Awol

Absolutely crackers getting rid of Hughes like this. Hopefully they'll stuff up their Caring Cup semi's, have a massive clearout in Jan to make way for the next wave of self regarding prima donnas and we can pick up the striking equivalent of Richard Dunne for a pittance - RSC would be nice.

GET IN!!

With the news that Dubai & Greek economies are teetering on bankruptcy this week...WATCH THIS SPACE!!!

Well we know RBS were exposed to billions in Dubai but it looks like Abu Dhabi are going to pick up the tab as predicted.

However... How much are our banks exposed to Greek sovereign debt, and if they do go pop does the EU step in? Is there any kind of structural fund in the Eurozone to bail out it's members if they are in the brown stuff? Basically what happens to the EU if Greece (or Spain) goes broke?

According to Stephanie Flanders basically the European Central bank has been bailing the Greeks out by buying their paper at standard interest rates but the problem is it has to stop soon and that will cause Greek interest to rise dramatically and their rating to drop.

Cheers bud. Well we are borrowing a higher percentage of our GDP than the Greeks but at least we can use the pound to take some of the hit through devaluation and worry about hyper inflation later. Thank christ we didn't go in or we'd be even more screwed now.

With the news that Dubai & Greek economies are teetering on bankruptcy this week...WATCH THIS SPACE!!!

Well we know RBS were exposed to billions in Dubai but it looks like Abu Dhabi are going to pick up the tab as predicted.

However... How much are our banks exposed to Greek sovereign debt, and if they do go pop does the EU step in? Is there any kind of structural fund in the Eurozone to bail out it's members if they are in the brown stuff? Basically what happens to the EU if Greece (or Spain) goes broke?

Labour.

Conservatives are too close to the BNP for me, seem to recall a local Tory MP giving it all the "Britain for the British" speech, sounded a lot like Griffin tbh.

Just for the record, Wedge:

PM stands by 'British jobs' vow

Gordon Brown does not regret promising "British jobs for British workers", a No 10 spokesman has said, amid rising unrest about the use of foreign labour.

The PM's pledge, at the 2007 Labour conference, was attacked by critics as unwise and even illegal as European law opens UK jobs to all EU nationals.

The slogan is now being used by protesters at refineries across the UK, angry at a plant using Italian workers.

No 10 said it was working hard to help British people fill job vacancies.

Does that mean Labour are nearly the BNP too?

Tone,

I think you're on about Sarko's recent comments giving the lie to EU solidarity: Sarkosy declares victory over Britain

John Major, the luckless British Prime Minister of the early 1990s, is serving as a model for Nicolas Sarkozy this week. In 1991, when European leaders tied up the last big treaty, at Maastricht, Mr Major rashly declared victory for Britain, saying it was "game set and match". This time, saluting Europe's new dawn under the Treaty of Lisbon, which took effect today, Mr Sarkozy has proclaimed a grand slam for France.

The French President believes that he came out on top in the carve-up of senior jobs in the new streamlined European Union. Unlike Mr Major's claim, the boast seems justified.

Mr Sarkozy has spent the past few days gloating over the way he outmanouvered Gordon Brown and other EU leaders. "The English are big losers in this affair," he told Le Monde. He is especially thrilled to have landed Michel Barnier, his candidate, the post of boss of the internal market, with additional responsibility for policing financial services.

The arrival of a commissioner from regulation-minded France was grim news for the City of London, Europe's financial centre. Mr Sarkozy said that his achievement was proof that "French ideas for regulation are triumphing in Europe". France had never run the internal market in 50 years, he noted.

Mr Sarkozy's artistry was evident when he imposed Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium as the new permanent President of the Council of 27 member states. No one else except the Belgians was keen on anointing the little-known prime minister as the first Mr Europe. Gordon Brown blew his hand by insisting on Tony Blair for the job while knowing that the former Labour prime minister faced too much hostility to stand a chance.

Mr Sarkozy then ensured that Pierre de Boissieu, a wily French diplomat, retained his job as the Council's Secretary-General, its manager.

What Britain got was the appointment of Catherine Ashton, a Labour party apparatchik with no diplomatic experience, as the union's new foreign policy representative. The upshot is that the Union Council is in the hands of two lightweights who will be unlikely to cramp the style of the EU's paramount leader, as Mr Sarkozy casts himself.

Having Mr Barnier running the market gives France more power than landing the jobs of chief diplomat or chairman of the council, in Mr Sarkozy's thinking. Brussels insiders agree.

The icing on the cake was the success of a barrage of telephone calls last week in which he persuaded José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, not to listen to British objections to Mr Barnier taking the financial portfolio. This appointment had brought him "satisfaction and joy", Mr Sarkozy told leaders of his Union for a Popular Movement.

Mr Sarkozy dispatched Mr Barnier, a former Farm and Foreign Minister from the Gaullist Party, to soothe the City yesterday.

Mr Barnier flattered the financiers on their important role, but also served up some Sarkozy-style rhetoric on the evils of speculation and the need to put capital at the service of entrepreneurs. Mr Sarkozy could not resist rubbing in the message at his weekend session with his party. "We will both go and reassure the City, but I prefer the worry to be on that side of the Channel than chez-nous," he said.

But, *splutter* but, we're all on the same team now..

Muppets.

Morgan Stanley fears UK sovereign debt crisis in 2010

Britain risks becoming the first country in the G10 bloc of major economies to risk capital flight and a full-blown debt crisis over coming months, according to a client note by Morgan Stanley.

The US investment bank said there is a danger Britain’s toxic mix of problems will come to a head as soon as next year, triggered by fears that Westminster may prove unable to restore fiscal credibility.

“Growing fears over a hung parliament would likely weigh on both the currency and gilt yields as it would represent something of a leap into the unknown, and would increase the probability that some of the rating agencies remove the UK's AAA status,” said the report, written by the bank’s European investment team of Ronan Carr, Teun Draaisma, and Graham Secker.

It is Japan we should be worrying about, not America “In an extreme situation a fiscal crisis could lead to some domestic capital flight, severe pound weakness and a sell-off in UK government bonds. The Bank of England may feel forced to hike rates to shore up confidence in monetary policy and stabilize the currency, threatening the fragile economic recovery,” they said.

Morgan Stanley said that such a chain of events could drive up yields on 10-year UK gilts by 150 basis points. This would raise borrowing costs to well over 5pc - the sort of level now confronting Greece, and far higher than costs for Italy, Mexico, or Brazil.

High-grade debt from companies such as BP, GSK, or Tesco might command a lower risk premium than UK sovereign debt, once an unthinkable state of affairs. [!!!!!]

A spike in bond yields would greatly complicate the task of funding Britain’s budget deficit, expected to be the worst of the OECD group next year at 13.3pc of GDP.

Investors have been fretting privately for some time that the Bank might have to raise rates before it is ready -- risking a double-dip recession, and an incipient compound-debt spiral – but this the first time a major global investment house has issued such a stark warning.

No G10 country has seen its ability to provide emergency stimulus seriously constrained by outside forces since the credit crisis began. It is unclear how markets would respond if they began to question the efficacy of state power.

Morgan Stanley said sterling may fall a further 10pc in trade-weighted terms. This would complete the steepest slide in the pound since the industrial revolution, exceeding the 30pc drop from peak to trough after Britain was driven off the Gold Standard in cataclysmic circumstances in 1931.

UK equities would perform reasonably well. Some 65pc of earnings from FTSE companies come from overseas, so they would enjoy a currency windfall gain.

While the report – “Tougher Times in 2010” – is not linked to the Dubai debacle, it is a reminder that countries merely bought time during the crisis by resorting to fiscal stimulus and shunting private losses onto public books. The rescues – though necessary – have not resolved the underlying debt problem. They have storied up a second set of difficulties by degrading sovereign debt across much of the world.

Morgan Stanley said Britain’s travails are one of three “surprises” to expect in 2010. The other two are a dollar rebound, and strong performance by pharmaceutical stocks.

David Buik, from BGC Partners, said Britain is in particularly bad shape because the tax-take is highly leveraged to the global economic cycle: financial services provided 27pc of revenue in the boom, but has since collapsed.

The UK failed to put aside money in the fat years to offset this time-honoured fiscal cycle. It ran a budget deficit of 3pc of GPD at the peak of the boom when prudent countries such as Finland and even Spain were running a surplus of over 2pc.

“We need to raise VAT to 20pc and make seriously dramatic cuts in services that go beyond anything that Alistair Darling or David Cameron are talking about. Nobody seems to have the courage to face up to this,” said Mr Buik.

So UK PLC is soon to have a credit rating below that of a supermarket, outstanding.

Welcome to 1929.

Finally, some truth about targets..

British policing 'has lost its way in target culture'

Policing has “lost its way” amid the “noise and clutter” of government targets, initiatives and new laws, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has said.

Mr O'Connor spoke after he unveiled a critical HMIC report into protest policing, following the G20 demonstrations and said that forces have “drifted away” from the basics of front-line policing and serving the public.

He accused ministers, local authorities and police chiefs of “too many knee jerk reactions” to the problems of law and order.

“The principles of policing get drowned out in the noise,” he said. “You need to look at the number of units and departments at the Home Office, all the officials and the different committees and ask this question: do they think about the principles and values of the British model of policing?”

Centrally imposed targets have been criticised for distorting local police priorities, while red tape has diverted bobbies from the beat. Labour has created new crimes at a rate of nearly one a day since 1997. A separate report will say today that individual police officers solve an average of only nine offences a year.

Mr O’Connor spoke after he unveiled a critical report into the policing of protests, which followed the G20 demonstrations in April.

It disclosed that in public order law alone, there had been 61 amendments to legislation in the past six years.

“Police are uncertain of their duties and the powers they may exercise,” it stated.

Mr O’Connor called for a return to the ideals defined by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, of which the most important was “the police are the public and the public are the police”. He advocated an “approachable, impartial, accountable style of policing based on minimal force and anchored in public consent”.

“That was an ideal but there’s been some drift away from that. We have lost our way,” said Mr O’Connor.

The Home Office has recently introduced a single target for police of improving public confidence, after years of officers chasing designated crimes to hit multiple targets.

Mr O’Connor said that centrally-imposed targets were a “well intentioned” measure to tackle problems such as anti-social behaviour but had become a problem when “the machinery came to dominate what police officers did” and took away their discretion.

He added that police performance and accountability was still a “cluttered” landscape. “You have got government, you have got regulators like myself, you’ve got local partnerships, you’ve got government offices — a whole series of interests.

“If you add it all together and put on a piece of paper the links to show who is providing information, who is asking for information, who is suggesting new initiatives… it makes the London Underground map look like a walk in the park.

“There are just so many people, with so many different interests in play, it is very noisy. I think the whole thing needs rationalising significantly.”

The chief inspector said that he had been working with officials at the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to reform practices.

The Daily Telegraph has highlighted how, in an attempt to save time, a third of crimes are “screened out” by officers and never investigated.

Last month, Mr O’Connor disclosed how his inspectors discovered that more than four out of five police forces were failing to respond adequately to the public. Mr O’Connor said that the public also found it hard to hold police to account because of over-complicated crime statistics.

The report into public order policing followed criticism of officers’ heavy handed and “militaristic” approach at the G20 protests in April. The problem came from shortcomings in training, tactics, standards and leadership.

Mr O’Connor called on the Government to introduce a set of “overarching principles” to guide police on the use of force, informing officers about what constitutes appropriate behaviour in “all areas of policing business”.

He said that health and safety legislation, which meant officers had to assess the risk during their work, had made the police “too defensive”. They were quick to put on their riot kit at public order events – sometimes giving them a “military” look.

Mr O’Connor added that when police were making arrests or searching properties they should consider keeping the impact to a minimum in the neighbourhood by being “smooth, quiet, and relatively discreet”.

“I’m not sure people feel that’s always the case about the way some of those operations are done,” he said.

A study from the Institute of Public Police Research found that detections per officer fell from 10.2 offences for each officer in 2003-04 to 9.4 offences per officer last year.

Politicians have to make choices about law, about accountancy about medicine about war - what good does 10 years working as a consultant to the tory party do them in helping make those decisions? Having had a career outside politics you experience more first hand and definitely encounter more people who have first hand experience. Inside politics you encounter people who want to scratch your back if you'll scratch theirs.

100%. That is why I was hoping Huhne would get the leadership of the Lib Dems instead of that wet fart Clegg.

- and I don't think they'll be anywhere near as bad as the incumbents -

there really is absolutely no way of knowing this ....

If the Tories took over then left on mass for Barbados after putting the RSPCA in charge of the country then (short of invading Iran) it couldn't be any worse than it has been.

especially as they have said very little about what they intend to do.

I'm afraid this just isn't correct Jon:

Here

They can't say in minute detail exactly what they would do until they have seen the books and the true scale of the debt we are in, but they have already given a much clearer idea of what they intend to do in terms of policy than Blair's NL pre 1997.

and also becuase, as we have seen, what a party puts in its manifesto, or says it will do, is largely irrelevant.

That is definitely fair comment.

The only real way to make sure the nexy govt is not as bad as the incumbents is BIAD, and that ain't going to happen.

Maybe not this time but as I wrote above, a second GE shortly after the next one could precipate all sorts of change. I honestly think we are heading for a perfect storm in 2010 with rising unemployment, the possibility of another big financial crash (and we couldn't bail out a second one without totally busting the country) social unrest, an unpopular war; it could all add up to revolutionary change.

TBH - i'm not sure about Davey Boy at all. I'd actually quite like to elect BoJo, were he to stand (for comedy value if nothign else, and for the fact he seems just to say what he thinks)

I reckon BoJo would be great - almost Churchillian.

My only hope is that when The Tories get in, they have softened up since last time, and will look after the less able sectors of society. Labour did not address the povery gap anywhere near enough, and as "the party of the people/workers", they really should have.

What chance do the less well off have under a Tory Govt, if their own party abandoned them ....

All I can really go on are the many deabtes I've had with a Tory PPC friend and he's convinced me that thngs will be very different from the party of Maggie if they get in. She had to fix the economy, the current lot are looking to fix both the economy and society.

There is an interesting article in the Torygraph about this very issue that you might find interesting: David Cameron and ‘Red Tory’s’ promise to heal Britain through community values

Known as the “Red Tory,” Phillip Blond will be watched by the Conservative leader as he unveils his radical theories for healing troubled neighbourhoods at the launch of his new think tank, ResPublica.

The former theology lecturer’s views have created a stir in Tory circles, due to his rejection of Thatcherism and the primacy of the market.

Instead, Mr Blond believes, power should be given to community groups, volunteers and church leaders to solve social problems.

His “progressive Conservative message” is known to chime with Mr Cameron’s values, although some within the party are said to be less enthusiastic about the former socialist’s message that the market does not know best.

Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron’s policy adviser who is responsible for much of the party’s recent “blue skies thinking,” and Oliver Letwin, in charge of drawing up the election manifesto, are both fans.

Mr Letwin has said: “Blond's work is seminal. He's one of the most exciting thinkers around.”

At the launch, Mr Blond will outline his view that ordinary working people have been “crowded out” from the opportunity to increase their wealth and access entrepreneurship under Labour.

But, he will add, ending the “monopoly dominance” of big private sector firms in areas such as banking and supermarkets must also be carried out in order to help the less well off.

The “Red Tory” will call for church and community groups to offer services along the model offered by the John Lewis partnership, where employees have a stake in the business.

In an interview this week, he said: "It's about capitalising on our two biggest assets – the insight and dedication of front-line staff and the engagement and involvement of citizens and communities.

"The state has bailed out the banking system but has proved incapable of saving its own citizens from debt and servitude.

"Moreover the state has arrested social mobility and destroyed the structures of working class advancement.”

Mr Blond was also scathing about Labour’s destruction of the “respectable working class,” accusing the party of fostering a form of multiculturalism which divided rather than integrated society.

He said: "And in the absence of a common British narrative that unites all peoples and classes; proper respect for other cultures and traditions has collapsed into a state sanctioned multiculturalism that has produced antagonistic communities and licensed the return of extremism and racism."

The Conservative leadership is, however, keen to make clear that Mr Cameron does not sign up for the entire “Red Tory” project.

A spokesman for Mr Cameron said: "The fact that David Cameron is appearing at this event doesn't mean that he endorses all of Phillip Blond's views."

Just as Blair took Labour away from socialism in order to get them elected, I think Cameron will continue 'managing out' the old and bold Tories that make people shudder, and aims introduce a more social conservatism based on strengthening communities. That's worth voting for imo.

Conservative by a process of elimination. They are the best chance to get rid of one of the most destructive government's in history - and I don't think they'll be anywhere near as bad as the incumbents - so it's Davey boy for me.

My biggest worry about the next GE is Labour getting in through the back door with a Lib/Lab coalition if the Tories don't get a majority. I think it would go: GE - coalition - rioting - GE in about six months.

A second GE after a failed minority 'leftist' government could also get pretty ugly in terms of who was elected imo..

As we should have known, the fix is in:

Iraq: The inquiry cover-up that will keep us in the dark

Gordon Brown was accused of strangling the inquiry into the Iraq war at birth yesterday by refusing to let it make public sensitive documents that shed light on the conflict.

A previously undisclosed agreement between Sir John Chilcot's inquiry and the Government gives Whitehall the final say on what information the investigation can release into the public domain. Mr Brown, who initially wanted the inquiry held in private, was forced to climb down earlier this year after an outcry and promised that most of its sessions would be heard in public. He said information would be withheld only when it would compromise national security.

However, a protocol agreed by the inquiry and the Government includes nine wide-ranging reasons under which Whitehall departments can refuse to publish documents disclosed to the investigation. Crucially, disputes between Sir John and the Government over disclosures would be resolved by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell.

Critics warned that the catch-all exemptions on disclosure could spare the Government from a repeat of the embarrassment it suffered during the Hutton inquiry into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, when a string of sensitive documents were disclosed.

The agreement allows the Government to stop publication of material which would "cause harm or damage to the public interest" such as national security, international relations or economic interests; breach the disclosure rules of the security services; endanger life or risk serious harm to an individual; breach legal professional privilege; prejudice legal proceedings or a statutory or criminal inquiry; breach the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or Data Protection Act; or be commercially sensitive.

It goes much wider than the reasons for preventing disclosure outlined by Mr Brown in the Commons in June. He said then: "I have asked the members of the committee to ensure that the final report will be able to disclose all but the most sensitive information – that is, all except that which is essential to our national security."

Last night Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, likened the clampdown to an episode of Yes Minister, saying that senior civil servants had taken their revenge after the U-turn over private hearings. He appealed to Mr Brown to revise the rules, saying they made a mockery of his promise of a public inquiry.

Mr Clegg told The Independent: "This is tantamount to Whitehall putting a blindfold over the whole process. Chilcot and his colleagues have been completely rolled over and have allowed their hands to be bound before they have even started work. The Government will act as judge and jury on what will be disclosed. That is wholly unacceptable."

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the Government's independent reviewer of terrorism laws and a Liberal Democrat, said: "The protocol has the potential of turning a tiger into a mouse."

He said the reasons for withholding publication were so broad that "almost everything of interest" could be blocked.

Sources close to the Chilcot inquiry denied that it had been muzzled and said it was happy with the agreement with the Government. They insisted that the presumption was that information would be put in the public domain and that the protocol was designed to underline that. They said that they would "kick up a stink" if they felt documents were being withheld unreasonably. If the Cabinet Office blocked publication, the inquiry could announced that this had happened and why.

Inquiry sources stressed that the agreement would not stop its members having access to sensitive documents – only whether they could be published during the proceedings or in the final report.

Yesterday, the second day of the inquiry heard that Britain received intelligence days before invading Iraq that Saddam Hussein may not have been able to use chemical weapons. Foreign Office official Sir William Ehrman said that a report suggested that such weapons may have been "disassembled", while another report suggested Iraq might also lack warheads capable of spreading chemical agents.

Mr Clegg clashed with Gordon Brown over the rules on disclosing information during Prime Minister's Questions. Mr Clegg said: "It is vital that the Iraq inquiry, which started its work this week, is able to reveal the full truth about the decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq."

The Liberal Democrat leader said the nine reasons why information could be suppressed "have nothing to do with national security and outrageously give Whitehall departments individual rights of veto".

He asked the Prime Minister: "Why did you not tell us about this before? And how on earth are we, and the whole country, going to hear about the whole truth about decisions leading up to the invasion of Iraq if the inquiry is being suffocated on day one by your Government's shameful culture of secrecy?"

Mr Brown referred to exemptions on grounds of damaging national security and international relations. He insisted that the inquiry team were happy with the way they were being asked to carry out their work, saying that Sir John had been "given the freedom to conduct an inquiry in the way he wants".

The Liberal Democrats said they would keep up the pressure on Mr Brown to tear up the agreement to allow more documents to be disclosed. They warned that, as currently drafted, the rules would be even more restrictive than the Freedom of Information Act, which forces the Government to state publicly why requests for disclosure are turned down. In contrast, decisions on the Iraq inquiry material would be taken behind closed doors, they said.

I suppose it was a bit much to expect a Government responsible for the most disgraceful episode in 50 years to allow the truth of their actions to see the light of day.

Utter scum.

The EU is a European dictatorship so assume the enquiry rules it all above board it means we can march in a get rid of them as well without fear

Why do you think they want control of our armed forces?

We went in to remove a Dictator and suceeded ...

If that was the reason then fine, all we need to do to wipe the slate clean is prosecute Blair, Brown, Hoon and Straw for lying consistently to the public, Parliament, their own party, the armed forces and our NATO allies.

Chilcot Iraq Inquiry: Britain 'knew Saddam Hussein had destroyed WMD'

Intelligence information that Saddam Hussein had dismantled his weapons of mass destruction programme was received by the Foreign Office days before Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, an inquiry into the war heard today.

The revelation on the second day of the Chilcot Inquiry will raise fresh questions about the justification for invading Iraq in March 2003.

The inquiry heard that the Foreign Office did not believe that Iraq had a large number of long-range missiles and that the claim that Saddam could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes related only to battlefield weapons and not those capable of reaching other countries.

Sir William Ehrman, a senior Foreign Office official, told the inquiry: “We were getting in the very final days before military action some [intelligence] on chemical and biological weapons that it was dismantled and [iraq] might not have the munitions to deliver it.”

Sir William was the Foreign Office’s director of international security from 2000 to 2002 and director-general of defence and intelligence from 2002 to 2004.

He told the inquiry that there had been little fresh reliable intelligence on Iraq’s weapons programmes after United Nations inspectors were expelled in 1998.

Intelligence assessments read by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, from 2000 to September 2002 referred to information on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction being “patchy”, “poor” and “limited”, he said.

However, new intelligence suggesting chemical and biological weapons were being produced began to arrive in late August and September 2002.

Tim Dowse, the Foreign Office’s head of counter-proliferation at the time, said: “In a way it did not come as a great surprise.

“It enabled us to firm up the assessment that had previously been carefully caveated.”

Mr Dowse said that the Government’s approach to dealing with rogue countries had changed after the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001.

“After 9/11 the tolerance diminished for mere containment, if you like, and there was more emphasis on trying to remove the threat,” he said. “We removed the long-term threat from Iraq by the action that was taken.”

After the invasion, weapons inspectors discovered that Iraq had destroyed its chemical stockpile in 1991. The Iraq Survey Group found only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions.

The Butler Report into the information received by ministers in the run-up to the war concluded that the intelligence used to justify claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was unreliable.

Mr Dowse told the inquiry that he was not surprised by the now notorious claim – contained in a dossier published by the Government before the invasion – that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes.

However, he said he assumed the claim referred to a weapon to be used on the battlefield, not to an inter-state ballistic missile, but this was not spelt out at the time.

“Speaking personally, when I saw the '45 minutes' report, I did not give it particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's intentions and capabilities with regard to chemical weapons,” he said.

"It certainly took on a rather iconic status that I don't think that those of us who saw the initial report really gave. It wasn't surprising," he added.

Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to weapons of mass destruction which could be employed by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: “I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.”

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, a member of the inquiry panel, pointed out: "But you didn't say it wasn't.”

Mr Dowse admitted that the Foreign Office failed to properly evaluate some of the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD that subsequently proved false.

“Although our intelligence assessment process is generally robust,” he said. “I think in respect of Iraq [there was] a failure of the system.”

Mr Dowse was asked whether Iraq was one of the biggest threats he faced when he became head of counter-proliferation in 2001.

“It wasn’t top of the list,” he told the panel. “I think in terms of my concerns in coming into the job in 2001 we would put it behind Libya and Iran.”

He said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other non-proliferation agencies had been very successful throughout the 1990s in effectively disarming Iraq.

The Foreign Office felt there was little threat from nuclear weapons and no serious fear for international security in regards to chemical and biological weapons.

“We were concerned about what he was doing but we felt that the sanctions were having an impact,” he said.

Yesterday, on the opening day of the inquiry, senior civil servants revealed that British and US officials held secret discussions about ousting Saddam Hussein two years before invading Iraq and months before the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry chairman, heard that Foreign Office officials drew up an internal “options” paper that included the possibility of regime change while the “drumbeats” of war were reverberating around parts of Washington soon after the election of George W. Bush.

However Sir William Patey, the then head of the Foreign Office’s Middle East department, said the idea had been swiftly rejected on the grounds that there was “no basis in law” for such action.

The inquiry is expected to take up to a year, with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair expected to be among future witnesses. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to the US, will give evidence tomorrow.

So now we have a fourth inquiry that doesn't address the core argument.

How so mate? The only thing I've read which makes my skin crawl is the offer of immunity from prosecution being in the gift of the inquiry if they think it is required to get full and frank evidence.

Other than that (and the lack of a mandate to directly apportion blame, but where that lies should become very clear anywhere) I'm not sure how they could have wider remit?

Edit: I see what you mean now, hopefully if the evidence compiled by Chilcott is strong enough the public pressure will force the CPS to take action - assuming those they should be acting against haven't already been given immunity :evil:

That is much less likely now that hundreds of pages of debriefing testimony from military officers have somehow 'found' there way into the hands of the Telegraph. I'd say this a very deliberate move by the Armed Forces to prevent a whitewash by Chilcott.

Some reading for starters:

Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment

Secret plans for war, no plans for peace

Britain 'unprepared' for nation building

Troops 'rushed' into battle without armour or training

I don't see how it is any longer possible for those responsible to wiggle out of what they have done.

Edit: Where is the bollitics tag?!

With a growing unemployment bill the only way out will be hyper inflation and massive erosion of asset value.

Oh dear, team DPRGB for London 2012 then. Does this mean we're all going to have to grow moustaches?

The Telegraph

Société Générale tells clients how to prepare for potential 'global collapse'

Société Générale has advised clients to be ready for a possible "global economic collapse" over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Published: 6:12PM GMT 18 Nov 2009

Comments 51 | Comment on this article

Explosion of debt: Japan's public debt could reach as much as 270pc of GDP in the next two years. A bullet train is pictured speeding past Mount Fuji in Fuji city, west of Tokyo Photo: Reuters

In a report entitled "Worst-case debt scenario", the bank's asset team said state rescue packages over the last year have merely transferred private liabilities onto sagging sovereign shoulders, creating a fresh set of problems.

Overall debt is still far too high in almost all rich economies as a share of GDP (350pc in the US), whether public or private. It must be reduced by the hard slog of "deleveraging", for years.

"As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse," said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

Under the French bank's "Bear Case" scenario (the gloomiest of three possible outcomes), the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

Governments have already shot their fiscal bolts. Even without fresh spending, public debt would explode within two years to 105pc of GDP in the UK, 125pc in the US and the eurozone, and 270pc in Japan. Worldwide state debt would reach $45 trillion, up two-and-a-half times in a decade.

(UK figures look low because debt started from a low base. Mr Ferman said the UK would converge with Europe at 130pc of GDP by 2015 under the bear case).

The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. "High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt," it said.

Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

If so, gold would go "up, and up, and up" as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

The bank said the current crisis displays "compelling similarities" with Japan during its Lost Decade (or two), with a big difference: Japan was able to stay afloat by exporting into a robust global economy and by letting the yen fall. It is not possible for half the world to pursue this strategy at the same time.

SocGen advises bears to sell the dollar and to "short" cyclical equities such as technology, auto, and travel to avoid being caught in the "inherent deflationary spiral". Emerging markets would not be spared. Paradoxically, they are more leveraged to the US growth than Wall Street itself. Farm commodities would hold up well, led by sugar.

Mr Fermon said junk bonds would lose 31pc of their value in 2010 alone. However, sovereign bonds would "generate turbo-charged returns" mimicking the secular slide in yields seen in Japan as the slump ground on. At one point Japan's 10-year yield dropped to 0.40pc. The Fed would hold down yields by purchasing more bonds. The European Central Bank would do less, for political reasons.

SocGen's case for buying sovereign bonds is controversial. A number of funds doubt whether the Japan scenario will be repeated, not least because Tokyo itself may be on the cusp of a debt compound crisis.

Mr Fermon said his report had electrified clients on both sides of the Atlantic. "Everybody wants to know what the impact will be. A lot of hedge funds and bankers are worried," he said.

link

Holy crap, that can't be a very realistic scenario, can it?!? I know the article focuses on finance but if that came to pass I'd be expecting four horsemen to be following close behind.

Anyone that votes no is surely a few slices short of a full loaf.

Sure you'd never hit a woman without good cause, but you can't seriously say you'd stand there and take a beating off a woman just on the principle that you don't hit women? Why? What is so different about women that they don't deserve the same retaliation as a man who did the same?

That's me then. I had my nose broken by a big fat scouse bitch when I was 20 and didn't hit her back simply becuase she's a woman. If you're an average man then you are without question much stronger than your female opponent. If you lose your rag and give her a pasting it might feel good for about 10 seconds but you've then got to live wth it.

If said bird has attacked your family (or kicked you in the swingers) then fair enough, but other than that, no.

Yes. Once for GBH (didn't end well) and once for D & D/Indecent exposure (mooning a police car) that I got a caution for.

No trouble at all with the law for the last ten years though.

but that probably belongs on another thread.

that Ukraine answer is quite a shock ...

I think it might have something to do with the average gas bill going through the roof. Yet the EU are continuing to push for Ukraine inclusion.

The most likely scenario for the Ukraine is partition eventually, the relative support for the EU and Russia is qute evenly split between the East and West of the country, the East being populated largely by people who are ethnically Russian. Who gets the Crimea would be a potentially sticky issue though.

Sorry, miles OT now!

Effin robbed.

Is that Megrahi dead yet? Seems like he probably should be seeing as he "only had 3 months to live" back at the start of August.

Yes, last week I think it was.

More sinister and utterly wrong use of the Anti Terrorism laws:

Climate change activist stopped from travelling to Copenhagen

UK border police used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent a British climate change activist from crossing over into mainland Europe where he planned to take part in events surrounding the forthcoming United Nations summit in Denmark.

Chris Kitchen, a 31-year-old office worker, said he feared his treatment by police could mark the start of a clampdown on protesters, hundreds of whom are planning to travel to Copenhagen for the climate change talks in December.

Tonight he will make a second attempt to reach Denmark, where he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action.

He said he was prevented from crossing the border yesterday at about 5pm, when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel.

Kitchen said police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers' passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.

The passports were not initially scanned, Kitchen said, suggesting the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him from the coach before they boarded. During his interview, he was asked questions about his family, work and past political activity. The police also asked him what he intended to do in Copenhagen.

When Kitchen said that anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to environmental activists, he said the officer replied that terrorism "could mean a lot of things". By the time his 30-minute interview had concluded, Kitchen's coach had gone.

Police are understood to be monitoring protesters on a number of databases, some of which highlight individuals when they pass through secure areas, such as ports.

Kitchen is a prominent activist who has taken place in a number of peaceful acts of civil disobedience, such as glueing himself to a statue in parliament, to call for more action to cut carbon emissions.

"The use of anti-terrorist legislation like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing and intimidating people practising their hard earned democratic rights," he said. "We are going to Copenhagen to take part in Climate Justice Action because we want to protest against false solutions like carbon trading and to build a global movement for effective, socially just solutions.

"People who are practising civil disobedience on climate change in the face of ineffectual government action are certainly not terrorists, and I am sure that their actions will be vindicated by history."

Kitchen said police paid for a ticket for him to return to London after questioning and arranged for the coach company to give him a seat on another coach.

A Home Office spokesman said: "There has been no change in policy. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

"The exercise of the powers by the police is an operational matter for each force."

Glad we were promised the legislation would only be used sparingly and in cases directly related to terrorism. It now appears you can be branded a terrorist simply for having an opinion that differs from the Government line.

Give me a W!