lord of the blog

« G8 Summit | Main | EU Rebate »

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Responses

Road pricing. Sam, I am in favour but the devil will be in the detail hence the importance of consultation and feedback. I understand it would replace road tax and it may also affect the level of fuel tax. I think the charge a driver was running up could be displayed in the car. The technology for that should be available.

Andy. Thanks for making the proper link to the Guardian article. I still screw up on my linking techniques! Why? What am I doing wrong?

Dan. You make some good points on Iran and my knowledge of the situation you describe is not that good. Having met and talked to various groups from Iran over the years I do get a feeling that after they recovered from the 1980 period they have been on a basically upward path.

You may think that is hopelessly optimistic and you could be right! But there is a generation that seems to recognise that democracy and the rule of law offer the best way forward and Iran is the super power of the region. I think they know that and it fits with their history but it won't happen without the freedom agenda.

Andrew B. Do look at the whole exchange with 'someone' to get a feel for how he handles things. I actually want to talk about Iraq and I do but repetition is not helping. You also need to ask why he keeps his identity secret. If you work that out you will also work out that he is no friend of democracy or the rule of law. He could put that right by saying who he is and who he speaks for.

Hi Clive,

I certainly agree that the devil will live in the detail in this project. It's one of those things that sounds like it shouldn't be too hard, but is almost guaranteed to have huge problems and large cost overruns in practice.

The latter is almost guaranteed, particularly as the government is bound to handle this as one large contract, the usual suspects are the only people who will be able to bid on it (EDS and Capita?) and yet another big government project will get screwed up. What - me, a cynic?

I'm sure that a little black box in the car could display the charge that one was amassing - a somewhat more interesting number to obtain, however, is the charge that one would amass were one to make a given journey at a given time. That information allows one to optimise one's travel time to minimise the cost (and so presumably travel at an uncongested time), which must be one of the purposes of the scheme in the first place.

It will also be interesting to see whether visitors from Europe will be compelled to purchase tracking devices on entry, loaned devices on entry, or just charged a flat rate. Getting this right, so that the British taxpayer neither subsidises nor is seen to be subsisiding foreign haulage firms is crucial for this idea's acceptance.

Clive: When you talk about Iran, it's unclear whether you are talking about the regime or the Iranian people. There is no doubt in my mind that the people want genuine change and an end to theocracy. The present system is a disaster in terms of economic management, human rights, political freedom and democratic accountability. The so-called "reformists" have been unable - and in the case of Khatami, unwilling - to challenge the powers of the Guardians from the Majlis. Iran's political system is as racist and violent as the Saddam regime and is doomed. Even SCIRI is reluctant to use the Islamic Republic as a model for Iraq, despite the fact that it was organised and financed by Tehran.

The only solution for Iran is another revolution. But it must come from within. An invasion by the US or UK will strengthen the hand of the mullahs' military-industrial elite. What is needed is solidarity with the opposition from the rest of the world.

The problem many opposition parties have is that they are portrayed as stooges of Western governments by both the Iranian regime and the left and centre-left parties in the West. Some members of the European parliament have their own personal reasons to maintain allegiance to Tehran. Without going into too many details, I was disturbed to find out that European politicians linked to European business concerns in Iran are attempting to marginalise exiled Iranian opposition groups in the West. One of these is a well-known British politician (not a Labour member, I must add) who has considerable influence over EU policy towards Iran. Again, I won't name names, but this person is a major impediment to progressive politics in Iran. Western politicians must get over their prejudices and act responsibly instead of advancing their own personal interests and political dogma.

Perhaps you should delete that last paragraph, Clive.

Clive,

Quite the little fantasy you've built for yourself. I don't work for anyone nor speak for anyone but myself. You were meant to speak for me and many others but you never did, so here I am. If I gave you my name you wouldn't recognise me. I choose not to give you my name and you have no right to know it. My identity is absolutely irrelevant to the questions I've raised and you know that too.

You have helped to kill tens of thousands of people in the most cowardly and racist manner (yes racist - just one thousand European dead would not have been treated as dismissively as you've treated 100,000 Iraq dead. When it comes to Iraqis you even question the need to count those you've helped to murder - and that is the only honest word for it). To add to this, you are now doing nothing at all to even begin to amend for what you've done. The only words you ever spoke in the House on Iraq were regarding the need to drop more bombs and send more troops. After being one of the head cheerleaders for the pirate-raid on Iraq, you now occupy your time with corporate lobbying and try your best to gloss over your part in mass murder.

When a question is not answered, or is glossed over in your well practiced politician's manner, it deserves to be repeated, ad infinitum, until it's addressed properly. Why should I move to another question when you avoid the first?

You argued for the brutal attack on Fallujah. Why? On what evidence? Why have you not even mentioned Uzbekistan in any of your posts while doing your bit to stoke up fears about Syria?

The longer your silence the more obvious the answers become.

S.

Dan,

"The only solution for Iran is another revolution. But it must come from within. An invasion by the US or UK will strengthen the hand of the mullahs' military-industrial elite. What is needed is solidarity with the opposition from the rest of the world"

An invasion by the US and UK would also have nothing to do with the freedom of Iranians and would be a murderous act designed to strengthen US control in the region, but lets not dwell on detail. I'm sure you meant that too.

The current situation in Iran is entirely due to "revolution" and foreign interference, from 1953 and the overthrow of Mossadeq by the CIA to the bloody years of the Shah (Saddam had nothing on this guy) and the coming of Khomeini (in a popular revolution let's remember, which was a reaction to the repression of the Shah's puppet regime). Perhaps the very last thing Iran needs is more foreign interference and revolution. Perhaps solid, structured change without the chaos of "revolution" is what Iran and the rest of the Middle East needs more than anything. Change, as you say, that comes from within and is completely free of the grubby and self interested finger prints of those who don't have to live with the consequences (read everyone except the Iranian people as a whole).

S.

"Perhaps solid, structured change without the chaos of "revolution" is what Iran and the rest of the Middle East needs more than anything"

I don't know what "solid, structured change" means. Bahrain has certainly made strides towards democratic governance, despite the fact that Iran has been sponsoring Shi'ite extremists in the kingdom. Qatar has led the way in press freedom. Dubai has prompted liberalisation in the UAE. I think these countries are adapting and changing in their own way.

Iran, however, is little different from Nazi Germany. The Islamic Republic is imbued with a notion of Persian racial supremacy, it is increasingly intolerant towards even the modest critique of the so-called "reformists" and its human rights abuses are unspeakable. Iran is drifting further towards tyranny. There is no room for gradual change. There needs to be a secular, multi-ethnic revolution in Iran. It's a shame that certain British politicians are standing in the way of the emergence of secular democracy in Iran and take the side of the fascistic fanatics in Tehran.

I'm not especially fond of the Iranian regime. Nothing I say is in defense of them. But the "Persian [& Shiah] Supremacy" you speak of is present among large parts of the population, even though it was used and manipulated by Khomeini later on. Despite the presence of reformist movements, the clerics still enjoy huge support from the population, many of whom still practically deify Khomeini. I'd also be willing to bet that a majority of Iranians aren't interested in what you'd regard as a "secular" democracy. The reformist voices may be modest, but the "secularist" voices are even fewer in number. What if people don't want a "secular" democracy but a more representative form of Islamic government? What if that government is even more hostile to US/UK interests than the present regime? You can bet your life that dissident groups would receive heavy funding to destabilise such a government also, regardless of how representative it was.

From the experiences of my own home country, I'm just very leery of London/Washington based dissidents who instigate violence from a safe distance and watch from arm-chairs as the bullets fly . It's not a figment of people's imagination that (in the Middle East at least) such groups tend to bring the agenda of their funders with them, and usually represent economically powerful elites who can hardly be regarded as representative of the general population. There'd be no Iraqi invasion without Chalabi, for example. He and his group whole heartedly supported sanctions and bombing despite the resulting genocide. Within Iraq he's regarded as the pimp that he is. I'm not suggesting that the Iranian groups you speak of are the same, but I don't think it's right to categorise all skepticism as some sort of extreme leftist bias. US/UK interference in the Middle East has always been self interested, usually accompanied by extreme violence, and has always been harmful. Th basic incentives for Western interferance in the Middle East have not fundamentally changed, despite the smoke screen of the "War on Terrrr". History supports nothing but skepticism on this.

Can't speak for your politician friend though, whoever he is.

P.S. I didn't answer your question. "solid, structured change" is a vague phrase, accepted. But what I mean is the kind of internal pressure that has already produced significant social and institutional changes in Iran (as compared to ten years ago for example). Despite how slow these change has been, its more sustainable (and far less bloody) than what can traditionally be expected from "revolution" in the region.

This is the case for the Middle East at large. The only lasting changes have been made by people within the region and have been bloodless. Al-Jazeera (and its funding by the Qatari Govt) being a prime example. The changes taking place in Libya (and I know you're too well informed to believe the bollocks about that having anything to do with Iraq) and the growing pressure for democracy in Egypt (again, something that's been building for years, and accelerated by the availability of Al-Jazeera and other similar outlets which allowed Egyptians to safely and publically criticise Mubarak without the fear of imprisonment) are others. Many areas in the Middle East were already on the brink of significant home-grown change when Bush and his lackies decided to set forth on their crusade for oil supremacy.

As a side point, if we want to see an example of the true level of US/UK support for "democracy and freedom" in the Middle East, we only need look at the US attacks on Al-Jazeera/Al-Arabya (including the murder of its journalists and the pressurising of the Qatari Govt to censor Al-Jazeera's output), as well as Blair/Straw's pathetic accusations of bias during the first Fallujah siege. Apparently, beaming pictures of dead civilians around the world (the ones killed by us anyway) is bad for the war business.

Personally, I believe that British and American voters should be physically forced to watch uncensored footage of the people their boys shoot, bomb and burn, but I'm funny that way.

S.

Someone: "Persian [& Shiah] Supremacy" you speak of is present among large parts of the population

But ethnic Persians only make up half the population. What about the Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, Turkomen, etc?

You say you are wary of exile groups, but they are in exile because of the actions of the regime in Tehran. As for funding, this is always a problem for groups that want to sustain lobbying activity. You would not believe the cost of lobbying UN and EU institutions. But usually funds can be scraped together by larger non-governmental organisations. I know of no Iranian opposition group that receives funds from the US or UK government. Certainly, no group I know of wants US State Department funding as this would confirm Tehran's propaganda. Nobody wants to be a Chalabi - who was an Iranian double-agent, by the way.

I cannot see that much concrete change has occurred since the election of President Khatami. In fact, most Iranians, regardless of their ethnic origin, are disillusioned with the slow pace of change. Last year's Majlis elections were boycotted by most people. They do not want this Islamic Republic and its institutions. Let's see what happens on Friday.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: