Messers Ed Talking Balls Over Iraq

Is there a war going on?

Today Ed Balls said in the Telegraph that the war on Iraq was was "wrong" and "a mistake". Going on to say:

"We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives.

"Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong."

Ed Miliband told the Guardian the decision to go to war was taken "led to a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour" adding:

"I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here.

"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it."

You'd think there was a leadership election on or something. Oh yes there is.

Of course Balls was an advisor for Gordon Brown at the time of the invasion and is going to some lengths to try to distance himself from the decision that was backed by his then boss. Strange then that he also says if he had been an MP at the time he would have voted for the decision based on the evidence provided and at the same time saying:

"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war."

So on the information he was privy to he said we shouldn't have prosecuted the war yet at the same time says if he'd been elected he would have voted for it. Huh? Is it just me that finds that argument doesn't add up.

Miliband was in the states at the time unlike big brother David but said he had 'some very heated arguments' with Gordon Brown about it but decided it was better to fight for climate change from inside the cabinet. That would be fighting so hard that you couldn't even get the party to make Parliament cut their own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 as part of the 10:10 initiative that you said you supported in principle, right?

Well as the only two leadership candidates who weren't elected to the House of Commons at the time of the vote to go to war on Iraq these two may have been able to put a line under it. Sadly they failed to do that with their diversionary tactics.

The Fruit of Gordon's Character

"It is for other people to judge but I believe that character is not about telling people what they want to hear but about telling them what they need to know.

"It is about having the courage to set out your mission and the courage to take the tough decisions and stick to them without being blown off-course, even when the going is difficult.

"For better or for worse, with me what you see is what you get."

Well that is what Gordon Brown is saying should be the judgement on which people base their decision for this election. So lets look at Labour's mission over the last 13 years.

On law and order they seem to have been blown by whatever the police want irrespective of the civil liberties that they limit. So that is a course but one that many social progressives who once felt the Labour party was their natural home are wary of.

On Iraq they set out on a mission to get rid of Saddam. They certainly weren't swayed by the advise of legal and military experts that their reasoning for the invasion was flawed or illegal. We've even had David Miliband saying that UN was feeble over Saddam, that only the iron fist of the US and UK could waken them up. But Bush and Blair still kow-towed to New York to get a retrospective resolution even though they broke Article 2 of the UN's founding charter.

On tax that steady course that Gordon has ploughed. He announced he was to remove the 10p tax band. Only for it to be given a temporary reprieve. In effect he had unfairly doubled the tax burden of the lowest paid. Indeed only most earning up to about £2,000 less than the Tories want to freeze public pay everyone was worse off. While at the other end it was Gordon who made a differential in the high rate capital gains and income tax thresholds making it easier for the richest to avoid paying a full amount of tax. Yet now he speaks of a future fair for all.

As for the banks, well it got worse. Gordon refused to listen to Vince Cable, a former banker, and sailed his course of deregulation. Allowing them carte blanch to gamble the nations savings against the market. We'll be paying for that courageous path of the former chancellor for years to come.

Only the Liberal Democrats have consistently stood up for our civil liberties in the last 13 years. Only the Liberal Democrats spoke out about the illegal war on Iraq with one voice. Only the Liberal Democrats are promising to make our taxes fairer. Only the Liberal Democrats are prepared to reform the banks, yes allow the investment banks to speculate, but not at the expense of individuals and firms access to core banking services.<

Gordon Brown as the son of the Manse is no doubt aware that Matthew 7:16 says. "It is by their fruits that you shall know them." Sorry Gordon but Labour have turned out to be a rotten apple. The Tories are merely the same old sour,bitter lemon trying to disguise themselves as a juicy, sweet strawberry. The Liberal Democrats are trying to give real sustenance to our economy, it is time to build a fairer Britain.

Chilcot's Blair Damb Squib

Well what exactly did we learn from Tony Blair's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry yesterday.

Pretty much nothing, as Jackie Ashley writes in today's Guardian:

"the inquiry members had failed to nail him on the central issue of their quest – why had he taken the country to war when the Attorney General's advice had been lukewarm at least, on the legality of such action?"

So what was the point?

Blair even tried to turn on to the offensive asking where Saddam would be in 2010 if he hadn't taken action. Well a decade on from the first Gulf War we saw exactly what a decade of sanctions against arm deals to Iraq had left him. Jonathan Freeland puts it like this:

"To which the answer is surely that the 2003 invasion exposed Saddam and his ragtag army as a toothless tiger, whose rusting arsenal would be even more useless seven years on than it was then."

The former Prime Minister:

• gave no substantial ground over why he sent 40,000 UK troops to war to disarm Saddam of weapons he did not possess
• blamed blamed 'the very near failure of the Iraqi occupation' on Iranian interference
• arguing that if the west had backed off Saddam would have reassembled the invisible WMDs

As for regrets. He had none saying as his parting statement:

"Responsibility – but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein. I think he was a monster."

This led to the jeers and calls of 'murderer' and 'liar' from the public gallery.

But then did we expect anything else key questions were left out from Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith's questioning. There was the lack of the Paxman punch to get any answers to the tough questions. The real answers that needed to be got at were left out, there wasn't that sense of digging any deeper. Fern Britton proved to be a tougher, if shorter, inquisitor of Blair than Chilcot.

War! Iraq! What is it Good For?

1980s

Frankie Says
War!
What is it Good For?

1990s

John Says
To return sovereignty to Kuwait
From illegal occupation

2000s

Tony Says
To stop WMD getting here
In 45 Minutes

2010s

Tony Says
Well, err, actually what I meant to say.
Was, well, you know.
It was to stop Saddam
Building those WMDs.
Err.
Yes the ones I said he'd had
Ready to fire in 45 minutes.

A Secret Plan My Lord?

Baldrick: You had a cunning plan my Lord?

Lord Straw: Yes Baldrick, one so mind numbingly cunning and secret that I didn't mention it on 18th March 2003 when we debated the issue, nor mentioned to cabinet. But at some future point in my defence will produce it in an 8,000 word memorandum.

Baldrick: But what about Cook?

Lord Straw: What's Mrs Miggins got to do with this?

Baldrick: Not Mrs Miggins, my Lord, but Robert Finlayson Cook.

Lord Straw: Ah well the red, beard, Robin, went bob, bob, bobbin' along.

So Jack Straw had a secret plan to keep us out of the war on Iraq, or at least it was secret until yesterday.

Of course his predecessor as Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had a far more open plan to keep us out of the Iraq War. He announced his resignation as Leader of the Commons the evening before the vote on sending troops and then voting against the Government. Straw of course trooped through the Government lobbies. Like Cook Straw claims to have had disagreements with Tony Blair.

So what was the secret plan? Well apparently it was to offer support to the US-led invasion but not to send troops. Of course reading Robin Cook's memoires you know that he made his feelings known in Cabinet, there was no mention of Straw doing the same. Indeed in response to just that question yesterday he responded:

"Was there a cabinet or a cabinet committee at which my alternative to the prime minister was discussed? The answer to that is no."

So therefore his cabinet colleagues did not know that there was an alternative, (forgive my scepticism) if there was one, from the Foreign Secretary, even though his predecessor was expressing concerns.

However, compare such aspirations with what he said in the chamber on the evening of the 18 March, 2003;

"My hon. Friend has many arguments against military action, and I respect her for them. ..... I know that if we fail to take action in the face of an obvious evil and an unresolved problem, the costs not only to the international community but, over time, to this country and the rest of the world will be calculable and high."

So there appeared to be no concerns about regime change being an issue, there was an 'obvious evil and unresolved problem'. Was that alluding to the First Gulf War when regime change wasn't carried out?

How staunchly was he for sending troops into Iraq, well also in that debate he said:

"Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many others, I have worked for months for a peaceful resolution of the crisis. However, I am as certain as I can that the Government's course of action is right."

And later

"The fact is this: Saddam will not disarm peacefully. We can take 12 more days, 12 more weeks, or 12 more years, but he will not disarm. We have no need to stare into the crystal ball for this. We know it from the book—from his record. So we are faced with a choice. Either we leave Saddam where he is, armed and emboldened, an even bigger threat to his country, his region and international peace and security, or we disarm him by force."

and to conclude

"Our forces will almost certainly be involved in military action. Some may be killed; so, too, will innocent Iraqi civilians, but far fewer Iraqis in the future will be maimed, tortured or killed by the Saddam regime. The Iraqi people will begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs. The world will become a safer place, and, above all, the essential authority of the United Nations will have been upheld. I urge the House to vote with the Government tonight."

I clearly am missing something here as for the Iraqi people to 'begin to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that should be theirs' surely suggests the regime change that yesterday he said he had arguments with the Prime Minister about. That was the tenant of his closing remarks as he dispatched the Government's troops into the Aye lobby.

***BREAKING*** Brown to Face Chilcot

News just coming in that Gordon is going to face the Chilcot inquiry into Iraq soon.

Sky are saying:

After increasing pressure from political opponents, Mr Brown wrote to Sir John earlier this week to make it clear he would be "happy" to attend at any time.

"I am clear that it is a matter for you how you conduct the Inquiry and that it is, and must remain, entirely independent of Government," the Prime Minister wrote.

"In undertaking this you have rightly chosen the order you wish to receive evidence.

"For my part, I want to make it absolutely clear I am prepared to give evidence whenever you see fit. I remain happy to take your advice on this matter."

They and the BBC now both believe that the Prime Minister is now going to be called before the enquiry in a matter of weeks rather than later in the year as originally scheduled.

There is also some spectulation as to what part this PMQ from last Wednesday had in the resulting early call of Brown to face the questions.

13 Jan 2010 : Column 682

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD):Given everything that has come to light in the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, will the Prime Minister now do the decent thing and volunteer to give evidence to the inquiry before people decide how to vote on his record in government?

The Prime Minister: The Chilcot inquiry has drawn up a list of those people that it wishes to interview and has invited the people on the dates that it has done. I will follow the recommendations of the Chilcot committee. I have nothing to hide on this matter and I am happy to give evidence. Equally, at this time, I thought that the debate in the House was that the Chilcot inquiry should decide when people were heard.

Mr. Clegg: The point is that this is not just a question for Sir John Chilcot; it is a question for the Prime Minister's own conscience. When the decisions were taken to launch this illegal war, he was not only in the room-he was the one who signed the cheques. He should insist on going to the inquiry now. People are entitled to know before they decide how to vote at the general election what his role was in this Government's most disastrous decision. What has he got to hide?

13 Jan 2010 : Column 683

The Prime Minister: Nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman was the one who wanted Chilcot to make the decisions about whom he called. He cannot on one day say that Chilcot should decide and then say that he or someone else should decide what happens.

On the Iraq war, we have given every single document to the Iraq inquiry. We have given it the opportunity to look at every document and to ask for which documents it wants to be declassified. The only documents that will be withheld from publication are those that directly affect national security and international relations. This is a full inquiry being run by Sir John Chilcot. People are being interviewed, rightly so, and asked for their evidence, but it is for the Chilcot committee to decide how it proceeds-that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposed.

If it does it shows how much more on the pulse Clegg is than Cameron as even the Spectator's Coffee House blog had earlier given Clegg another hit to Cameron's miss this week.

More to follow.

Regime Change was Goal of Blair not WMDs

Steve Bell Cartoon from the Guardian 8 July 2003

"I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."

So says Tony Blair, who has also admitted that the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were only a convenient, in inaccurate, tool to bring about the goal of regime change. He was being interviewed by Ferm Britton, who has managed to get more candor out of the former Prime Minister that some of the hard pressed political operatives in news. He added:

"I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge, but it's incredibly difficult and I totally understand...

"That's why I sympathise with the people who were against [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, you know, in the end I had to take the decision."

So it would appear that the Lib Dems were right before we went to war. This was an illegal war.

This was one not so much about removing WMDs from the region but a dynasty from the region. This was something that not even when the same man had invaded another sovereign country. The dodgy dossier has just become a whole lot more dodgy as Blair has now revealed it was a convenient stick with which to beat Saddam.

Having to "deploy different arguments" if the 45 minute threat hadn't existed to enter another sovereign state and remove its leader shows premeditation to do something. The intent was there before anything resembling a 'just' cause. In a court of law that would be grounds to press for murder rather than manslaughter, but in the international field Blair being bold enough to admit it thinks that he should get away with it. Over recent weeks it has been becoming clear that George W. Bush and Blair were looking for a way to get Saddam implicated in 9/11 so that Bush could go an complete the job that daddy started but didn't complete.

So now from his own mouth we have the truth that WMDs was just a convenience that could be used to drag the country, or at least enough MPs, along with him to invade Iraq.

The Enemy Within

One common thread links the shooting of 5 British servicemen in Afghanistan and 12 13* Americans at Fort Hood in Texans all seventeen were killed by an enemy within. However, there the similarity ends.

In Afghanistan Guardsman Jimmy Major, Warrant Officer Darren Chant, Sgt Matthew Telford, Cpl Steven Boote and Cpl Nicholas Webster-Smith were shot by a rogue policeman they were training. The Taliban have claimed responsibility for the incident in what was clearly an act of terrorism against the occupying forces. The American incident was carried out by US Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan who had been fighting his impending deployment to Iraq.

While Major Hasan is of middle eastern ethnicity that shouldn't make his case a reason for anti-Muslim sentiment. He appears to have been struggling possibly from pre-traumatic stress disorder. The man had treated those who have returned from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't seem to want to face the psychological conditions that those that had returned had gone through.

With the shootings in Fort Hood taking place at a personnel and medical centre where troops go for last minute checks before deployment it could well be that this was a last ditch attempt for one mant to avoid his own deployment. Sadly there are twelve thirteen* fatal victims of his selfish act and a further 31 30 injured.

The most sad thing about the involvement of Major Hasan is that if even those that are trained to deal and help others cope with the mental pressures of living on the front line of these conflicts, how are others meant to cope. We now recognise post-traumatic stress disorder, and though it is not clear if Major Hasan had partaken on a previous tour of duty from reading the reports his mental state may indicate an anticipatory disorder. But I've already mentioned one Star Trek episode in the title there is need to use another 'Who watches the watchers?'.

Who was looking out for the psychiatric well being of Major Hasan? Who was making sure he was in a fit mental state to be shipped out? Had there been signs of a shift in his mental state that could have forewarned this? Or as someone who is trained to spot such signs had he masked any signs?

The strains of these conflicts are really telling in our troops, not just in the body count or visible injuries that they carry back. Many of the young men we are sending off to fight will no doubt come back with mental conditions, many of which may not surface for years to come. This may not be the last such incident of this kind, that is something that is a worry.

*Just as I pressed publish the official death toll was increased.

Nats Want Freedom: Just Not Their Information

The double standards for the SNP have come to light again this time over the Freedom of Information.

Last month they were up in arms with Jack Straw about the UK Government's failure to release Cabinet papers in the run up to the Iraq war. However, when the Scotsman asked them to release the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 10 February when the Cabinet decided to drop plans to ditch replacing Council Tax with LIT, nothing.

Taking Angus Robertson's words from last month.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the Labour government’s attitude to freedom of information.

"....Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war.

"The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers"

With a slight adjustment we can ask.

"The public feels it was lied to about the reasons for breaking this policy
pledged in 2007, and those responsible must not be allowed to hide from an
inquiry.

"This Cabinet cover up is typical of the SNP government’s attitude to freedom of information and the Scottish electorate.

"Those responsible have never answered the most fundamental questions about
why we were led away from this policy that they still protected staunchly weeks
before.

"The claim that the recession makes it impossible to bring about a fairer tax for the less well off is a lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost thousands of pounds needlessly to those less able to pay the unfair council tax."

Update: I see that Jeff has taken the contrary view which I find discouraging for a supporter of a party that only wants Open Government (to quote the Jim Hacker plan on this issue) on things that suit itself. It is not a case of either or. If you want to utilise FoI legislation for gaining info you have to also be prepared to tender information when requested.

I suspect that the Scotsman already know what happened in those cabinet meetings and are merely wanting to get the official minute before publication. A dangerous game for the Nats to play.

Government Start to Come Clean on Rendition

Almost three years ago Tony Blair's normally calm persona at PMQs took a serious knock when he fumbled out an answer that there was nothing new on rendition flights. Even Iain Dale was impressed with how Ming had got the then Prime Minister on the ropes.



Then the Prime Minister said there was nothing new to from the Council of Europe's report that Britain had colluded with the USA on extraordinary rendition flights.



To be fair to Tony Blair it now appears that collusion is indeed the wrong way to describe it. The Labour government appear to have actively handed over suspects to them to catch these flights. Far more than even Sir Menzies Campbell hinted at on that particular Wednesday when it was only assumed that our airspace or airfields were being used.

US Use of Bully Boy Tactics

It's the sort of threat used by paedophilic abusers, "Don't tell or we leave you exposed," threatening worse than is already experienced. But it is just the sort of thing that the USA has apparently be doing to the UK.

That would be the country that somehow has stood unwaveringly with the US on its war on terror every step of the way. Yet apparently if the UK reveals the alleged torture that Binyam Mohammed underwent at Guantánamo Bay the US have threatened to take away their intelligence sharing which would leave the UK heavily exposed. So like a victim clinging to its abuser because somehow there is a need the UK Government is keeping mum (mom) about the US's abuses because it can't afford to live without what it gets from the relationship.

If this is true what exactly has the US got to hide? Of course the use of torture on Prisoners of War is outlawed in the Geneva Convention not that the USA seems to pay much heed to that at times. If it is true why is the UK protecting the US? Is there some sense of self preservation?

Maybe David Miliband's statement that, "We never condone or authorise the use of torture," isn't all that close to the truth. If that is the case we need to know just what the UK did know, and when they knew it? Did we know before, during or only find out after? Who knew anything and what was their reaction?

The fact that the US are trying to suppress makes it all the more important that this does get an airing. Even if that means a trip and stay in the Netherlands for a few high profile people.

Boris the Looter

So Boris has been Boris-like and it's now caught up with him. Indeed the quote from Boris shows that well he is still Boris.

In case you have missed it not since Pete Burn's gorilla fur coat was remanding in custody during celebrity big brother has an inanimate object raised so much police attention and headline. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, was until yesterday in possession of Tariq Aziz's cigar case.

Boris claimed the circumstances of how the then Spectator Editor came to have possession of this Iraqi cultural property as so "morally ambiguous that [he] cannot quite think of it as theft", then hangs himself by his own petard with this quote.

"As I stared at the remains of his home, I saw utter destruction - surely the looters had left nothing of value?"

"And there, just by my toe, protruding from beneath a piece of dusty plywood, was the cigar case. Actually, it was only the bottom half of a cigar case, in thick red leather and coarsely stitched.

"But I immediately saw its importance. If this was the cigar case of Tariq Aziz, think of the scenes it had witnessed."

I'm sorry Boris the fact that the looters didn't take it doesn't make it therefore yours to take and possess for 5 years. In fact by so doing aren't you just a looter yourself? Admittedly a rather posh one with foppish hair and a media/political career but a looter none the less. Also if as you said you immediately saw it's importance why didn't you hand it over to the appropriate authority in 2003 rather than wait until 2008?

However Boris should be thankful that Saddam is no longer in charge in Iraq the penalty for looting there in his time was the death penalty. Even under the Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order 2003 it clearly shows him to be in the wrong. For Dick Whittington the streets of London were paved with gold for the current Mayor of London Baghdad was paved with cigar boxes.

Oh Canada: That's My Plans to Visit Blown

Just was checking on up my referrals for today and found out that someone at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade managed to visit this humble blog by searching for the words 'hold them to account lib dems'.

Oh course they found my earlier post on the new hold them to account website.

Scarily Google (other search engines are available I believe) places my post on the topic above Guido, the official party site, various other Lib Dems, and the Gruniad's coverage of the launch.

However, if the Canadian Department of Foreigh Affairs are now aware of my views on the war in Iraq, I might have blown my chances of visiting my relatives over there. Ah well that's the price we pay for freedom, liberty etc.

Whoops: Hold Them to Account Ignores Boundary Changes

Updated: To take into account action taken since this posting.

I just followed a link to Hold Them to Account knowing full well the result I should have got for Michael Connarty my MP. Obviously the reason I knew was that his vote on Iraq was one thing we actually had in common at the 2005 election. However, on entering my postcode I got the following message.

Your Labour MP, Michael Connarty, was not a Member of Parliament at the time of the motion on the Iraq War, which was supported by both the Labour Party and the Conservatives.

I'm sorry Hold Them to Account but Michael has been a Member of Parliament since 1992. Up until 2005 he was the member for Falkirk East and since about 1:45 on the morning of 6 May he was returned as member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. He was in the House when the vote was taken but voted against going to war with Iraq.

It makes me wonder how many of our Scottish MPs are actually able to be held to account on this site with every constituency being redrawn it is possible that none of the Scottish Members who voted to take us to war 5 years ago, may come up on their database as the constituency they now represent may not have existed in 2003 and therefore return the same result as above.

So I'm holding Hold Them to Account to account to get their data sorted out.

UPDATE: As you can see from the comments below it is all due to the naming convention of my new constituency but I am not alone. My new search does return the correct information namely:

Your MP, Michael Connarty, did not vote for the Government's Iraq War motion. However, the war was supported by both the Labour Party and the Conservatives and there are several ways you can hold Gordon Brown and David Cameron to account.

So well done to the Webmasters over at Hold Them to Account. Not only are Lib Dems the most wired party in the land but we're also pretty responsive to issues regarding our sites as well. I was about to say check out my local MP's website until I did just then and realised he must have someone updating that more regularly now.

The Army Says No!

Well as I wrote yesterday the US Army said the situation in Iraq is too unstable to foresee a withdrawal of troops before 2010. Well British Army Cheif General Sir Richard Dannatt can tell them why. It's because we are there!.

This is most forthright statement from inside the allied forces military which says that far from being the peace makers in Iraq our troops are seen as occupiers and a cause of the tension, which will only continue the longer we stay.

So not only has he called for an immediate plan for an exit strategy, but he has also hinted that the way we went into Iraq, i.e. not invited, may be affecting how we are viewed in certain parts of the world.

President Bush wants us to stay until 2010. The British Army says no.

2010 and All That

So now we know something about the withdrawal strategy from Iraq, 'It ain't gonna happen before 2010. The US Army have announced that new indications show the situation is too unstable to foresee an end to the 'war' (yes they used the word war) in the next four years, so they are going to have to maintain troop levels at least until them.

So Iraq War 2003-2010+? will mean that the US/UK alliance are gearing up to occupy Iraq for longer than Germany occupied Europe from 1939-1945. Strange that this new intelligence must come from the same sources that told Bush and Blair that the Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction. Well at least the country has them now even if they are in the hands of the occupying forces.

Tory Case of Foot in Mouth 2

Annabel Goldie might have glared at her TV on Friday night if she had seen her Westminster leader on Jonathan Ross. Not only did he continue to show his indecision of Iraq but he admitted that Margaret Thatcher made it hard for the Scots but that she got it right:

"It meant very difficult decisions. Especially for north, Wales and Scotland, there were difficult times - but we in the Conservative Party believe they were the right decisions."

Just the sort of comment to go down well with the elephant like memory of the Scots, who still remember that it was Michael Howard who experimented with the Poll Tax north of the border. Ten months out from an election in Scotland it may not have been the wisest time to make such a confession.

Cameron Flip Flops on Jonathan Ross Show

Watch out for Friday Night with Jonathan Ross tonight. You will hear David William Donald Cameron say that Blair was right to go to war in Iraq and said that those who had supported military action should 'see it through'.

Is this the same David Cameron who was quoted on an election leaflet earlier this year in Dunfermline saying?:

"Issues that once divided Conservatives from Liberal Democrats are now issues where we both agree. Our attitude to devolution and the localisation of power. Iraq."

I happen to remmeber the appearance of that quote on election literature because when I returned from deliveries to see the offending comments. Must people's reaction went something like this:

Iraq? Iraq! IRAQ!!! When have we ever agreed with the Tories on Iraq?

In fact I remember poor Michael Veitch my Conservative opponent in last May's General Election being the only one of the candidates to support the war in Iraq from the platform during hustings.

So is this another Chameleon moment for Dave? Saying one thing to try and not be totally wiped out in Dunfermline but having to maintain the party line on a national platform? Or is this a flip-flop in the extreme within such a sort period? Does Dave really know his mind and what words are coming out of his mouth?

10 Other Confessions That Tony Might Consider Making

Ok as Tony is getting all confessional how about some other thing he might want to get off his chest.

10. I'm not English after all and will be supporting Trindad and Tobago at the World Cup in Germany. (Don't know why Dave got invited to David and Vicky's bash but not me.)

9. I thought when Cherie first said she would introduce me to C. Chaplin she was talking about the famous film star tramp.

8. My last cabinet reshuffle was made by throwing darts at the usual suspects. I almost had Keyser Soze replace Gordon at the Exchequer.

7. I wish I'm made Robin Cook's resignation speech, people might like me more. But then George wouldn't so maybe not.

6. I am fallible. Just everyone else around me is more so and people don't notice.

5. I voted for Thatcher in 1979.

4. John Prescott gave me a Chinese burn when I threatened to take his priveleges away from him.

3. I wish Cherie had won a Parliamentary seat before me, then I could have followed my dream and become an internationally recognised lawy...rock guitarist.

2. I was really upset that Al Gore didn't become president, but also relieved as he would have hounded me about Kyoto targets all this time and George isn't bothered.

1. Yes Gordon it is unfair me making you pay the Granita bill and not letting you become leader.