Trident - rehashed - 12 comments

It's a shame we're not hearing much from the supporters of Trident renewal, so the very least I can do is point you to this blog's coverage of the issue back in December, which attracted the merest murmur of interest back then, but seems pretty robust to me.

Just a quick point for supporters of an "independent nuclear deterrent/independent foreign policy": really? Is that a genuinely, commonly held view among opponents of renewal? That Britain ought to have, in an ideal world, the capacity to pursue its own foreign policy - perhaps even launching weapons - without recourse to NATO, the UN, or our American friends? That doesn't sound the right kind of approach at all for an internationalist - it certainly doesn't appeal to me - but perhaps this is just an argument of convenience.

I'm not saying that invalidates the case of the opponents to any great degree, but if it's a lousy argument, let's kill it, even if the Little Englanders have to leave the coalition.

Update: Once again, I've been vague - I've emboldened the bit I've inserted at the start.

Update II (14/03): Couple of very good posts on the subject. This from Rob Newman:

Nuclear weapons are vile things. They are weapons of mass destruction in the most literal sense. But the notion that if we have Trident it lies unused is false. If you have a nuclear deterrent, you are always using it. The very fact that it exists and is in your hands makes your enemies reconsider the notion that they can hold you to ransom. That may be, literally, MAD logic; but it is logic nevertheless, with historic precedent.

... and this from Chris Dillow on how a demand-revealing referendum could, more honestly, reveal (or, have revealed) public opinion towards renewal, by making people put their money where their mouth is. Some people need money to live, I hear you cry. But what if the government gave all citizens a fund of money to use under these circumstances, as part of - or in addition to - a Citizen's Income?

Thousands March - 6 comments

[Via] For a quiet life, appeasement of Iran, against internationalism, and to oppose mistreatment of the Palestinians - when it suits them:

Armed groups in Iraq have killed dozens of Palestinian refugees since 2003. Last month, Human Rights Watch documented killings, threats of violence and other security concerns of the estimated 34,000 Palestinian refugees in Iraq in the report, "Nowhere to Flee: The Perilous Situation of Palestinians in Iraq."

Today's Idiocy - 4 comments

In no particular order:

Tony Blair emailing over 1.7 million people, then displaying the very same content on a page that those 1.7 million people could have read themselves at their leisure (assuming they're interested in the arguments), and at no extra cost to the taxpayer or people's inboxes.

The BBC attempting to calculate the cost of sending those mails, without even questioning the sanity of the exercise, or warning readers about the consequences of spamming.

Jade Goody axed from Comic Relief. This one writes itself:

Organisers had filmed a Question of Sport spoof in which Goody appeared with comics Jack Dee and Frank Skinner. [...]

A Comic Relief spokesman said the sketch felt "out of date" and they were concerned it could detract attention from the fundraising.

Was it 1993 or 1994 when Jack Dee stopped being funny?

Meacher enters Labour leader race. I'm not going to criticise Michael - he's beyond satire already. The tragedy for the Left - if you think that's where someone who proposes a foreign policy based upon "fundamental British interests" belongs - is that it's the considered opinion of something of the order of 20-30 Labour MPs that Meacher is a sounder bet than John McDonnell, who, at the very least, appears to have a vibrant campaign behind him, and the support of a large number of bloggers.

Nonetheless, one of these days a genuinely internationalist and pro-democracy Left will emerge and wash these white-haired crocks away, offering a vision of an alternative economy and society, rather than taxes and identity politics. Until then, I'm going to continue to back serious politicians, with plausible policies for incremental progress.