The new Cold War warms up in Iran

July 31, 2012 1:49 pm

One thing I sometimes forget is that people born before, say, 1980, didn’t really grow up, like I did, being aware of the constant background noise of the Cold War. That is, even for people in their early thirties, it’s as distant a memory as the Second World War was for my parents’ generation.

For my own, who came of age in the Eighties, there was always a certain paranoia that, at any moment, we might all be shuffled into hastily-built shelters, our bodies covered in radiation burns. Leaving our fate to politicians seemed doubtful: as Sting put it at the time, “what might save us, me and you, is if the Russians love their children too”. Four years later, President Gorbachev seemed to prove him right, by ending the Cold War. Perhaps, we thought, the Russians were not really that different from us, after all.

Our own time bears witness to two other nuclear face-offs. One is between two populous countries which periodically growl at each other. But, while disturbing, the long-time India-Pakistan friction over Kashmir seems less likely to instigate the first nuclear war of the twenty-first century than the coming face-off of the 2010s. In a virtually unprecedented briefing from the head of MI6 it was reported that, by 2014, Iran will have nuclear weapons.

It’s important never to confuse the good citizens of a country and the people who are in charge of it. However, let’s be clear: the modern guardians of centuries of Persian heritage represent, putting it euphemistically, a pseudo-democracy and are trying to maintain themselves in power by fair means or foul. The regime has a terrible record on human rights, free speech, and is a downright oppressor of women and persecutor of homosexuals. The state is already a pariah – whether you agree or not with the sanctions that have made it so, it’s a fact – and therefore has increasingly little to lose from total disconnection from the West.

There is also the little matter of its President being quoted as saying he’d like to “wipe Israel off the map”. For those like journalist Mehdi Hasan, who valiantly insists this was just a mis-translation, and for the avoidance of doubt: Ahmadinejad has also suggested the Holocaust was made up by the Allies and rejoiced at the news of Ariel Sharon’s stroke, pleasantly hoping that he were dead. I mean, whatever the translation, not really the kind of bloke you’d like to have pointing a missile at Tel Aviv.

Without entering into an entirely separate debate, suffice it to say that Israel’s ongoing sixty-year old conflict with Palestine has hardly covered either side in glory and and remains deadlocked. Perhaps more relevant, though, is that the country is currently in the hands of perhaps one of its most unhelpful, belligerent governments ever. Netanyahu was a rather disappointing prime minister last time around, and is a pretty poor one this time, too; his settlements policy seems entirely self-defeating and he really couldn’t have found a more troublesome deputy than Avigdor Lieberman, a man who seems to make enemies wherever he goes. But Netanyahu is, for all that, the prime minister of a bona fide, essentially liberal democracy which does not discriminate against gays or women, one which is plugged into the West and which therefore has everything to lose by withdrawal of its support. And neither has he ever, to date, called for his neighbour’s annihilation.

So far it has largely been sabre-rattling on both sides: but the ante is suddenly upping as the region changes in the wake of the Arab Spring. The current troubles in Iran’s big ally, Syria, make Iran feel more vulnerable. And Mitt Romney last weekend, in another moment of exquisite, bull-in-a-china-shop diplomacy, offered his support to Israel for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Yes, that’ll help calm things down.

Most frustrating about all this is that Iran is ultimately one of the best-placed countries to be a beacon to the moderate Muslim world. Underneath the apparent Islamist domination of every aspect of daily life, Iran’s other secular, liberal tradition persists against all odds.

My best friend was several months in Iran on a filming trip a few years ago, and was lucky enough to spend time not just in the public Iran but in the private Iran. I remember clearly from his stories the image of young women covered from head to foot in black in the street, who would go back to their houses, where they would wear Western clothes and listen to Western music. This image was rekindled on reading this brilliant piece in the New York Times the other day: ordinary Iranians want the same things, surprise surprise, as we do. The internet and satellite TV have been powerful weapons against the regime’s attempts to impose thought-control.

The problem we have on the left is that some of us pretend that, rather than wanting the kind of lives we have, what they actually want is to have them dictated by an autocratic man with a beard and social mores from the 16th century. They do not: but that does not stop some of our “useful idiot” politicians appearing on the regime’s odious mouthpiece, PressTV, in the name of “engagement”, thus helping legitimise the state and spread its propaganda.

Meanwhile, politically, the Iranian regime acts increasingly like a cornered rat – and that is when rats are at their most dangerous. At this point, we must rely on the hope that its leaders see, beyond their perversion of Islam, beyond their autocratic government and their oppression of women, what the Russian and American leaders did: that the fleeting sense of security of being able to hover their fingers over a nuclear button might well end up costing the lives of their own children, as well as those of many thousands of Israelis and theirs.

Good news, in short, this is not: and that is assuming any conflict were to stay conventional. An actual nuclear strike – by either side – does not even bear thinking about.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Cold wars are all about needing to have an ‘enemy’ and choosing a suitable bogey-man who can be the focus of hatred.
    They are entirely artificially constructed – say the same things long enough and it starts to be believed.
    Iran is an unpleasant and repressive regime, but one of many. Most people who ramp up this sort of argument are close to the Zionist, pro-Israel lobby.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      I think in future, rather than replying, I shall just count how many words it takes Mike to utter the word “Zionist”.

      This time: 63!

    • Hugh

      “They are entirely artificially constructed and choosing a suitable bogey-man who can be the focus of hatred.”

      Because the Soviet Union wasn’t really a murdering, threatening regime – the Sun made it up.

      • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

        “the Sun made it up”

        Come on, old chum. Give credit where credit is due – it wasn’t only the Sun wot dun it.

        For some in the West security instability appears to an ongoing addiction:

        http://pubrecord.org/commentary/5161/exaggeration-threat-then/

        • Hugh

          I missed the part in your link that explains how the Soviet Union wasn’t a very real enemy and a very suitable “bogey-man” given how many people it killed.

          I did read the part that shows those within publicly funded bodies shouldn’t be trusted to define their own budget requirements, though. Is anyone remotely surprised the CIA “erred on the side of overestimating Soviet aggressiveness” and underestimated “the extent to which the Soviet leadership was deterred from using nuclear weapons”?

          You might also want to bear in mind that not all the failures of analysis exaggerated the threat: “the authors observed that the Soviet leadership did not rule out a preemptive strike option, even though U.S. officials came to downplay the “probability” of Soviet preemption.”

          I also like this nugget: “During the early 1980s, according to the interviews, Fidel Castro recommended to the Kremlin a harder line against Washington, even
          suggesting the possibility of nuclear strikes”

          Fidel has the odd fan on these pages if memory serves, doesn’t he?

          The original post your report links to gives a slightly more balanced view. It doesn’t show the threat was fictitious.

          http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb285/

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            “publicly funded bodies shouldn’t be trusted to define their own budget requirements”

            You’re beginning to get the picture.

          • Hugh

             Which would include the NHS, the police, and so on.

          • Mike Homfray

            There were and are plenty of unpleasant regimes. To embark upon cold war is a decision which is made for largely one-upmanship reasons. Or we could treat every regime in the same way. In this instance the main motivators are those whose primary concern is to preserve and support Israel.

          • John Reid

            Fom Chile to Elslavador, tehyweren’t using propoganda ia the underground press had spies in our Universities to recruit, had Mmebers of MI6 or were plughing money into unions or using poisons to kill people who they thought weren’t left wing enough, they were using tools to fund Miltancy to overthrow our govnerments…or ping hit squads in waepon techinques

          • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

            Context is all.

      • TomFairfax

         The difference then of course was that only Kenny Everett was going around saying ‘bomb Russia’.

        There’s little similarity between a superpower which was effectively the Tsarist Empire renamed, massively armed conventionally and with nuclear weapons, that stopped at close to nothing to get it’s own way, and a state like Iran.

        If Iran was really threatening our liberty then the Tories would be increasing defence expenditure.

        As Rob mentions, a lot of us remember the real Cold War. We were hugely outnumbered conventionally and the nuclear deterrent was pretty much the only deterrent.

        Iran, like Iraq is a a good target for those that like this type of thing because they have no nuclear weapons. Unlike that much worse regime in the north of the Korean peninsula which has aducted it’s neighbours citizens and attacks their forces without pretext over the years.

        • Hugh

          If there is a difference it seems to have passed Mike by as much as Rob, since he was dismissing “cold wars”, not simply the Iranian threat.  That was my complaint.

          • TomFairfax

            I missed the plural there myself. (In my mind there’s only been one. Just as well it stayed that way. Wattisham took 15mins from sirens going off to getting the Phantoms airborne. Not much use given a 4minute warning.)

            Still in the case of Iran, when the Israeli military chief believes the intelligence shows one thing and the amateurs in politics want it to be something else, you have to question the reason for the disparity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            The point I was making is the need which there appears to be to have an ‘enemy’. There are plenty of candidates, but their status in actually being any sort of real threat is usually grossly exaggerated.

            With the Soviet union, the cold war also promoted the military-industrial complex and gave justification for this on both sides

          • TomFairfax

             I don’t disagree you you Mike that it is in the interests of those wanting to protect budgets and business to exagerate. Dave Stone’s link on this thread is particularly interesting in that respect.

            Sadly unscrupulous politicians since at least the 19o0′s have found it easy to blame ‘outsiders’ for their problems. (Take Argentina today as a case in point.)

            Unfortunately we’re left in the situation where the boys have cried wolf too many times.

            So I’ll be sceptical about any claims not backed with evidence.

  • TomFairfax

     Hi Rob,
    Earlier this year the head of the Israeli defence forces said that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear weapons and cast aspersions about the motives of politicians trying to generate a crisis mood.

    What do you know that he didn’t? (I’ll take it as said that you know more than Mitt about almost anything, except hedge funds and tax avoidance.)

    Given that Iran hasn’t got nuclear weapons, nor the freedom to attack it’s oil rich neighbours without risking a backlash. What is the point you’re trying to make?

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Well, it’s an interesting point, although not quite correct. It’s true that Benny Grantz of the IDF said that he didn’t think that they would go ahead and go “the extra mile” to deliver a completed nuclear weapon, because he thought the leadership rational.

      What he did not say is that they are not *developing* nuclear weapons. It is common knowledge that they are developing them. This is not information from Israeli politicians, but from our own MI6, who hardly have motivation to play up the chances of a nuclear conflict in a foreign country.

      It is of course quite conceivable that Krantz is right – as indeed the conclusion of my piece hopes for – but it is a big if.  Where there was once doubt with India and Pakistan over the “rational decision”, there is no longer. They both do. Why would Iran be so different? On the other hand, you seem pretty certain that they will not develop them, despite a British government briefing to the contrary. Personally I’d rather trust the British government on this.

      So “given that Iran hasn’t got nuclear weapons” is a true statement, we know that and it says so in the piece they won’t arrive till 2014. They are, however, developing nuclear weapons. The only question is whether or not they will go that last mile or whether they will call it off.

      That is the point I’m trying to make.

      • TomFairfax

         Thank you for the reply Rob.

        I think the issue here is the definition of ‘rational’.

        Given the number of wars between them, it was rational for Pakistan to match Indian capability. It was also rational for India to make sure she wasn’t at a disadvantage in the first place.

        For Iran, the big problem for the leadership is internal dissent. Also, they must be clearly aware that they are under intense scrutiny, so would find it difficult to keep a secret for long.

        Unfortunately Iraq has harmed any suggestion that British Intelligence (SIS in particular) isn’t an oxymoron.
        To overcome the credibility gap they need to be right, verifiably, on a number of other issues, so that people recieving the reports could have confidence in their accuracy.

        Obviously it’s impossible for anyone not closely connected within the government to them to know this.

        Unfortunately your suggestion that it must be true because the British Government is briefing this is mildly optimistic given William Hague’s public announcement that Gaddafi was on a plane to Venuzuela last year.

        I actually have no view on whether Iran is making a bomb or not. But I’d choose the professional opinion in Israel if pressed rather than their , or any other countries politicians.

        What I am concerned about is upping the anti based on no more than other peoples guess work and propaganda.

        Mr Churchill in the 1930′s was at least able to compare the actual aircraft manufacturing output of Germany and Britain because the numbers were passed on to him for both countries.

        Some hard facts are needed for Iran to be seen as a real and not a political problem.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

          I think it is rational to ration the number of countries making such a rational choice.

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          While your point about Hague is well-made (and quite amusing), we’re not talking about politicians, here, but government officials. And I’d suspect they have a little more information than “guesswork and propaganda” . Yes, Churchill had hard information to go on because it’s difficult to hide the building of a fleet. How do you do the same with underground nuclear weapons development? You can’t.

          Facts not in the public domain can still be “hard” - it’s just that you can’t see them. To that extent, this debate will always be conjecture. Luckily, no-one is asking us at LabourList to press any buttons.

          • TomFairfax

            ‘I’d suspect they have a little more information than “guesswork and propaganda.’

            The point is well made Rob, however, Churchill got his facts, not from official channels, but because concerned officials shared with him the intelligence being ignored by government ministers.

            As for not being able to detect underground installations. Actually you can, they leave traces that can be spotted from the surface. Also, they have to be built in the first place, which is a bit of a giveaway. But as our friend the Israeli general mentions, Iran’s problem is that they haven’t buried the facilities.
            So it seems the British info is at odds with the Israeli statements. Somehow I think I’d stake a bet on the people using Mossad to get their information if I had to choose.

            P.S. I’m not sure Mr Hague has as much confidence in SIS these days after the Gaddafi gaff. Of course it’s possible he ignored Julius Caesar’s advice to not base decisions on factors not corroborated by at least two independent sources.

            Don’t get me wrong. If Iran could demonstrably be shown to be building a nuclear weapon, whilst clearly having an internal stability issue, then action to deal with it should be taken, as it currently is. If they were to take the decision to go ahead regardless, then clearly the regime would be gambling.

  • Will

    America and Israel will decide this issue and Great Britain will do what it’s told. As usual.

    • John Reid

      Did Israel have anything to DO with Yugoslavia, Slovakia

  • Brumanuensis

    Part 1/3

    There is, contrary to what you assert, no hard evidence the Iranians intend to build a nuclear weapon – and no, I don’t trust MI6, why should we after the Iraq disaster. If you claim so, you are going against the view of, among others, the US Defence Secretary ( http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/09/panetta-admits-iran-not-developing-nukes/ ), Mossad ( http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-nuclear-bomb-1.407866 ), The US National Intelligence Estimates for 2007 and 2011 ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all ), the IAEA’s most recent assessment – which reports areas of concern, but categorically does not state that the Iranians are building a bomb, and the head of the Arms Control Association ( http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html ). So at the very least, this is a contested area and not, as you assert, a straight-forward matter.

    What the Iranians almost certainly are doing, which the most recent IAEA report implies, is building up nuclear latency – as Panetta and the Israelis appear to believe. In other words, the Iranians want the capability to build the bomb, but won’t build it unless in extremis. Not ideal, but not a violation of the NPT. The Iranians have no actual reason to build a bomb, because the ambiguity surrounding their nuclear status currently plays to their advantage. Certainly the Iranians are paranoid, but if you were ringed by the military bases of a hostile superpower ( http://www.juancole.com/images/2012/02/bases3.png ), which had openly discussed bombing you, with a hostile neighbour (Iraq) to the west of you, with whom you fought a nine-year war within living memory, with another hostile neighbour (Pakistan) to the east and a nation with close ties to Israel (Azerbaijan) and a disputed frontier, you’d probably be a bit ‘twitchy’, so-to-speak. Not to mention the very real nuclear arsenal of Israel.

    In short, the Iranians are playing a game of bluff. The fear of force trumps force itself. Because Iran might develop nuclear weapons, neighbours are wary of using direct force – with the failure of Operation Opera in mind. But by not actually building nuclear weapons, the Iranians obey the letter – if not the spirit – of international law and avoid laying themselves open to explicitly justified military action.
    Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, the logic of MAD would prevent direct nuclear exchanges. The Iranians know an exchange with Israel would leave them open to counter-strikes from both the Israelis themselves and the Americans, which would – quite literally – destroy Iran. If they had nuclear weapons, neither Israel nor the US would attack Iran, because of the nuclear consequences. Before anyone raises the opinion, ‘but the Iranians are nutters’, remember that nations of dubious internal sanity are perfectly capable of acting rationally on the internationl stage. Exhibit A: Mao doing a deal with the Americans, even as the Cultural Revolution eviscerated China.

    • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

      Not sure where I “asserted” that this was a “straightforward matter”. International geopolitics rarely is. Or where I was suggesting that we (the British) should make a nuclear strike on Iran. Thanks for the alternative view, but I think I’ll stick with MI6…

      • Brumanuensis

        I know a lot can change in six months, but making nuclear weapons is a difficult process to accelerate. What has changed in six months that would lead to the Iranians suddenly deciding to accelerate their programme?

        Moreover you have made it fairly clear that you believe MI6 which suggests you do believe that Iran is making nuclear weapons. That’s not an ambivalent position; it’s a straight-forward one.

        My respect for MI6 doesn’t match yours. Not after their recent screw-ups.

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          By the way, I’m not sure which IAEA report you’re talking about, but here’s an extract from Nov 2011:

          43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to thedevelopment of a nuclear explosive device:• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials bymilitary related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials bymilitary related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,Section C.3);Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,Section C.3);• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from aclandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); andThe acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from aclandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing ofcomponents (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.Seems pretty conclusive to me. The only question is how far advanced they are.Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing ofcomponents (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.Seems pretty conclusive to me. The only question is how far advanced they are.

      • Brumanuensis

        An additional point: I doubt MI6′s information is ‘real time’. If the IAEA and the NIE have recently concluded that active evidence of Iranian bomb-making is scant, then I’m not sure what superior sources of information MI6 would have.

        • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

          Well, to answer your point, I’m not sure the extent to which IAEA do covert ops: MI6 clearly do. If they could only tell the government publicly available information, the whole organisation could be supplanted tomorrow by a couple of guys hooked up to Google.

  • Brumanuensis

    Part 2/3

    There is, as you claim, a Cold War in the Middle East. But it’s not one with nuclear ramifications, nor is it between Iran and the West. It’s between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis – who as Lyndon Johnson put it ‘are bastards, but at least they’re our bastards’ – are busy bankrolling extremist Sunni ideologies. Needless to say, a majority Shiite nation like Iran is not their cup of tea. Happily, a close ally of Iran – i.e. Syria – is now in trouble. What fun, say our Saudi friends. And so, they start funnelling money, weapons and tactical support to the Syrian opposition forces – among them, Al Qaeda ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria ).

    The Iranians look on nervously. They like Assad, he’s one of them – a Shiite – and his government is among the more friendly Arab dictatorships. So they ship money, weapons and tactical support to him. And the gory little merry-go-round continues, rather like the Soviets and the Americans used to fight proxy wars in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan. That is the new Cold War and it’s terrifyingly convlntional.

    Ironically, the very weakness of Iranian conventional forces and the more aggressive rhetoric employed against them, makes the Bomb look more attractive. A single US Aircraft Carrier carries more fire-power than the entire Iranian airforce. The Iranian army is in poor shape and the Navy, as the US Department of Defence knows full well, couldn’t blockade the Straits of Hormuz even if they wanted to. But the economic pressures on Iran – the sanctions and stagnating economy – mean that such an action is undesirable even if Iran were attacked. Ultimately, Iran possesses little ability to project force,, other than through its missile programme, which although militarily impressive, is also vulnerable to counter-strikes.

    In short, the direct military threat of Iran is weak and the strategic implications of direct conflict are undesirable. So the Iranians use proxies instead, to get at the Saudis, their long-standing enemies. And vice-versa.

  • Brumanuensis

    Part 3/3

    Ahmedinejad is not popular within Iran. Nor is Iran monolithic, as Kristof points out. But Kristof does note  ‘That  [pro-American sentiment] was far from a universal view. I encountered many Iranians — especially in the countryside — who strongly support the Iranian authorities and resent what they see as American government bullying’. The note about the countryside is particularly important, because it was a similar disjunction between more traditional rural areas and more modern urban ones, that helped provoke the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Discontent, largely on economic issues, is very real, but it shouldn’t be confused with opposition to the Islamic Republic. Ahmedinejad is far from the most important figure in Iran and given that so many Iranians supported the 1979 revolution, opposition to the government doesn’t mean that Iranians want to replace the system of government. As Afshin Molavi pointed out in his book ‘The Soul of Iran’, surprising kinds of people – anti-clerical war veterans, even a women’s rights activist – professed affection for Iman Khomeini. I would wager that most Iranians favour a strongly Islamic form of government, whilst simultaneously desiring more democracy and individual freedom. This should alert us to the dangers of assuming that anti-government opposition is uniformly pro-Western, particularly as large majorities of Iranians support the nuclear programme.

    Kristof also notes that – and I can confirm this from Iranian friends – Iranians are fiercely patriotic and if one thing is guaranteed to rally them to the regime, it will be a military strike on Iran. That alone should deter us from pursuing such a foolish and counter-productive path.

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    One observation I’d like to make, by the way: the raising of the idea of pre-emptive strikes to me makes the situation much more dangerous. As some commenters have noted, this was considered during the Cold War but not felt “probable”.

    However, the more it gets to be seen as a realistic prospect, the more the game theory of this gets ugly. In short, if you have two players who both see it as a likely prospect in the other, it is, in theory, only a matter of time before one anticipates the other “to get their retaliation in first”. It’s an unstable equilibrium.

    • Brumanuensis

      Unfortunately possible, but the logic of MAD is quite compelling. Most near misses during the Cold War were the result of sensor errors – such as during Able Archer in 1983. When a positive decision had to be made by a human actor, neither the Americans nor the Soviets showed any great willingness to push the button. Khrushchev effectively caved during the Cuban Missile Crisis when faced with that possibility and even Reagan was so shocked by the ramifications of nuclear war, that post-1984 he began to move towards a more conciliatory position.

      So the real danger is a computer malfunction which gives imperfect information upon which to make a decision.

Latest

  • Featured Becoming a Living Wage City – an ambition worth having

    Becoming a Living Wage City – an ambition worth having

    A cleaner met me on the corridor the other day as I was leaving the office and gave me a huge hug. “Thank you, City Mayor,” she told me “that’s been the best news for years.” After I had recovered from my embarrassment, I realised what she was talking about. Salford had just introduced the full Living Wage – becoming the first local authority in Greater Manchester to implement a full Living Wage of £7.45 for every member of staff [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    Planning the revolution – Labour and the Spending Review

    In four weeks time the Chancellor will announce the results of the 2015 spending Review. There won’t be many winners but some will have lost more than others. Political commentators and discussion forums will pass judgement and public sector managers will, yet again, pick through the debris, making do and mending from what ever they can salvage. Before we get overtaken by the detail we should reflect on the bigger picture. What ever the chancellor says on June 26th it [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment A call for action at the G8

    A call for action at the G8

    In less than a month’s time, the UK hosts the G8 Summit. With hunger, tax, trade and transparency all on the agenda, the UK has a unique opportunity to show global leadership on these issues. The scale of hunger is devastating. There is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry. 2.3 million children every year die from malnutrition – to put that in perspective, that is around 16,000 children every day. Or one [...]

    Read more →
  • News TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run – Media roundup: May 24th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. TUC suggests Football World Cup vote should be re-run “The TUC along with its international equivalent – the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – is calling on UEFA to address the appalling treatment of workers and players in Qatar and [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    A Northern Tory that Labour should be afraid of

    The Labour Party spends a great deal of time beating itself up over its performance in Southern England. We know it simply isn’t good enough, but we can’t seem to put our finger on why exactly that’s the case. Is it demographics? No. Culture? Perhaps. Lack of basic party organisation in some areas? It’s certainly a factor. But whilst we’re flagellating ourselves over our inability to perform south of the Watford gap (outside of London), we should remember that the [...]

    Read more →