainly the death of every British soldier (if not that tens of thousands of Iraqis) is directly attributable to Blair’s dishonesty.

Blair, Iraq & lies

We know that Blair had already decided in 2002 to join the US in a war to topple the regime in Iraq, principally on account of his ideological identification with Bush’s neo-conservative imperial agenda. Blair’s problem was simple: this reason would never wash in Britain. He therefore decided to tell lies.

Blair lied in telling the country that Saddam's refusal to declare and give up his possession of WMDs was the casus belli. This was a lie because Blair had already made the decision to go to war to bring about regime change irrespective of whether Saddam had WMDs.

To support that lie Blair told another lie; namely that he had credible evidence that Iraq possessed WMDs. He had no such evidence; and Iraq possessed no WMDs.

Blair made use of the crown prerogative to go to war. He justified that on false pretences and he took Britain to war without legal justification in international law.

What does all that make Blair?

Should Turkey join the EU?

Turkey is not part of Europe either culturally or geographically.

Support for Turkish membership of the EU comes from those, such as the British government, who wish to impede European integration and workers' rights. With a populous poor member such a Turkey, setting meaningful minimum standards across the Union in employment, social security, etc.. would be impossible.

The admission of Turkey (or the Ukraine for that matter) would serve only to prevent the EU functioning as anything more than a trading area. I agree with those who say; Turkey should only be permitted to join after an EU-wide referendum, which would almost certainly return a 'no' vote.

Can New Labour attack the Tory Toffs?

Maybe Labour can hold on to a fraction more of its core vote, if it plays the 'Tory Toff' card against Cameron et al.

That said, Blair and Brown have faithfully served the interests of big-business and the rich since 1997 to make Britain its most economically unequal since 1945. New Labour is as much in the pockets of big money as the Tories.

Attacking Toffs is not the key issue. Britain needs a political movement to struggle for greater social equality - and that is not on offer from either the Tories or Labour.

A Hung Parliament

A hung parliament is many people's choice by elimination: they don't want to see New Labour re-elected, nor do they want the Tories in with an overall majority. A hung parliament would indeed be good for cutting back on executive dominance of the legislature - and would probably be more progressive on matters such as civil liberties.

If the Liberal Democrats refuse to form a coalition government (as they did with the Tories Feb 1974 or with the SNP in 2007) that leaves minority government as the only option. One problem with minority administrations (or near-minority ones) is that the Prime Minister has the power to dissolve Parliament and ask the electorate for a working majority (Atlee 1951, Wilson February 1974).

Only proportional representation and fixed term parliaments could really change the existing system.

How Israel is to be judged?

How many times does it need to be said that the terrible behaviour of dictatorial regimes in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere across the Middle East can never justify human rights violations by Israel.

Israel will rightly be judged by the same standards by which we judge ourselves and fellow European nations - no more, no less.