2048 People Power 2011 : Pawns in the agenda of others

This week’s episode of Waking the dead was timely because the subject matter. Similar to last week, touched directly on my past experience. The plot is not historically based but does contain many elements of truth about protest, underground political forces and networks, the role of government and the security forces, and of the media, and of basic human nature. The cold case team are called when the body of a Falkland’s war soldier. turned mass movement peace campaigner, who disappeared 28 years earlier, is discovered in an unknown underground river tunnel in central London beneath Whitehall.

There are several flaws in the story which I will mention at the outset. The peace campaign is fictitious because at that time there was no CND type mass movement in the UK but Women’s Peace Camps at places such as Greenham Common, Faslane, Aldermaston and Fairford. In the mid 1980’s there was a direct action movement against the deployment of cruise missiles which could be used from mobile firing platforms. I have found a Los Angeles Times report dated November 5th 1986 which records that 100 anti nuclear protestors ambushed a convoy of six US cruise missiles launchers before dawn cutting air brake hoses and crippling the vehicles for more than one hour. Two men and two women were arrested and charged with obstructing the highway in connection with the protest, organised by the Cruise Watch Group.

The two part episode, Solidarity, begins as four friends celebrate at Oxford, I assume late 1970’s, and come across someone writing a Campaign Against Nuclear Disarmament type slogan and one of them picks up a rock to throw at him. We do not see the outcome but it serves to indicate that they are not sympathetic to any kind of unilateral peace movement.

Later we learn that one of the men and the only girl are twins and children of a junior Conservative Minister in the Ministry of Defence in the new Margaret Thatcher government of the early 1980‘s. One is a young man who serves bravely in the Falklands campaign, Piers Kennedy while the fourth is a Russian immigrant, Oleg Leontyev, whose human rights parents where killed by the Russian regime after which he was smuggled out into the West with the help of relative.

The body is that of Piers Kennedy we the team learned that shortly after returning from the Falklands, left the army and became a leading an influential spokesman for the a newly former CNC type peace movement created by Ralph Palmer played by Jack Shepherd and now married to Bonnie Yorke who had been his girl friend before she became the lover of Piers at the time of his disappearance. Palmer was interviewed when the former soldier went missing as a suspect because he had lost Bonnie to Piers. He and Bonnie said they had not seen Piers after a party held following a rally in Hyde Park. Before the conversion Piers had been the boyfriend of the daughter of the Tory junior Minister and had become a Conservative Party Member of Parliament and remained single. The former Peace campaigners had since married with a daughter and claimed a government agency had disappeared Piers because of his conversion. The team discover that on return from the Falklands Piers had been diagnosed with a disease which was then terminal and this appeared to explain his conversion to the peace movement

While the team interview three of the Oxford four and the parent of the twins there is no involvement by any member of the family of Piers which given what happens in previous series I found puzzling. However the biggest flaw is the idea that the body would have remained undiscovered in an underground working close to Whitehall. It is elementary that even before IRA Terrorism came to mainland UK and to London, let alone since 9/11 that all underground workings in central London will have been sealed if not in use and regularly inspected if they are required.

Immediately the unit are called in MI5 sends an emissary to tell Trevor Eve, unit head, to show extreme caution because there are matters which must remain secret because of their national security significance.

The officer also expresses concern about the involvement of Sue Johnson the unit psychologist profiler who was a peace movement support at the time of the disappearance of Piers. We learn, although it not clear if MI5 also knew that just before the disappearance of Pier she had become the lover of his best and fellow Falkland Officer Murray Stuart, played by John McArdle who if a remember starred with Sheila in the ill fated soap Brookside. He had disappeared from her life without explanation at the same as Piers who had been introduced to her by Murray at the party after the Hyde Park. The two had gone off for a secret chat and later Murray had appeared at her flat in a distressed condition with a case in which she had seen a rapid fire gun.

The Russian member of the quartet Oleg had gone to work in the Ministry of Defence and had become a major player in the arms trade and was negotiating a replacement to the replacement of Trident at the present time. He is also seen in footage shot of the Hyde Park speech 28 years earlier calling his former friend a traitor. MI5 say he cannot be interviewed.

The twin brother of the present Member of Parliament had died in a diving accident in the lake District shortly after the events of 28 years earlier and the team note discrepancies in the information about his death.

The forensic expert at the unit, Dr Eve Locheart, finds that evidence of another entrance to the area where the body was found which she explores and finds herself in the quadrangle of the Ministry of Defence Building and she is held in darkness until her identity is confirmed.

These developments appear to point to the involvement of the M.O.D/MI5 in the deaths. However this is not so.

This is what emerged over the two episodes. The former Falklands Office on finding that he had a terminal illness decided that the best contribution he could make was to discredit the new CND movement. He had seduced the female activist Bonnie Yorke in order to get close to the leadership of the organisation. Using inside information he had then planned the capture of a missile en route to a base. This had involved his former girlfriend who had filmed the event, her bother and Murray together with Oleg who obtained the information about the movement of the missile from his work at the MOD

The film shows Piers taking off his glove and placing his hand on the Missile thus ensuring that the authorities would be able to identify him. During the incident one of the captured soldiers had got weapons and in the melee he had fallen into a ditch at the roadside, broke his neck and died instantly. The panic had been caused by the twin brother and the man who had pushed the soldier into the ditch was friend and lover of Sue Johnson.

Sue uses official links to find out the location of the former lover telling the Det Superintendent recently attached to the unit not to tell Trevor Eve which she does nevertheless. Sue’s interest is to find out why she was dumped, why the gun and what part he played. He gives her the video which he says will explain what happened. He wants to know what happened to his friend Piers and appears to suffer hallucinations and nightmares about what happened even though the death of the soldier was accidental.

Under pressure from the discovery of the body and being interviewed, the Tony Member of Parliament visits Oleg at his office and they drink lots of Vodka together suggesting they have something to hide. Murray makes contact with the woman and gives her the number of a car which he noted following her. She asks him to call at her flat but as he gets there she is being murdered by two men who knock out the visitor and place the gun which killed in his hands. Fortunately he comes to in time to make an escape after advising the police of the murder. He then contacts Sue and agrees to meet her in a park. Against the advice of the Det Superintendent Trevor agrees to Sue going to the meeting when her former lover on finding that she is not alone pushes her away, she falls, hits head and later a blood clot is formed, she collapses at the office and survives an operation.

The team has interviewed the former Minister prior to the loss of his second child. They had indicated that there were suspicions about the death of the twin son and that both had participated in the attempt to discredit the new CND movement. The team have also interview the MP and the Russian born fourth member of the group after he volunteers a meeting despite MI5 saying he could not be approached because of the current National Interest. He is bold in his approach and leaves but shortly afterwards he is shot dead by the Minister after he is convinced from the evidence presented that Oleg had them killed using members of his private security force. However before his death Oleg is adamant he had no involvement in the death of Piers.

The team also become aware that it is likely neither he or the M.O.D or MI5 were involved in the death. This is because they learn that Piers visited Holly before he disappeared to explain that he had originally joined the movement to discredit but had been converted as a result of their relationship. The team minus Dr Foley in hospital recovering from the blood clot operation, visit the home fo the former peace campaigners and find that a new floor had been placed over an existing one in the kitchen area and that analysis shows there was a lot of blood on the original. They have learned that Piers had visited Holly after the rally party and that the child registered to her and her husband was not his and presumably of Piers. We had also been told that the husband had published a work on London’s secret undergrounds workings and which had made reference to the underground river where the body was found.

The truth then emerges that despite the admission of Shepherd that he killed Piers, it was Holly who having just found she was pregnant had been shocked by his admission and lashed out with a knife. They had then taken the body to where it was found and Shepherd and smashed the knee caps so that if the body was found it would mislead the authorities.

There are three others aspects of this second of three stories in the present series worth mentioning. In a conversation between the MI5 liaison chief and the Detective Superintendent attached to the unit she complains about the risks taken by Trevor and in effect recommends that he is replaced.

Sue has also told John that they will have further contact suggesting that the former romance between them remains.

The MOD on government orders blanked out the missile hijack and the dead officer was given an alternative death.

This is long preamble to the events in London on the Saturday and in the context of my piece before Christmas 1093/2093 when I used the recent central London protest in connection with student loans and the funding of High Education in England to remember aspects of my involvement with the peace movement of the later 50’s and early sixties.

On Saturday between a quarter and a half million families marched in protest from the Embankment to Hyde Park through central London in protest at the level and speed of government measure to restructure the economy between the public and private sectors and reduce the level of government borrowings. It was biggest demonstration the capital since the opposition to the invasion in Iraq in 2003. The problem is that there were two additional protests one peaceful and one violent which attracted all the media attention.

UK Uncut ts a protest group formed in 2010 to protest against tax avoidance in the UK by banks and International Corporations It uses non violent direct action to close stores known for evading tax payments to the UK government. The organisation successfully closed the Oxford Street Vodafone store. Vodafone according to Private Eye negotiated a settlement with Customs and exercise to reduce their unpaid tax liability from £6 billion to £4 billion.

Topshops, BHS and Burton have been targeted because by the registered owner living outside the UK no tax is paid and HSBC has been found to have avoided £2 billion by channelling profits through the Netherlands. Boots were target in January and three people needed hospital treatment after the police used CS Spray on the protestors. In February the group which uses Twitter and Facebook targeted banks because of the Bonuses being paid and alleged tax avoidance

It is therefore logical that the group would want to demonstrate again on a day protesting against the severe reductions on public expenditure, particularly local government services. In February the group which uses Twitter and Facebook targeted banks because of the Bonuses being paid. It is known that over 150 people entered Fortnum and Mason, the high class supplier of good food and wine because of alleged tax avoidance during demonstration day and announced an occupation. The police entered and removed demonstrators charging 149 people with aggravated trespass as they left the store after being told they were free to leave. This was a clever police tactic which shows good pre demo planning on their part. It would be interesting to learn if the group advised the police in advance of their operations in keeping with the spirit of Satyagraha, if participants are prepared for the implications of arrest and imprisonment if they are unwilling to pay fines. Similarly it is presumed the intelligence services/police will have had their inside placements

This brings to the violent group called the Black Bloc. It would be interesting to live long enough to learn who is behind the Black Bloc movement. The government, M5, the police, the military, the extreme right or Left? The suggestion that they are anarchists with knowledge of anarchism is also questionable as these are predominantly pacifist. They are in my view the children of the 18-30 holiday generation that in the 1980’s I witnessed then in Northern Spain getting drunk and wrecking whatever it was possible to wreck to hand. Perhaps they are relatives of the football fascists and tribal gangsters that I also witnessed at their worst during the 1980’s. Perhaps they were members of a force on a training exercise or paid provocateurs out to discredit on the apart from some secret organisation representing International business tax avoiders.

The main reported attack on the say was against the Ritz Hotel but damaged was reported at restaurants, a car showroom, Topshop, Santander, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland. The Countdown Clock and Nelson’s column in Trafalgar Square was damaged with Graffiti and an attempts occupation of the Square and Hyde Park.
There was also film of supporters fighting with the police.

Wikipedia provided interesting background information

“A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, scarves, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding or other face-concealing items and often carry some sort of shields and truncheons The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to, theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity.

The tactic was developed in the 1980s by autonomists protesting squatter evictions, nuclear power and restrictions on abortion among other things Black blocs gained broader media attention outside Europe during the 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations, when a black bloc damaged property of GAP, Starbucks, Old Navy, and other multinational retail locations in downtown Seattle The “Black Bloc" is sometimes incorrectly reported as being the name of a specific anarchist group. It is, rather, a tactic that may be adopted by groups of various motivations and methods.

The tactic was developed following increased use of police force following the 1977 Brokdorf demonstration by the German police in 1980, particularly aimed at anti-nuclear activists and squatters. Key areas for this development were Hafenstraße, Hamburg, and Kreuzberg, Berlin. These were social spaces occupied by dissidents who preferred to create their own social institutions based on communal living and alternative community centres. In June 1980, the German Police forcefully evicted the Free Republic of Wendland, an anti-nuclear protest camp in Gorleben, Wendland. This attack on 5,000 peaceful protesters led many former pacifists to become willing to use violent methods. By December 1980 the Berlin City Government organised an escalating cycle of mass arrests, followed by other local authorities across West Germany. The squatters resisted by opening new squats, as the old ones were evicted. Following the mass arrest of squatters in Freiburg, demonstrations were held in their support in many German cities. The day was dubbed Black Friday following a demonstration in Berlin at which between 15,000 to 20,000 people took to the streets and destroyed an expensive shopping area. The tactic of wearing identical black clothes and masks meant that the autonomen were better able to resist the police and elude identification. The German media labeled them der schwarze Block ("the black block"). In the Netherlands, similar militant resistance developed, but the wearing of ski-masks was less prevalent and the phrase Black Helmet Brigade was used.

In 1986 Hamburg squatters mobilised following attacks on Hafenstraße. A demonstration of 10,000 took to the streets surrounding at least 1,500 people in a black bloc. They carried a large banner saying "Build Revolutionary Dual Power!" At the end of the march, the black bloc then engaged in street fighting that forced the police to retreat. The next day 13 department stores in Hamburg were set alight, causing nearly $10 million in damage. Later that year, following the Chernobyl disaster, militant anti-nuclear activists used the tactic.

When Ronald Reagan came to Berlin in June 1987, he was met by around 50,000 demonstrators protesting against his Cold War policies. This included a black bloc of 3,000 people. A couple of months later, police intensified their harassment of the Hafenstraße squatters. In November 1987, the residents were joined by thousands of other Autonomen and fortified their squat, built barricades in the streets and defended themselves against the police for nearly 24 hours. After this the city authorities legalised the squatters residence.

When the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund met in Berlin in 1988, the autonomen hosted an international gathering of anti-capitalist activists. Numbering around 80,000, the protesters completely outnumbered the police. Officials tried to maintain control by banning all demonstrations and attacking public assemblies. Nevertheless, there were riots and upmarket shopping areas were destroyed.

The first recorded use of the tactic in United States of America was in 1989 at a protest at the Pentagon. Other early use in the US were the Earth Day Wall Street Action in 1990 and the February 1991 protests against the Gulf War. These were initiated by Love and Rage, a North American revolutionary anarchist organization active in New York. Black blocs gained significant media attention when a black bloc caused damage to property of GAP, Starbucks, Old Navy, and other retail locations in downtown Seattle during the 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations.They were a common feature of subsequent anti-globalization protests. During the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, a black bloc riot damaged an Urban Outfitters, American Apparel, Adidas Store, Starbucks and many banking establishments

Police and security services have infiltrated black blocs with agents provocateurs. Since all members conceal their identities, it is harder to recognize infiltrators. Allegations first surfaced after several demonstrations. At the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa, amongst the many complaints about the police there was mention of video footage in which "men in black were seen getting out of police vans near protest marches." In August 2007, Quebec police admitted that "their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators." On these occasions, some were identified by genuine protesters because of their police-issue footwear But such recognition is difficult to make in video footage “

I rest my case.

2047 Dame Elizabeth Taylor

I admit that I tend to overuse the adjective extraordinary, but no one will dissent when I use once more to describe the life of Dame Elizabeth Taylor, one of the remarkable women of the 20th century who died a few days ago, 23rd March 2011 les than a month after her 79th birthday. Yet she was named only 7th on the Legend list by The American Film Institute. The others before her in top spots are Kathrine Hepburn and Bette Davis where I concur, but not Audrey Hepburn in third over Ingrid Bergman, Greta Garbo and Marilyn Monroe. The rest of the list is Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Grace Kelly, Ginger Rogers, Mae West, Vivien Leigh, Lillian Gish, Shirley Temple, Rita Hayworth, Lauren Bacall, Sophia Loren, Jean Harlow, Carole Lombard, Mary Pickford and Ava Gardner. Oh what a list and whose films the majority of which it has been my enjoyment to have experienced.

Elizabeth made four films as a child actress before the one which brought her to International attention, National Velvet in which she dressed up as a young boy to ride as a jockey in a major horse race in the USA. I have also seen most of the films which she had roles in those early days: There is one born every Minute, Lassie Come Home and Courage of Lassie, Jane, Eyre, the White Cliffs of Dover and Little Women where she played Amy.

It was in the 1950 that she blossomed into one of the most beautiful actresses in the world with her role in Father of Bride with Spencer Tracy, followed by Quo Vadis unaccredited role) and Ivanhoe. Some of the films of this era I cannot now remember seeing from the titles alone but I do remember Elephant Walk and Beau Brummell and the recently viewed, The Last Time I saw Paris all first appearing before my sixteenth birthday and leaving school.

In 1956 she made Giant which was screened this week and I will write more lately and this was quickly followed by Raintree County which was the first of the first of three successive Academy Nominations. The second was Cat on a Hot Tin Roof followed by Suddenly last Summer in 1959, her third nomination.

It was in her next but one film, Butterfield 8 1960 that she gained her first Award as Best Actress. followed by Cleopatra, The V.I.P.s and The Sand Piper and then as Martha in the film production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf she gained her second Best Actress award. I started to view the film recently but what not in the mood for this take of a couple tearing pieces from each other within a bonded loved relationship. She appeared in the truncated film version of The Taming of he Shrew followed by Helen of Troy in Dr Faustus, a role which she played with Richard Burton on the stage of the Oxford Playhouse while I was living and working in Oxfordshire.

I always watch the film the Comedians when it reappears, released in 1967 and sometimes Reflections in a Gold Eye where she played alongside Marlon Brando. I also have seen Anne of a thousand days, X, Y and Zee and a good version of Under Milk Wood. I have the DVD of Divorce His Divorce Hers which I picked up for a few pounds at the Supermarket and from the 1970; also Ash Wednesday, That’s Entertainment and Victory in Entebbe. I do not remember the Blue Bird.

In 1980 there was the Agatha Christie The Mirror Crack’d, her last major film in 1980 with Young Toscanini in 1988 the last but one for theatres, and the Flintstones in 1994, the last. Between 1980 and 2001 most of her appearances were TV films and Mini series with the most well known North and South. Her voice was heard in two episodes of the Simpsons!

Unusually she retained her birth name from her early childhood in Hampstead Garden Suburb, and where both parents were American citizens. He father was an art dealer and her mother an actress. The family‘s closest friend was Colonel Victor Cazalet, a Member of Parliament and friend of Churchill who was Elizabeth’s God Father, a Christian scientist and lay preacher. Cazalet influenced her greatly and his passionate support for a Jewish homeland may have been instrumental in her conversion to Judaism at the age of 27. Although of dual nationality she saw herself as British and renounced all allegiance to the USA although with war about to be declared her parents returned to their homeland in 1939. Her father opened an art gallery in Los Angeles and attracted interest from film celebrities.

This led to her mother being told that Elizabeth ought to be in films and although mother resisted her young photographic beauty reached the ears of MGM and Louis B Mayor and Universal studios who wanted to put her under contract without a screen test. Universal succeeded with a seven year contract. However they were not impressed with her first and only film for the studio and she moved to MGM.

As mentioned it was with another all time favourite former child Star Mickey Rooney that they hit the international headlines with National Velvet and her life was transformed.

It is also fair to admit that her private life proved as interesting to many as the film career It is not known to me what factors in her upbringing and early Hollywood under contract experience led her to become dependent on a male sexual relationship throughout the greater part of her life and which put her on the front pages throughout the world, often not in a favourable light. In 1950 she married Conrad Hilton junior, a relationship in which he was reported to have behaved violently towards her and had a drink problem and they divorced after only nine months in 1951. He subsequently had relationships with Joan Collins and Natalie Wood. He died in his early forties.

In 1952 Elizabeth married the British led actor Michael Wilding some two decades her senior and who had divorced in 1951 after a marriage of 14 years. They were divorced in 1957 and he subsequently married Susan Neil and then Margaret Leighton.

With a week of her divorce absolute Elizabeth aged 24 years married Michael Todd the film Director but this ended tragically with his death a year later aged 49. Michael had married his teenage sweetheart when aged 17 years but his wife died from illness in 1946. In 1947 he married the actress Joan Blondell but she divorces him alleging physical cruelty in 1950.

A year Elizabeth married Eddie Fisher in circumstances where she justifiably gained great public condemnation. Eddie was one of the best known singing crooners of the 1950’s and had married a much loved actress Debbie Reynolds and he and his wife were best friend of Mike Todd and therefore Elizabeth. Elizabeth is reported to have said when criticised for taking Eddie into her bed when there their to show compassion for the death of Mike that she should not be expected to remain celibate. After their divorce in 1964 so she could immediately marry Richard Burton, Eddie went onto marry the female singer Connie Stevens. Debbie‘s daughter Carrie starred in the film Star Wars. She married twice subsequently both ending in divorces with financial problems a major issue. She and Elizabeth became friends again after they found themselves travelling on the Queen Elizabeth ship together.

Of all the marriages it was that to the Welsh Actor Richard Burton many regard still as the greatest classical actor of his generation which fuelled the international gossip columns because their relationship was known to tempestuous. He divorced his first long standing wife with two children to marry Elizabeth. It is known that Elizabeth was determined to make the marriage work and although they divorced in 1974, less than two years later they remarried but divorced again sixteen months later. Burton was a complex man who speculated about his possible homosexuality, drank excessively and smoked between 60 and 100 cigarettes a day. He was also a notorious womanizer. He married the former wife of Formula 1 racing driver James Hunt and then a Make up artist who became a novelist. He died early at the age of 58.

Elizabeth then married a politician the Republican Senator John Warner in 1976. His first married was to a Banking Heiress and they divorced in 1973 leaving his three children. His wife reverted to her maiden name. They divorced in 1982 Elizabeth unable to adjust to life she wanted, she became an alcoholic and entered the famous Betty Ford Clinic. John married again in 2003 to the widow of a White House staffer. He is only one of two husbands still alive.

Her last marriage, undertaken at the Michael Jackson Neverland Ranch, was to Larry Fortensky, in 1991 who she met at the Clinic and was thirty years her junior. He was drafted into the army but discharged three months later. He was married twice before meeting Taylor. The marriage lasted five years and end was a legal financial settlement.

This was not the final chapter in Elizabeth’s relationships as between 2007 and 2009 she was said to be enjoying a relationship with Jason Winters who she described as the most wonderful man she had ever known. She had four children, two with Wilding, one Todd and one Burton, ten grandchildren, the first born when she was 39 and four great grand children

Alongside her personal life and film career, Elizabeth became the first major celebrity to support the welfare of those diagnosed with HIV infection and Aids, raising over $100 million over 30 years and which covered every aspect from research, treatment and combating discrimination.

Her ability to court controversy was never far away as she supported Michael Jackson during the trial where he was accused of sexually abusing a minor and she never let up from her passion for the flamboyant and some would say vulgar display of jewellery owning some of the largest and most expensive finger rocks in the world but jewellery was also a business for her as was perfume from which she made hundreds of millions in profits.

It is also not surprising that give such a life her body became wracked with illness- from a fortunately benign brain tumour and skin cancer to needing both hips replaced and life threatening pneumonia and an emergency tracheotomy, in addition to the problems of alcoholic and drug addiction. With that I rest my case for using the adjective extraordinary.

By luck and good programming the first of what I suspect will be a season of Dame Elizabeth’s films, Giant was on the television as her death was announced. Cleopatra is also available at the moment. Giant was an original Edna Faber novel about the development of Texas from a cattle ranching into the present day oil rich state of which Dallas the 1980’s series which is being resurrected with some of the survivors of the original cast. I watched the film with growing impatience disliking all the characters except Elizabeth.

Rick Hudson always looked good but who performances always appeared dry for me but his performance in Giant as a Neanderthal heterosexual male is effective give his homosexuality. He plays Jordan Bick Benedict who owns half of Texas cattle ranching with his sister who has James Dean working for her.

On a visit to Maryland to buy a stud horse Hudson sets on Elizabeth Taylor who is an educated socialite with enlightened parents who misguidedly falls for his charms without realising all he wants is a breeding machine to produce a son to inherit and carry on enlarging the empire.

His typical Texan mentality is that politics is not for women and that no one who is poor or a different race should enter his kingdom brutally stolen from the indigenous land holders. He is in every sense a nasty bit of work and nothing much changes throughout the film until he is forced by circumstances. Elizabeth quickly realises she had made a poor choice and escapes to her family only to return. She also crosses swords with the sister who is just as prejudiced against the Mexicans a her brother and her assistant James Dean.

The sister and Elizabeth hate each other but she dies from a horse riding accident and in her will leaves a comparatively small plot of land to Dean where he starts to drill for oil much to the horror of Hudson who tries all he can to get him off. Elizabeth is sympathetic to Dean and visits him alone after she has become a mother of twins, to be played by Dennis Hopper and Fran Bennett when they become adults. There is a third child played by Carol Baker who becomes the most silly and obnoxious of all the characters.

When he strikes oil Dean visits Hudson and boasts of how rich and important he going to be and cannot disguise his passion for Taylor and the two men fight and go their separate ways. Although wealthy from the oil on his land Dean and his advisers realise their horizon is limited so he establishes an oil prospecting and drilling company and when the Second World War breaks out he persuades Hudson to do his national duty and soon a forest of well cover the estate although is still possible to ranch cattle. The old house is replaced by a mansion with an outdoor swimming pool. To some extent the story is repeated in Dallas with the Ewing’s and Cliff Barnes.

As mentioned the son and heir is played by Dennis Hopper who made his name in Easy Rider and became and become a recognised major actor. As a child, under his mother‘s influence he shows no interest in ranching and under mother’s influence goes off to Harvard to study medicine and qualifies a medical doctor with a social conscious marrying a Mexican from the family estate. The twin sister wants to attend local ranching school and marry the head rancher who Hudson likes and which does against herm mother’s wish that she attends a finishing school in Switzerland. When the ranch hand returns from World War II service he and his wife reject the offer of inheriting the ranch for their own small places and making their way. I forget who suggests to Hudson that he might return the land to the indigenous Americans!

When Dean visits to persuade Hudson to exploit the oil, Carol Baker flirts with Dean, a man who is now more than twice her age. Dean then organises a self congratulatory gala in his own honour to mark his increasingly powerful role as Texas leading citizen and philanthropist

Mr Dean shot to International fame with two films released in 1955, Rebel without a Cause and East of Eden. He died in a car accident before Giant was completed in 1956. Dean was a product of the Actor’s studio and Method acting with Lee Strasbourg and while he seems to be continuing his Rebel, but with cause role in the early part of this film, the role requires him to become a ruthless, personally ambitious capitalist and racists to boot. In the film he invites Hudson and his family to the event and they misguidedly agree. They find that he has remained as vicious a racists as ever and his staff make a point of rejecting the daughter in law at every opportunity. While he had made Carol Baker Princess of the Carnival and she wants him he has not intention of marrying her and his sense of grievance continues with every wish to humiliate the family. He is able to knock Hudson out with the help of his personal security. Hudson then has a second confrontation over racism, this time with the manager of a diner who is only carrying out company policy in not serving any non white colours. He has reluctantly agree to serve his son in law‘s wife and her papoose because of who they are, but rejects a Mexican family who son died during the war and was buried with honour on the Benedict burial site on the estate. Elizabeth has meanwhile grown old gracefully. The film ends at this point

The films last three hours and 17 minutes was nominated for ten Oscars without success, made a lot of money and in 2005 was put in the Library of Congress being culturally, historically or aesthetically significant.

2046 The Spirit of Dunkirk

It is 10.35 Sunday 27.03.2011 and I trying to accomplish a number of tasks today in preparation for a short trip next weekend. It proved to be a relaxing day during which I accomplished all the task.

It is 12.35 on Monday 28,03.2011, the first day of the campaign to reduce my weight my at least one stone, 14 pounds from the present 17 and a half before the clocks go back again. Today although I woke before the alarm it was necessary for the alarm to go off again before I rose, toileted and got to the pool by 6.15, travelling in the darkness once more. As I left the pool after a double sauna I came out along the back lane to the fish and chips kiosks on either side opposite the machine arcade and noted a vehicle directly across my path and for a moment in looked as if there was no one in the vehicle, fortunately there was space in the entry lane to the passage way and then I had to swerve to miss a well groomed sixth former in the uniform of Monkwearmouth who I noted in my rear mirror then got into the car and I remembered I had seen this happen before. Looking up Monkwearmouth School I found that it is no longer a comprehensive but an Art College in association with the Arts Council and other cultural bodies for 1200 11 to 16 year olds with a new Sixth Form College, St Peters. 650 places on the University Campus site. I also learned that the House at the top of the Hill along Sea Lane is up for Sale at just under £80000. Alas I did not win the lottery yet again! I enjoyed a double sauna after the 50 lengths and did some good shopping visiting Morrison’s Asda and Lidl’s and not returning home until after 9.30. I forgot to post the Census return which meant a pleasant walk half way down the hill and back!

On Saturday Night I forgot to do the clocks, moving the time and hour forward as we enter Summer time in the UK and hurriedly did so on Sunday morning while I decided if I would go to the pool as usual or stay a little in bed and then tackle various activities listed for the day.

I settled for a gradual entry to the day and played games on the computer rather than watch the opening Grand Prix of the Formula One motor racing season after a delay because of the correct cancellation of the event in Bahrain due to the fascist response of the authorities aided by the Saudi’s. I suspect a dirty deal between the USA, the UK and Nato to puff without intervening in order for the Arab League to support the toppling of the regime in Libya. I hope I am wrong.

Friday was a good sports evening with a most enjoyable game of Rugby League as Warrington to champions Wigan and beat them 24 6 with a powerful display of creative attacking and the stoutest of defences. This was a very hard game when until the last quarter the outcome remained in doubt. The previous week Warrington had demolish the Harlequins at home 36.6 at half time and 82 6 with the final whistle with 3 tries for Bridges 2 for Solomona and Westwood and the individual scores for Briers, Myler, Evans, Morley, Blythe, Mitchell and Hodgson 15 tries in all of which Hodgson converted all but one. On Friday the four tries all converted by Hodgson were from Blythe and Myler and Monaghan 2. As a consequence they have opened a 2 point gap with Huddersfield at the top of the table and 3 on St Helens who have all played seven games. Wigan remains a threat for if they win their game in hand they will be only 1 point behind. Warrington has scored more than 100 points more than Wigan and 49 more than St Helens, 63 more than Huddersfield.

On Saturday I recorded the boat race and decided against watching the preliminaries. The race was a procession after Oxford won the toss and chose the Surrey bank which meant that if the could hold Cambridge over the first short Middlesex bend advantage they could, as they did strike ahead sufficiently over the long first Surrey bend advantage to chose their water the rest of the way and despite Herculean efforts the Cambridge crew could not make up any ground. Oddly there was no written report on the race although it can be watched in full on the BBC player or various highlights and celebrations. The written piece centred on a 19 year old in the Oxford boat Constantine Louloudis who prefers to be known as Stan and whose performance suggested he was a strong candidate in the British Olympic rowing team for 2012.

I wish I could say something positive about England‘s quarter final defeat in the 50 over world Club against Home side Sri Lanka. The BBC was so disgusted with the result that it has refused to publish the full scorecard on its Internet site freezing the score during England’s innings at 69 for 2. Captain Strauss never a short match player or comfortable with spin failed miserably to get England off to a good star and the side scraped singles here and there to reach 231. Then bowling was awful and Sri Lanka got the runs without losing a single wicket. Yep not one wicket. It was humiliating and just as well I did not watch what seemed inevitable from the way Sri Lanka commenced the run chase.

It also looked as if England’s Footballers would give a similar trouncing to Wales in the European Cup qualifying round in Cardiff on Saturday afternoon. England and Montenegro each have 10 points from their four games with Switzerland and Bulgaria with 4 points and Wales 0, also from four Games. The rest of the game was workmanlike and boring, from the little I saw. On Sunday afternoon, having unintentionally found out the result I also decided to concentrate on Giant with Elizabeth Taylor and Rock Hudson and not young James Dean rather than the Grand Prix recording. I will do a separate writing on Elizabeth Taylor who I first saw in National Velvet when we were both children.

Sebastian Vettel continued where he ended last season with a start to end lead win but the surprise was that Lew Hamilton finished second when the McLaren’s were forecast to have an also run season. The second surprise was a third place Renault with Vitaly Petrov. Jenson finished 6th. Paul De Resta of the Force India Team came 10th, of no interest except that despite his Spanish name he is a British subject and therefore the third British driver in this seasons Formula I racing and last season won the German Touring Car Championship. Jerome d’Ambrosio from Belgian is another new face after driving practice session last year for the Virgin Cosworth Team and finished 14. The third new face is Pastor Maldonado with Williams-Cosworth and Venezuelan

I will also leave the first part of Waking the Dead until the second episode and tie in with the demonstrations against the Coalition in London on Saturday and the political reactions aftermath.

I will mention a film possible two if I have the time. Brothers was released in 2009 and has authenticity from start to finish in what is a harrowing and tense drama thriller and which attracted my attention because the female lead was played by Natalie Portman. Her role is secondary to that of two brothers and their father, played by the excellent Sam Shepherd, a Vietnam Veteran who is proud that one son has become a career soldier with three terms served in Afghanistan and fourth to come.

In saying that Ms Portman’s character is secondary this is not to suggest that she does not have an important role, or does demonstrates her ability to get into character in a convincing way. She is the high school sweetheart wife and now mother of his two children who finds each departure more difficult to cope as do his two daughters. When his helicopter is show down and he is presumed dead her world and that of the family falls apart especially his father, particular because his other son has only recently been discharged from prisoner for armed robbery, drinks too much and generally carries the ship of knowing he failed to live up to his father’s expectations. After the death of his elder brother he attempts to play a more positive role in the family, although continues to have drink and money problems, but through a relationship with his brother’s widow and children he begins to rebuild his life, especially after organising the redesigning and redecorating of the kitchen as much to please his father who commented that it was one thing that bugged him about his other son. Then is one brief passionate kiss between brother and widow but they both instantly know it would both be right.

We the audience know that in fact the husband is not dead and that he and one other crew member survived and were captured and taken prisoner. In order to persuade the two men to make a video denouncing the War they try to get one man against the others and eventually offer the hero husband the choice killing his companion who is also married with a child or giving up his own life. He eventually gives in just before an USA army raiding party find the revels, killing them and find the husband still a prisoner. He returns the hero even more but an introverted man tormented by what he had to do to survive. His predicament becomes worse when the widow of the man he killed seeks information about what happened to her husband.

The man snaps destroying the kitchen which his brother had organised, in part because he believes the two were having a sexual relationship before he reappeared, and after he had been ceremonially buried. he then pulls a gin on himself when the police are called by his brother. He is admitted to a psychiatric hospital where he remains unable to communicate the cause of his pain. Earlier his father had mentioned that he too found it impossible to communicate with his family or anyone outside the military after his return from Vietnam. Natalie Portman visits her screen husband in the hospital and presses him to reveal the cause of his suffering, threatening to lave him and faced with this option he reveals that he had killed his friend rather than die himself in order to get back to her.

The pressures of a wife and child is a sub story in teh excellent Michael Balcon-Leslie Norman film of Dunkirk released in 1958 at a time when the second World War was still at the fore of most families whose men had served, survived or not and also experienced the Blitz themselves.

In this instance Richard Attenborough plays a garage owner who own a small boat, just under 30 feet and moored on the River Thames. he had a wife who finds it difficult to cope with her child and is terrified of being left on her own and by having to place the baby in the special gas mask which was provided for infants in addition to those for children which I remember mine and those for adults. As a garage owner he has greater access to petrol than everyone else and is making money from a small engineering business under contract with the government. His apparent self satisfaction with his position galls Bernard Lee who plays a journalist, who lives in the same community and belongs to the same boat club but which a much large craft. He is pessimistic about the situation and complacency at home during the phoney war.

When Attenborough takes a complacent view of the situation at the local Inn he is pulled up sharp by a Merchant Navy man who tries to educate him about the reality, the posses and that he had been wounded. When all the boats are commandeered and the owners told to take their boats down the Thames to Sheerness his first reaction is to place his craft in the hands of his 17 year old assistant but then decides to take the craft himself much to the horror of his wife.

Having delivered the craft they are told to go to the harbour office where they will get a receipt for the boat and a train warrant to return home. On their way they encounter some of troops being brought back, many wounded and most looking forlorn and exhausted. This affects the journalist who says he wants to take his boat across the channel, and other including Attenborough also support his move. They are told it will not be allowed a being too dangerous but they persist and after the admiralty is consulted it is agreed.

While is happening and the volunteers are told to sleep over and then travel with the dawn, in France we follow the experience of John Mills a Sergeant, left in charge of a small platoon after the officer is killed as they are making their way to find their unit having been on one flank and finding that the order to retreat had been given.

John was a reluctant Sergeant beforehand and he admits to finding the situation beyond his experience but the other men insist that he leads them and tells them what to do. The first challenge comes when they encounter refugees being attacked by the German airforce and John insists that they continue their mission rather than stay and help the wounded and bury the dead from the attack. They then come across a small British gun battery and are given food before being sent away as the senior office has been ordered to hold off he advance German artillery for as long a possible. As Mills and the remaining men make their way from the site it is obliterated by the German airforce. The men comment that the decision to order the battery to remain was akin to murder.

The unit find a deserted farmhouse where they are able to stay the night but then observe units of the German army approaching and they have to fight their way out during which one of the unit is badly injured and Mills takes the decision to leave him to the enemy to assist as they continue to make their way. One has concussion from an explosion and as he is helped across the road they encounter a British vehicle heading for the coast. He gives the unit a lift as far as the outskirts of the town where they are told to disable the vehicle and make their way to beach. Here there are hundreds of thousands of defenceless men waiting on the beaches systematically bombed and fired on by the German airforce.

The unit make their way as ordered as a column into the sea or it may have the Mole to board a British destroyer but this is bombed and sunk and the men escape into the water. Some are picked up by the small boats and taken to larger ships while others including Mills and the remainder of his unit make their way ashore back to where they had been before.

The craft owned by the Journalist is bomber and sunk but he survives and is picket up by Attenborough, but the colleague assisting him is killed. The trio attempt to take more men from the column waiting in the water but the vessel develops a fault and is beached just as Mills and his unit arrive to see if they can get passage. While Attenborough remains with one of Mill’s unit truing to repair the boat, the Journalist and the 17 year old go ashore and experience life on the dunes. The following morning, Sunday, they are again bombed while participating in a service and the Journalist is mortally wounded telling the 17 year old to tell Attenborough to tell his widow what happened. The boat is repaired and Mills and the unit take off but they encounter further engine troubles and drift back towards Calais which is the hands of enemy. Fortunately the decision has been taken by the admiralty to risk more naval warship and they encounter one and return home.

The evacuation of British, French and Belgium troops took place between May 26th and June 3rd 1940. While only 7000 were rescued on the first day a total of 338226 soldiers -198229 British 139997 French were rescued using 43 British Destroyers and 850 small civilian boats of various sizes, the smallest 4.6 meters called the Tamzine and now in pride of place in the Imperial War Museum. There were also a large number of Merchant Navy vessels utilised, Thames barges and 17 Lifeboats of the RNLVR Two. The 850 small boats rescued 22698 men with only the loss of seven boats. No one was left on the beaches but two French Division left to defend the retreated were captured.

However in total 200 craft were sunk including six British Destroyers and the three French. The Royal Navy claimed 35 German planes and the damaging of 21 others. The RAF made just under 5000 missions over the area losing 100 aircraft in the fighting and 177 overall from all fighting against 959 loses during May of which 477 were fighters. Most of he battles took places away from the beaches which led to the troops believing they were left unprotected. The RAF claimed to have destroyed 262 German planes. 2472 heavy guns were abandoned in France with 65000 vehicles and 20000 motorcycles, 377000 tons of stores 68000 of ammunition and 147000 of fuel.

Two French division stayed behind to defend the departure and were captured with their efforts enabling 100000 more men to depart over the 4 days they held out. Controversially about half the French forces who escaped quickly return to France to become prisoners of war. It is estimated that of the 400000 allied forces involve din the battle of Dunkirk only about 34000 were killed or wounded or declared missing at the time, against German forces of 800000 of which it is said 150000 were killed or wounded.

In addition to the 1958 film, the most moving fiction story is that of the Snow Goose by Paul Gallico about a lonely artist who participates in the evacuation and loses his life played by Richard Harris also featured Jenny Agutter. More recently Atonement included a four and a half minute segment of the evacuation shot on the beach at Redcar while in 2004 the BBC produced a television documentary drama.

2045 Two films and lots of TV Cold Case Care. The Sopranos, Treme, Boardwalk Empire. Weeds and

I am bringing together my restricted leisure TV viewing this week because of the time I am spending on working through the contributions made in the debate on Libya on Monday and on the prologue of my autobiographical work honouring my parents

The week opened with the two part Waking the Dead a chilling two part portrayal of life in residential care and how the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. A girl, who aged seven years had disappeared from a privately run care home, reappears burned to death in a car.

The Cold Case team led by the excellent Trevor Eve and supported by Sue Johnston in Care discovered that the privately run home far from protecting and caring for children exploited and looked away from the brutality that went on between the children. In this instance a violent disturbed and out of control young boy who had been horribly treated himself for the first five years of his life. He had terrorised the other children and had disappeared from the system as a teenager. However the manager of the establishment had organised the teenage girls into a prostitution ring which earned substantial funds on away days at seaside resorts. The police were paid off by being given a share of the money. Records revealed that a social worker at the establishment had complained about the situation in the home but her claims had been ignored and then covered up. It was found that she and her husband had both died in circumstances where their bodies had not been found.

Rather than attempt to recreate the drama which emerged during the two one hour parts of the story I will explain what happened as the story unfolded to its conclusion. Together with her husband the social worker decided to rescue the seven year old girl, another girl and two boys from the home, and this included the violent boy who had terrorised the other children burning “eye” into their skin. This included the boy who became the current head of the home and who had attempted to disguise the eyes with self inflicted further disfigurement. He was less than honest about his knowledge of the situation because as a boy he had been responsible for taking the money earned by the girls from their prostitution. He had stood by when the seven year old was taken by the couple because he believed she would be better off that her fate if she stayed in the home although his action is now haunted given the way she come to die.

When the Cold Case team contact the mother of the dead girl, a former prostitute and present, drug taker and alcoholic she says something with surprises that she had heard from her daughter that she was happy and later the latest addition to the team(seconded from special services because of something that happened but which has not been disclosed) breaks into the home and discovers the fragments of a burnt letter. The mother was in hospital having attacked a man who was the driver of the girls on their prostitution trips and he had retaliated. She too is now tormented by what happened to her daughter. However we are to learn that responsibility for the way of life of the girl and her death rests with those who kidnapped her.

We also learn that on the night when the girl the violent and disturbed boy was being transferred by the social worker to the remand centre/detention centre the man was then head of the establishment had been knocked down in the vehicle being driven by the woman’s husband. The boy had jumped out of the vehicle and stabbed out the eyes of the head of the home.

We learn that the children taken from the home did live a happy life with the couple who rescued them, taking account that the children were being criminally abuse by the authorities with police connivance. The family in an isolated rural property with a tree house, a property which the Cold Case discover when attempting to trace what happened to the former social worker and her husband who they still believe had died. The only blight on their childhood had been the appearance of a mythical devil figure the equivalent of the bogey man, in this instance wearing a cloth over his head with slits for the eyes. This was used to help them to stick together and not disclose their former lives.

Everything had continued well for a decade until the recently killed girl and former terrorist boy become teenagers and fall in love. This again might have worked well had it not been for the disability of the foster father and the foster mother having commenced sexual relations with the former terrorist boy. The kidnapped girl returns unexpectedly bad catches her boyfriend with the foster mother and she runs off, into high class prostitution, alcohol and drug addict, at one level the life of her mother and the other girls in the child care home

It was only shortly before her death that the girl had attended a private clinic and encountered the doctor there to find that she was her foster sister from the family home. The girl had wanted back in to the family and then discovered that there had been a child from the relationship between the former terrorist and lover and the foster mother. As part of trying to get herself back into the family she had then befriended the girl and then kidnapped her . She had then gone to a meeting with the foster sister, now doctor and the her former lover and he had snapped, killed the girl, burning the body in her car. He had then turned on the foster sister and triggering her previous fear and earlier breakdown she falls over the balcony of her flat to her death, perhaps she was pushed by teh appearance of the foster brother now back to his disturbed and murderous self.


The daughter is traumatised by her experience and that she has also seen the character with head covered in cloth with only two eye slits. While imprisoned in the wardrobe. It is only as the finale approaches that the team realise that the mother of this girl is the believed dead social worker and that the other children are the former children from the home including the former young terrorist!

There is then a series of new horrors. Discovering what has happened the foster father persuades his official daughter and child born to his former social worker wife to go with him to a lock up where he gives her a passport and money to get away abroad if for any reason he is prevented from taking her. The girl fearful of the situation contacts one of the men she regards as older brothers. The former young terrorist has discovered that his father knows it was he who killed and burned the foster sister and then the older foster sister. He tells his “daughter” to wait in the vehicle and returns saying the foster father will join them later, however he has not only killed the man but also gouged out his eyes. The father takes the daughter back to the former family home with the now dilapidated tree house.

Meanwhile Trevor and Sue have been playing bad and good cop with the former social worker and the other foster son and eventually they persuade the mother to reveal the location of the former family home. Sue had explained that although the boy have become a loving brother and good citizen, the stress of recent events had resurrected his past experiences as a child and as a boy. Cornered he attempts to use his daughter as a hostage but filled with competing feelings he lets her go and kills himself. The girl is left, with her natural father dead, the man she knew as father dead, her mother carted off to prison as mostly likely her elder foster brother. A heavy dose of reality this latest double episode.

There was also lots of reality intermingled with great Jazz in the latest episode of Treme, the series about life in New Orleans after the failure of the flooding defences following Cyclone Katrina. Life is lived to full by everyone.

John Goodman as the write, English Professor has produced another You Tube outburst full of expletives which has brought him fame in town, with one man of society who he and his wife meet at a restaurant saying his outbursts of expletives have a poetic quality as well as speaking up for the city. However he continues not to work on his novel and he is summoned to see his agent which he fears means the publishers will be wanting their advance back because of the failure to produce as new work after six years and he had sent the money.

Antione discovers the trombone taken from him by the police in a pawn shop and when Goodman’s wife Toni, gets to see the local police chief to complain he admits that half the force abandoned their posts at the time Katrina, others had left or were disciplined because of what then happened and the situation is not getting better. He uses police funds to settle the pawn ticket. Meanwhile Antoine already has a brand new Trombone provided by an admirer of his work and of New Orleans Jazz who has travelled from Japan, Both Antoine and Goodman are getting ready for the Krewe du Vieux Carnival.

I had to look this up and found that

“ The Krewe du Vieux is a New Orleans Mardi Gras or Carnival krewe, originally and more fully known as the Krewe du Vieux Carré. The parade begins in the Marigny and slowly meanders its way through the Vieux Carre ("Vieux Carre" being another term for the city's French Quarter). It is one of the earliest parades of the New Orleans Carnival calendar, and is noted for wild satirical and adult themes, as well as for showcasing a large number of New Orleans' best marching bands.

The Krewe du Vieux was established in 1987. It is actually an amalgamation of several smaller semi-independent krewes (or sub-krewes) that pool their resources together for parade permits and other expenses and obligations. Several of the sub-krewes predate the Krewe du Vieux, originating as walking clubs or as sub-krewes of the defunct Krewe of Clones in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The Krewe du Vieux is perhaps simultaneously the most individualistic and the most traditional of all New Orleans parading krewes. It has no large tractor pulled floats like the larger krewes, using only old style small human or mule drawn floats interspersed with marchers on foot. It has no recorded music blaring from boom box trucks, for the Krewe du Vieux uses music only from live bands. The floats are hand made and decorated by members of the respective sub-krewes, often with themes satirizing local politics and customs, sometimes of a bawdy nature — in such aspects arguably closer to early 19th century Carnival traditions than any other Krewe currently parading. The Krewe du Vieux is the only Krewe still allowed to parade through the French Quarter (other than some small walking Krewes on Mardi Gras Day); krewes with larger floats have been prohibited in the narrow streets of the old town since the 1970s.

The Krewe honours as its monarch each year a New Orleanian particularly notable as a representative of the local culture. Various local musicians, artists, writers, and colourful characters have reigned as King or Queen, including Danny Barker, Andrei Codrescu, Ernie K-Doe, Irma Thomas, Ronnie Virgets, and Dr. John. In 2006, less than six months after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, Krewe du Vieux was the first Mardi Gras parade to roll through the streets of New Orleans. The theme that year was "C'est Levee".In 2011, Krewe du Vieux celebrated their silver anniversary under the banner "25 Years Wasted". Don Marshall, New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival and Foundation Executive Director ruled as King. The parade was blessed with beautiful weather and huge crowds.” So now we all know.

Also involved in the festivities and political reactions to the disaster Davis enlists an all start band and singers to make a special recording of Shame Shame Shame with revised Lyrics and which is played in full during the programme. Shame Shame Shame is a great number and the combination of the first class musicians and singers and the new lyrics is fantastic. Having encountered the neighbours he was harassing by playing loud music with open window and amplifiers he has relented.

The young female violinist is fed up with the lack of privacy arising from the arrival of the friend of boyfriend from his aborted taking to the road. She discovers has bought drugs while on the trip but what fuels her to insisting the friend leaves after their experience at the Krewe du Vieux.

Meanwhile the girl friend of Davis the Restaurant owner Jeanette is cheered up when four other chefs call for a meal unannounced and she pulls out all the stops and they are appreciative of her efforts. Meanwhile Toni, Goodman’s wife, has continued her search for Daymo and sees a reference to the name of the street of Jeanette’s restaurant in the badly flood damaged probation records. She then discovers that he had been successfully working at the restaurant and on the day of the disaster Jeanette had sent him back to get the meat and distribute and she had not seen him since and the meat had gone bad and had to be thrown away.

Albert wants to use some unoccupied Housing Association property to accommodate people coming back for the Krewe du Vieux and pressed a city councillor to do something but is refused because it is not something the city has responsibility for. This brings to the Carnival which gets off to a great start but then someone lets off a gun, there are people wounded possible killed. This emphases that while everyone is trying hard to get back to normal and rebuild the community the drug dealers and other criminals are also back. Shame Shame Shame.

The next episode of Treme begins with Davis campaigning to become a local councillor making wild promises and selling copies of his protest song Shame Shame Shame. I also realise that the carnival parade of the last episode was not the famous Krewe du Vieux which is still ahead. Davis then appears on a local TV station with other candidates and one of his commitments is to hold a bribery day month when the local corrupt politicians and official cab be honest about their activities without fear of prosecution! The producer is impressed with his attitude and offers to give him more duplicity but adds in answer to a question that he had not a hope of winning. He talks with his wealthy family where an aunt encourages him to be himself and consistent.

John Goodman’s agents arrives from New York and discovers that she had been sending copies of his Internet rants to the publishers and they want him to write something contemporary as well as his novel about the 1927 Floods. He is resistant. His daughter is impressed but when she quotes obscenities from the Davis Campaign he is horrified at the influence of her piano tutor on her. However he had devised a float in the form of the Mayor maturating himself with himself , his daughter and his wife and others dressed as sperm handing out condoms.

His wife Toni is away tracking down the only other officer on duty in the district where Daymo disappeared and he mentions having given a traffic ticket to someone who could be the missing man and just when it seems another blank is drawn he mentions that because there was a warrant out for the non appearance of the man re other charges he had left him at the station. There is a copy of his report in the car which he had left just before laving the state line at a local station leaving the keys at the desk. She pretends to be from the New Orleans Police to get access to the car where she finds the copy of the action taken re Daymo. She leaves the car saying she is from document retrieve and the car will be collected in due course! On return to the city she attempts to enlist the help of the DA to obtain a write of Habeas Corpus. She explains that this is not possible because of the emergent situation. Toni is disgusted at her willingness at allowing an innocent man to languish in the system as the warrant issue had been dealt with. Earlier she had been horrified at her husband’s float and involvement of their daughter, but after the rebuff by the DA she joins in the parade. She does not know that the mother of the young man is in hospital because of breathing problems.

Albert’ son has reached Houston in his tour and is great success providing opportunity for some modern jazz. He promises to return tot he city for the parade. Albert is disgusted to find that instead of the Council representatives arranging for an empty housing project to be opened for accommodation for his crew, he is offered one FEMA trailer. He throws the representative out of the bar.

There is brief reference to Annie the violinist who when she accepts another gig on her own the boyfriend hits her high on drugs. He promises to reform and it is unclear if Anne will agree to stay or go her own way. Antoine struggles to get work and gives the new trombone to an elder Jazz musician who has become depressed and is having problems playing. He arranges for him to have a medical examination. Jeanette the restaurant owner struggles to make end meet because of the rising costs charged by her suppliers. She considers asking the staff to work for another week without pay but having got them together she realises she has to close so they can get other paid work. As she locks up phone rings but she does not answer it, suggesting it is a missed opportunity.

The Barefoot Contessa is also a balance between the reality of an ultra realist film writer and director, played by Humphrey Bogart and living in her dream a Spanish dancer, Maria Vargas played by Ava Gardiner. The film begins with Bogart a rain swept onlooker at the Funeral of an International film star who only made three films. The film comprises Bogart telling the story of the film star from when he accompanied a film tycoon and a studio publicist (Edmund O’Brien who won an Academy award as best supporting actor) on a trip from Hollywood to Spain to see the night club act of Gardiner which we do not see, but judge from the faces of the audience. The tycoon asks that she dances again and that she joins them both are refused and Bogart is sent to talk to her. She is interested but is out off by the tycoon and goes home. Bogart is told to find bring her before the plane leaves or his career in on the line. He traces her to the family home where he quickly finds she has a tempestuous relationship with her parents and leads a life within her head, searching for the ideal Prince Charming relationship as a Cinderella who likes to go about barefoot.

Bogart plays a man twice married, able to find new partners without difficulty, a writer‘s observer of people who knows from the outset he will not possess her as she needs him as a friend who will not penetrate the defence against reality she built around herself. She travels to Hollywood and becomes an International success which is reinforced by only two other films.

The studio tries to prevent Maria returning home when her father kills her mother after years of abuse. The publicist argues that any involvement with the scandal will finish her career she goes into court to speak for her father and he is acquitted and her standing enhanced.

At a Hollywood Party a notorious wealthy South American who admits his vices ( Marius Goring) makes a play for Gardiner who is tempted to go with him because the tycoon boss insists that she does not. The publicist makes a break with the tycoon after telling home truths and joined the South American

The relationship is short lived and when the South American critices Maria in public for ruining his luck gambling a stranger hits him across the faces and takes Maria away. This is Rossano Brazzi as the Count Vincenzo Torlato-Favrini.

She immediately falls in love having found the Prince Charming she has searched all her life. She meet up with Bogart who is happily married in Italy where he is filming and he is invited to meet the Count who live with his widowed sister on the family estate close to the sea. Bogart sees that she is love and warns the Count of the responsibility he is taking on. They are married, the impression is given by the Pope with Bogart giving her away.


Only a few weeks later Gardiner arrives where Bogart is staying late at night and reveals that on her wedding night she discovers that her husband lost his masculinity in the war. While he loves her he cannot function as a husband. During the time Bogart has known Gardiner in the film she has had a succession of sordid sexual relationships while unable to give herself to the men who courted her. This time she has gone a step further and set out to become pregnant so she can give her husband the heir he has longed for. Bogart is horrified with what she has done but is helpless to prevent what subsequently happens although he drives out tot he Count’s home when he realises that all her movements are being followed. He is too late as after telling the count what she has dome for him he kills her and the lover adn awaits for the police. He is allowed to attend the funeral before being taken back to prison. Among others in this film about the Hollywood glitterati are Elizabeth Sellers, Diana Decker, Bill Frazer and Valentina Cortessa.

The film is meant to be an intense psycho drama with literary pretension. Some allege that the relationship between Rita Hayworth and Prince Aly Khan inspired the film but Joseph Mankiewicz who Directed and wrote the screenplay said it was based on the actress Anne Chevalier who starred in a film in 1931 called Tabu. I was unable to verify that this was so other that she did feature in the film.

The second film watched is Red Dawn, a throw back to the days of the cold war when there was only one enemy Russia and Communism. It was released in 1984. The subject is World War III which takes places with the successful invasion of the USA but a stalemate reached with the territory divided. The situation arises because the rest of NATO except for the UK reaches a compromise with the Soviet Union allowing them to invade the USA to take command of the Wheat belt because of the failure of the Russian harvest in the Ukraine. There is also communist revolution in Mexico which provides the America platform for the invasion.

The film opens with the aerial invasion on a small town in Colorado where half a dozen High School friends manage to get away including two brothers played by the youthful Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen. They visit the general and field sports store owned by the father of one of their friends Robert and stock up with food drink, hunting riffles and ammunition, and then head for the mountains. The town is taken over and used as a base with KGB arresting and getting rid of potential rebels. Also in charge appears to be a Cuban revolutionary called Bella whose troops are also part of the occupation force. He tells the KGB to get holds of the records showing who owns firearms in the town. After surviving for several weeks the High School kids decide to make their way back to town to find out what has happened to their families. The town is being used as a re-education centre for likely dissidents where the two brothers find their father is being held .

On their way back to the nature reserve where they are hiding they visit a elderly couple who explain that they are 40 miles within occupied territory, which means they are comparatively close to what remains as free America. The couple provide them with a field radio to keep in touch with what is happening and ask them to take care of their two teenage grand daughters and protect them from the soldiers who have been raping the women.

A couple of officers and driver go on a site seeing tour and discover one of the party who are hiding close by. They are forced to kill the men to save themselves and this leads to a large number of the people in the town being executed. This turns the small band into an avenging group calling themselves the Wolverines after their school mascot. We are not shown how they are able to acquire the weaponry of guerrillas, including hand rocket launchers grenades, rapid fire guns and the skill to use the arms effectively. The retaliation continues including the execution of the brother’s father, with the father of Robert who supplied the hunting guns executed early on because of his actions. The two girls have also become active guerrillas and killers. The Cuban Major begins to question the approach being taken and their occupation of the town,

The group find a downed Free America pilot and he joins the group and becomes friendly with one of the girls. He advises that several cities were destroyed by nuclear attacks including Washington, Kansas, Omaha and Nebraska in the surprise attack because of sleepers and infiltrators from Mexico before being supported by armies from Cuba and Nicaragua and Russian special forces. Russian divisions and captured Alaska and then Canada, but a grouping forces had managed to keep the free area and since the Russians need the food production area of the USA and the USA did not want to destroy its own area they were fighting using conventional weapons hence the stalemate. With his help the group escalate their guerrilla activities with increasing success to the extent that they are regarded a meriting especial attention from the authorities who send a specialist officer to take charge and who abandons the retaliatory hostage taking and executions for a policy of hunting the group.

The success of the group without casualties cannot continue indefinitely and the pilot and one of the group die. Another member of the group goes into town on his own against explicit instructions is captured and ordered to swallow a homing device which leads an assault group to reach the guerrillas but their defence and firepower is such that they defeat the assault group and discover the tracking device and the betrayal. They kill the survivor who explains the tracking device and discovering the traitor, Swayze who is the leader, decides that they should kill him, but he finds it impossible to do this and the execution is carried out by one the girls.

Having survived this they fall into the next trap when they stop to enjoy some fresh fruit and other produce “accidentally” dropped at the roadside by a passing supply vehicles they were planning to ambush. This delay, and possibly more tracking devices result in the group being attacked by three powerful gunships one they managed to disable but the losses are heavy. There are only four left, the two brothers and one of the young men and one of the girls. These two are told to make their way to free America and tell people of the fight which group put up. The two brothers launch what they believe is going to be a last ditch battle attacking the command centre in their home town. They manage to kill the specialist brought in with the KGB man killed earlier. The younger brother, played by Sheen is mortally wounded and as he is being taken away by the older brother they are confronted with the Cuban Bella who cannot bring himself to kill them, however the conclusion of the film suggests that the older brother also died if not immediately then before the war ended.

The film then moves to the point where the fight back had commenced with the killing of the soldier at a tourist view point. Erica who has survived is there and we are shown the Plaque and Partisan Rock on which is inscribed the names of each of the group as they died. The plaque reads.. In the early days of World War III, guerrillas - mostly children placed the names of the lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation shall not perish from the earth.” I winced at this because in reality it was not about a nation as such but about issues such as talked about in that important House of Commons Debate of a week ago, in the city squares of North Africa and the Persian Gulf and at the time of writing in Trafalgar Square and Hyde Park London.

In the latest episode of the Boardwalk Empire, La Belle Femme the punch line comes early on, if we only elected good men we would have no leaders.

Margaret ‘s position as the mistress of Nucky makes her a target for those seeking his influence. She takes the naive mistress of the new President to be, Leader of the Republic Party into French boutique where she was found a position by Nucky after he had arranged for his brother to kill and frame her husband for the deaths of the bootleggers. The owner pleads with Margaret to persuade her husband to drop the increased taxes which is putting her out of business. When she puts the case for helping her former employer and comments on the behaviour of the Republican Party’s new leader, Nucky makes the comment about the character of USA politicians.

Margaret offers to help her husband and he reminds of when she spoke out at his birthday and asks her to speak for him to get the women’s vote and who are only to be enfranchised at the next elections. She agrees but says she needs to look nice and only the boutique owner knows how to dress her well. Nucky is pleased by her selfishness and reduces the taxes on the shop as a consequence. He distrust altruism. The owner of the boutique is now indebted to Margaret.

The Republican Party’s new leader’s mistress tells Margaret that she fell in love when she was sixteen and he was running the local newspaper before he went to the Senate. He says he loves her and his daughter but she must put the future of their country first.

Nucky visits his brother in hospital and says the new man running for Mayor has accused the Sheriff and himself of corruption. Everyone knows the truth but it has not been published before. On returning to his accommodation he finds that Jimmy had returned to accept his offer on condition he is helped by the War Hero he used to kill the man who scarred his whorehouse mistress in Chicago. He also insists on speaking to Nucky in private and getting him to admit he wants him to kill the D’Alessio brothers and two others that have been identified as being involved in the stealing from the Casino and the wounding of his brother.

Jimmy returns to his wife who is put out by his sudden arrival as she is in the midst of entertaining the lecherous photographer and his wife. The consequence of the arrival results in the couple dumping Angela and effectively admitting that his offer to introduce an artistic agent was a ruse to get her into bed as his wife had already been successful. Jimmy is summoned to meet see his mother where he finds her in bed with the young Lucky Luciano. Before he can take Luciano away to kill him as advised by Al Capone the Feds arrive to arrest Jimmy for the murders of the bootleggers.

Jimmy had sent a Western Union message to Nucky and to Angela saying he was coming but the messages had been held by the Fed’s deputy who then forgets to pass on the messages. This sends Van Alden, the boss into a frenzy and later in order to placate the boss, or so it seems, he suggests moving Jimmy’s accomplice on the night, the decoy driver, out of state to get him out of reach of the gangsters. However this is also a ruse and he kills the witness on their way out of state pretending to have been attacked and having to kill the man in self defence. Thus the case against Jimmy falls apart.

Earlier Nucky is called to visit Jimmy in custody and explains he will not be given bail and that the only outcome is for the witness to disappear. Jimmy is able to tell Nucky that Luciano revealed that the D’Alessio brothers are working for Rothestein of New York who earlier in the episode are taken on more permanently in order to operate a Scottish Whisky import business which is estimated to be more profitable that selling watered down alcohol. They advise that Nucky needs to be removed.

Nucky has decided the present Mayor is not up to the task and asks his friend the construction company owner to replace him, saying that there will be lots of new Construction jobs certain to come his way as a consequence. The approach is at the Casino and entertainment centre where there is a great Blues singing version of Some of these Days. The future Mayor comments 1920 it a time for the young people. Nucky comments on the wisdom of letting them think so. Meanwhile the deputy Sheriff has made a move to replace Nucky’s brother. The episode ends as out on the Boardwalk an attempt is made on the life of Nucky with Margaret getting blood on her new dress.

This brings me to recent times Mafia and the re run of the Sopranos from the first season. In the episode Down Neck Tony confronts his past after his son is caught drunk at the Catholic school after drinking the wine used for the mass. The school believes his behaviour is such that he requires psychological help and may have an attention deficit problem. Tony is resistant but because he is in treatment with a psychoanalyst it brings back issues with his parents particular his mother

When visiting the analyst he attempts to raise issues in such a way as it does not reflect on himself. The psychiatrist mentions his declaration of love and Tony retaliates by mentioning that he has a mistress but the subject of the son dominates and Tony talks about how he found out about the occupation of his father after witnessing him beating up a neighbour with his uncle Junior and others.

He is jealous that his father takes his sister with him when he visits the local amusement park. Tony discovers this after hiding in the trunk of his father’s car and sees his sister with other daughters of his father’s friends. One day after taking the bus on his own to the amusement park he sees a police raid and the arrest of his father, Uncle Junior and others and that the girls are then told to make their way home.

He explains to the psychiatrist that his father, Junior and the others used the girls as a cover for their business meetings and activities. The police had arrested his father and the others believing they were involved in some crime but this was so, in the particular instance. His father had been picked up for the parole violation of association with other known criminals. His father had been to prison although at the time Tony was told his father was away earning money as a cowboy. His mother had been a shrew towards her husband saying at one point he would rather smother her children than let him take them with him when she ridiculed his proposals to accept the offer to move to Nevada and run a supper club for a criminal associate. This man had become a billionaire and added to the resentment Tony felt about his mother who at once had threatened to physically abuse him.

This leads to a discussion about heredity. Tony states he was proud of his father as he hopes his son is of him, but he does not want the boy to follow in his footsteps. For once the Psychoanalyst gives an opinion that even where because of heredity someone has a propensity it does not mean they do not have free choice, especially in America.

At a dinner party attended by his mother she reveals that Tony was a problem child stealing and driving a car when he was too young to control it. Tony son’s AJ is impressed and wants to know more but Tony wants his past buried so that it does not influence the future of the boy. His wife believes that after the college admission’s trip which where Tony accompanied his daughter she seems to have changed as if she knows about his life as a Mafia Captain. They debate when their son should be told. After the son has been tested the couple meet again with the school psychologist and he reveals that their son is not educationally sub normal and is quite bright nor does he have any physical problems and that in relation to the attention syndrome while he does have five of the nine indicators you need six to be classified as such. This reassure the parents and they express the hope that they do not have to pay for what they regard as a waste of time.
Back home Tony finds his son depressed about being grounded, not having TV or playing electronic games. Tony is feeling good about himself again and his son and makes to huge helpings of ice cream and cream with toppings and the two have a great father son moment together.

Part of the reason for Tony’s good humour is that on visiting his mother she tells him that she is fed up with Junior because he is full of himself since becoming the Captain of the Captains. During the visit from Junior she drops hints that she knows her son is having mental problems. Tony mentions the success of the man who wanted to give his father a job and she presents a new version which puts herself in a good light and her husband as someone who always went his own way. Tony confronts her with the truth and aspects of the way she treated him. He proclaims that had women’s lib been around then she would have been ruthless criminal boss and not her husband.

Making light of Criminal activity Weeds continues to be the most outrageous programme on either side of the Atlantic. The heroine has commenced to establish a relationship with the political Mafia Spanish American controlling the underground transfer of drugs via the tunnel. Various events prevent them getting together again but at the end of the second recent episode there is a touching scene of his visit to her home and the two sitting cuddling on the veranda with a romantic lamp on the veranda window with outside two armed security men stand in watch.

Meanwhile her best friend is using heroine again and starts demanding cash from purchasers at the store offering great discounts if they do, in order to buy more stuff. When she goes to the dealers working with our heroine they take her prisoners preventing her from talking by using a bra, presumable her bra as a gag. Our Heroine bribes them to let the woman go and insists she is clean. Later her daughter finds her with a syringe attached to her forehead and thinks she is on drugs again but this time she is attempting to redden and full out her lips. The eldest son has struck up a relationship with a woman old enough to be his mother and says he will move out and with her as soon as he is eighteen. He has started a small Weed growing plant and sales business in the back room. Our heroine visits and gives them advice how to evade the law, but her concern is that she is losing her son and at one point when he returns asks if he has any laundry, saying he can raid the fridge or play his music as loud as he wishes. The young son is found to have a photo of her when she was a porn star and this leads to an embarrassing speech on her part but also for him about how he should enjoy sex but not have fantasies about his mother. Later at school he finds his reputation has suddenly shot up and two of the most attractive girls reveal that they have put his name across their tums and ask him if he like to party, which he says he does. The cousin who travelled with the family south has now established himself as a hero among the migrants he helped to free from the gang exploiting them. Only his friend is unhappy unable to trace the attractive young women they encountered coming out of the sea on to the beach. However the barman believes he can find the girl. At one level rather like Treme the series is poking fun at double standards although unlike Treme there are no redeeming moral features about this programme.

2044 UN Resolution Intervention in Libya The most important House of Commons debate since World War II

Since Saturday afternoon 19th of March 2011 the United Nations has put into practice a doctrine first proclaimed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Chicago in 1999 that the nations of military and economic power should collectively intervene to prevent the genocide of civilians whether by nation upon nation or one people on another people within a nation.

Earlier on the Saturday, at a meeting hosted by the President of France in Paris, and attend by British Prime Minister David Cameron, and US Sectary of State of State, Hilary Clinton, together with the United Nations General Secretary and other leaders and representatives of the Arab world in North Africa and the Persian Gulf, from NATO and elsewhere, it was agreed that the USA should take on the role of organising the first phase of action to prevent the massacre of citizens of Libya by representatives of their government and to require the government of Libya to cease all hostilities against their people and to pull back from those places where representatives of the government had and were continuing use violence, and in particular to stop the use and movement of military aircraft, rockets and artillery.

It will have been evident to all the Members of the United Nations Security Council and to the Arab League of Nations before resolution 1973 was passed without a veto, but with important abstentions, that in order to achieve this objective there would be need to use rocket missiles and bombs to eliminate command, control and intelligence centres and defence systems and destroy any Libyan military resources, doing so by all available means to protect civilian life.

Although the USA, France and the UK possess weaponry which can destroy targets to within a metre, the possibility of malfunctioning ordinance and the use lf human shields by the Gaddafi regime was a strong possibility, despite whatever local intelligence was available to the United Nations action force. It was therefore no surprise that immediately after the first bombardment there were claims of civilian casualties, although none have been produced for visiting journalists to see, except soldiers dressed in civilian clothing. There was some apparent wobbling of position on the part of the Secretary fo the Arab league, a man who is in contention to become the next president of Egypt under a new constitution and Russia, China and India who had abstained misguidedly rushed in to make their position clear to the rest of Muslim world.

This was the setting for what I regard as the most important debate and vote in the House of Commons since the period for the Second World War. I agree with Mr Hague, British Foreign Secretary that the situation is potentially more significant than 9/11 or the recent banking and financial crisis.

It was also evident what the Official Opposition and back bench contributed, that they also saw the implementation of the UN Resolution as having profound implications for the future foreign policy and relations between Muslim countries and the rest of the world, and that, albeit on a case by case basis, standing by as genocide was committed with the slaughtering in their hundreds, their thousands, and their hundreds of thousands of non combatant men, women and children was not something which civilise countries could not longer accept. This by implications also meant a fundamental review of future arms exports and the nature of diplomatic and commercial trading relationships in countries practicing gross violations of basic human rights.

By coincidence I have been working on a list of all the wars and acts of genocide together with natural disasters and pandemics of human illness() since the birth of my father in 1880 and which accumulatively amount to over one thousand million deaths, providing the perspective to what I believe may prove a new era, breaking with what has gone on before, although as many, including the British Prime Minister, drew attention, that while the UK with others had been given the opportunity to achieve a change for the better, there remained the possibility that our collective failure in the instance of Libya could lead to an escalation in conflict and in civilian deaths. In my writing on wars and pandemics I make the point that it is impossible to comprehend or cope with knowledge of civilian deaths in the thousands and hundred of thousands and that I, and I suggests others, can only be influenced by the experience of those who individually survive or witness the reality of these events, and yesterday there were several voices echoing this viewpoint.

The most powerful of these was made by Kris Hopkins, the Member for Keithley, and other Members who have served in the military over recent times and who have only recently been elected to Parliament

Mr Hopkins said this

“Having watched these debates and diplomacy since the Falklands war, and having observed the battles on CNN and sanitised movie footage of jets taking off, troops returning fire and Union Jacks attached to aerials and advancing tanks, I find it a daunting thought to be in the House debating and contemplating our responsibility for the deployment of people whose principal purpose is to kill other people on our behalf. During my basic training in the Army, I realised that a sergeant shouting at me to stab and scream and stab again a bale of hay with a fixed bayonet was teaching me how to rip somebody apart. A few years later, I saw the remains of an IRA terrorist unit that had been ambushed by a Special Air Service unit. The remains had been shredded by the hundred of bullets that had gone through their bodies.

Following the first Gulf war, a friend of mine showed me some pictures that he had taken of the convoy attempting to escape back up to Iraq. One of the pictures was of the charred, black head and a desperate hand-black and maimed-of someone trying to leave their vehicle. There is nothing glorious or romantic about war. To those in the media who have portrayed what is happening now-or what has happened in previous wars-as some form of entertainment, I say that that is just not right. I am afraid that human beings need to commit brutal, savage attacks on each other to win wars.

I have spoken in the House before about our lack of political capital following the illegal war in Iraq and what I believe is a folly in Afghanistan. There may be moral reasons to fight again, but I will be honest: we are struggling to find the moral high ground from which to project that morality. As people have said, Gaddafi is the man who brought down the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, the man who shipped the weapons that killed some of my colleagues and the man who killed WPC Fletcher. However, I feel uncomfortable about going to war. It is not a simple choice; it is a really difficult choice to contemplate.

This morning when I was coming to work, I listened to a phone-in from BBC television about whether we should kill Gaddafi. It was almost gladiatorial, as though people were phoning in so that we could see whether the populace was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I have to say that I was fairly disgusted that the killing of another human being, however disgusting he is, could become a form of entertainment.

While we pontificate about morality and our obligations, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk at our request. This is not a debate about student fees, the Scotland Bill or the double summer time Bill; this is about the business of war. We do not take this decision lightly. While we wage war on our enemy, Muslim brothers and Arab leaders-with a few exceptions-remain silent. It is more convenient for the infidel to kill their Muslim brothers and gesture disapproval than it is to stand up to a tyrant. To the new leaders of the emerging democracies out there in the middle east, I say this: "The next time a murderer comes to the end of his road, you gather in your House, like we are today, and think about how you're going to take your share of the responsibility and what you're going to contribute."

I said that this was a decision that I do not take lightly, and I do not think this nation takes it lightly either, but I will support the Government. The Prime Minister was right to secure a UN mandate. His leadership stands in stark contrast to the leadership that has gone before in this nation. Let us hope that the positive responses from the United Nations are a sign of something to come because, fundamentally, it is the weakness of United Nations members that has created so many international disasters in the past.”

Mr Hopkins was born in 1963 and saw service in Northern Ireland as a Member of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment. Before entering The Commons in 2010, he was deputy Leader and then Leader of Bradford City Council.

This was an emotional speech which I believe will have a profound impact on all who listen and those who now read, but the contribution which I believe will have the greater impact on the future policy of all the main political parties in the United Kingdom was made by a second member of the Conservative Party, Mr Rory Stewart of Penrith and the Borders, who said:

This is not something that began in Libya, and it will not end in Libya. It came out of a regional situation. It is a response primarily to Egypt and Tunisia. We should be celebrating, but with immense caution, what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported because of that broader regional context. We are talking about not one country and one month, but a series of countries and 30 years. We have to keep our eyes on that, or we will find ourselves in a very dangerous and difficult situation.

The situation in Libya and the no-fly zone are driven, of course, as everybody in the House has said, by our humanitarian obligation to the Libyan people. It is driven by our concerns for national security and, probably most of all-this is not something that we should minimise-by the kind of message that we are trying to pass to people in Egypt or Tunisia. If we had stood back at this moment and done nothing-if we had allowed Gaddafi simply to hammer Benghazi - people in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria would have concluded that we were on the side of oil-rich regimes against their people. We would have no progressive narrative with which we could engage with that region over the next three decades.

Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly significant that both the Arab League and countries in the area such as Qatar support the engagement and the UN resolution?

Rory Stewart: I agree very strongly. That is immensely significant, but the meaning of that needs to be clear. The limits that the Prime Minister has set are so important to all of us exactly because of that point. The reason we need the Arab League and the UN on side, the reason we need a limited resolution, and the reason all the comments from around the House warning that the situation should not become another Iraq are so important is that we are talking about 30 years, not just the next few months.

Respectfully, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell); the most important thing for us now is to be careful with our language and rhetoric, and careful about the kinds of expectations that we raise. I would respectfully say that phrases such as "This is necessary", or even "This is legitimate", are dangerous. All the things that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done to hedge us in, limit us, and say, "This isn't going to be an occupation" are fantastic, but they are only the beginning.

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the risks is that it might be said on the Arab street that we would not be interested if it were not for the oil in Libya?

Rory Stewart: That is a very important danger. The fact that Libya is not just an Arab country, but a country with oil, has to be borne in mind. The kind of legitimacy that we may have had in Kosovo will be more difficult to come by in Libya for that reason.

The biggest dangers-the dangers that we take away from Afghanistan-are threefold. The Prime Minister will have to stick hard to his commitment, because it is easy for us to say today, "So far and no further," but all the lessons of Afghanistan are that if we dip our toes in, we are very soon up to our neck. That is because of the structure of that kind of rhetoric, and the ways in which we develop four kinds of fear, two kinds of moral obligation, and an entire institutional pressure behind reinvestment. That is why the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), is correct to sound his cautions.

What are the four fears? We can hear them already. First, people are saying, "We have to be terrified of Gaddafi. He is an existential threat to global security." That is the fear of the rogue state.

The second fear is the fear of the failed state. Gaddafi is making that argument himself: "If I collapse, al-Qaeda will come roaring into Libya."

The third fear that people are beginning to express is a fear of neighbours. They are already beginning to say, "If this collapses, refugees will pour across the borders into other countries."

The fourth fear is fear for ourselves: fear for our credibility, and fear that we might look ridiculous if, in response to our imprecations or threats, Gaddafi remains.

We have seen the same fears in Vietnam, where people talked about the domino theory. We have seen the same fears in Iraq when people talked about weapons of mass destruction. We have seen the same fears in Afghanistan, where people worried that, if Afghanistan were to topple, Pakistan would topple and mad mullahs would get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Those are all the same fears, and the same sense of moral obligation. We do not need to be able to name two cities in Libya to be able to talk about two kinds of moral obligation: our moral obligation to the Libyan people, and our moral obligation because we sold arms to the Libyans in the past. This is very dangerous, and we must get away from that kind of language and into the kind of language that is humble, that accepts our limits, and allows us to accept that we have a moral obligation to the Libyan people but that it is a limited one because we have a moral obligation to many other people in the world, particularly to our own people in this country.

Of course we have a national security interest in Libya, but we have such an interest in 40 or 50 countries around the world, and we must match our resources to our priorities.

The real lesson from all these conflicts is not, as we imagine, that we must act. The real lesson is not just our failure, but our failure to acknowledge our failure, and our desire to dig ever deeper. It is our inability to acknowledge that, in the middle east, many people will put a very sinister interpretation on our actions. It is also our failure to acknowledge that "ought" implies "can". We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do. We have to consider our resources rather than our desires.

What does that mean? This is easy for someone on the Back Bench to say, and much more difficult for a Prime Minister or other leader to say. How do we set a passionately moderate rhetoric? How do we speak to people to support something that is important? How do we acknowledge the moral obligation and the national security questions, but set the limits so that we do not get in too deep? I suggest that we need to state this in the most realistic, limited terms.

First, we need to say that our objective is primarily humanitarian: it is to decrease the likelihood of massacre, ethnic cleansing and civil war, and to increase the likelihood of a peaceful political settlement. Secondly, we will try, in so far as it is within our power to do so, to contain and manage any threat from Libya. Finally, we will deliver development and humanitarian assistance. In the end, however, the real message that we are passing on through limited rhetoric is not to the people of Britain but to the people of the middle east over the next 30 years.

Mr Stewart spoke for six minutes and as the Foreign Secretary commented in bringing the debate to the vote, he looked forward to hearing the sixty minute version. In my judgement a new, unique and important voice has joined the House of Commons.

Mr Stewart whose family come from Crieff in Perthshire, Scotland, was born in Hong Kong, raised in Malaysia and Scotland and educated at the Dragon School, Eton College and Balliol College, Oxford, where he studied modern history and politics, philosophy and economics (PPE). While a student at Oxford, he was a summer tutor to Prince William and Prince Harry. He has an honorary doctorate from the University of Stirling As a teenager, he was a member of the Labour Party.

After a brief period as an officer in the British Army on a gap year commission (to the Black Watch), Mr Stewart joined the Foreign Office. He served in the British Embassy in Indonesia from 1997 to 1999, working on issues related to East Timor independence, and as the British Representative to Montenegro in the wake of the Kosovo campaign. From 2000 to 2002 he walked across Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, India and Nepal, a journey of 6000 miles, during which time he stayed in five hundred different village houses.

After the coalition invasion of Iraq, he was appointed the Coalition Provisional Authority Deputy Governorate Co-ordinator in Maysan and Deputy Governorate Co-coordinator/Senior Advisor in Dhi Qar, two provinces in southern Iraq. His responsibilities included holding elections, resolving tribal disputes and implementing development projects. He faced an incipient civil war and growing civil unrest from his base in a Civil-Military Co-operation (CIMIC) compound in Al Amarah, and in May 2004 was in command of his compound in Nasiriyah when it was besieged by Sadrist militia. He was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service in Iraq at the age of 31. While Mr Stewart initially supported the Iraq War, the Coalition's inability to achieve a more humane, prosperous state led him in retrospect to believe the invasion had been a mistake.

Mark Lancaster Milton Keynes Con added to the list of former soldiers contributing

“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have yet to meet a soldier who has been to war who would rush to another one. It is difficult to experience the horrors of war first hand and ever be the same again. Having been to three on behalf of the previous Government, I am a firm believer that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but I accept that the time for jaw-jaw sometimes comes to an end and we must act.

I join other Members in commending the Prime Minister for his speedy action to ensure that we have the United Nations resolution, but I am slightly concerned that there are many who breathe a sigh of relief and believe that, because we have the resolution and find ourselves in a very different position from that which the House was in when debating Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia, somehow that is all we need to secure a successful resolution in Libya. I fear that it is not.

One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was never to go into a room without knowing where the exit is. I fear that we have no clear exit at the moment in Libya. That is understandable; anyone who stood up in this House with a clear idea of exactly how we will exit the situation would be at best naive. That is no reason not to go into the room, but I fear that we will need further UN resolutions before we see the end to the situation. To be honest, I think that what we have before us will probably at best get us to a stalemate. We will achieve much by preventing conflict and unnecessary deaths in Libya, and the House should be proud of this country's contribution to securing the resolution, but it will not be enough. I would like the Government to continue to play their part in ensuring that we have the grounds on which we can ultimately get the appropriate resolution in the United Nations to secure that exit strategy. It is absolutely clear that we must have greater involvement from Arab nations, because without that we will lack the general support required. I know that the Prime Minister will continue to do his bit to ensure that that is the case.

We often talk about learning lessons from the past. It is of course easy to point to the Iraq conflict and say that one of the biggest mistakes we made was to have no great plan for reconstruction and stabilisation-I must declare an interest as a member of the military stabilisation and support group within our armed forces-but the problem we face now is very different from that which we faced in Iraq, because in Iraq we were able to deploy boots on the ground to assist that stabilisation. We cannot currently do that under the United Nations resolution. We can learn the lessons from the past, from Iraq, and say that we need to have greater reconstruction, but how are we going to deliver that on the ground in Libya?

The cross-departmental stabilisation unit, which the previous Government set up, involving the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, is fabulous but under-utilised. Rather like three strands of a rope, it does come together and the effect that the three Departments produce by working together is much greater, but I believe very strongly that the unit must plan now, working concurrently with existing military operations, to ensure that we have in place such reconstruction and stabilisation. Otherwise, the window of opportunity that we missed in Iraq could well be missed in Libya.

I also seek from the Foreign Secretary, when he winds up the debate, reassurances that we are working very closely with the United Nations to ensure that any work the Government can do after this period of military action, to help to reconstruct and stabilise Libya, is done under the United Nations umbrella. It cannot be delivered solely by Western powers; otherwise I fear that we will lose the consent we have, as we did in the past with Iraq.

Looking forward, I am delighted that we are where we are today. We have secured the UN resolution, with much thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, but we must not take our eye off the ball. We must look beyond our current operations to ensure that we have in place the bedrock on which we can deliver, far more effectively than we have in the past, the reconstruction and stabilisation of Libya after the event.”

It was another Member, also a Conservative and also a former soldier who made another of the telling speeches of the day. He was first commissioned in 1969, taking an in service degree which he passed with first class honours and then when a Captain was made a guard of Rudolf Hess in Spandau Prison, Berlin. He served in Northern Ireland from 1977 to 1981 and then became the first British Commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia discovering the Ahmici massacre of 103 people. Before retiring from the army in 1996 he was Chief of Policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.

Before speaking to the House reference was made to Colonel Robert Stewart DSO by the immediately previous speaker Thomas Docherty of Hamilton and West Fife, a Labour Party member, who said:

“ I came into politics because 20 years ago this summer the west stood by and took no action when Yugoslavia tore itself apart. We saw footage from Srebrenica, Sarajevo and other places of the massacre of men and boys, women and children, and the west did nothing to stop that. I cannot possibly imagine what it must have been like to live in that country during those times. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government have stepped up and provided some leadership in this action. The Secretary of State will know that Opposition Members stand willing to provide support to the Government in pursuing that course.

I was very lucky to make my maiden speech on the same day as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have found inspiring over the past 10 months, both as a colleague on the Defence Committee and as a speaker in the House. I hope, if he will pardon my saying so, that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time we do not have a situation where there are more Members like him who will have had to go in after the west did not take action to pick up the pieces of its indecisiveness. I will support the motion, with some reservations about casualties, but pleased that the west is taking action. “

Mr Docherty was one of several contributors who called on the Government to reconsider some of decision being made as a result of the recent Defence Review.

In his contribution Colonel Stewart said :

“Colonel Gaddafi does not do peaceful. Benghazi may be relatively safe for the moment, but what about elsewhere in Libya? That really worries me.

As my-dare I say, with some trepidation, The Hon Member and my Friend, the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggests, I have had experience in this respect. I remember very well that when I was the military commander in Bosnia in 1993, a little girl of six years old was brought to my house by a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross. She had been in a prison camp for 10 days. The Red Cross delegate said to me, "This girl needs shelter." I said, "I'm the military commander." She said, "You've got plenty of room in your house, and you've got two soldiers who look after you." The soldiers turned to me and said, "We'll look after her, sir." They took her away, put her in a bath and washed her, and cared for her. They put a bed for her between their two cots. Three days later, that girl did not want to leave.

I am worried that what happened to her might be happening to people in Tripoli tonight. She was dragged out of her bed at 5 o'clock in the morning, with her mother, father and brother, told to get downstairs and made to lie on the grass by brutes with rifles. As she told it, her mother, father and brother lay down and did not get up again.

This weekend, I spoke to members of the opposition in Tripoli, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Gaddafi will be sending his thugs searching around there tonight.

What can we do to help? We cannot invade, we cannot assassinate-it is up to the Libyans to decide what we do. I have seen people with pitchforks try to take out tanks. How are those people going to be protected?

They need help. Perhaps the Arab League could help a little more in that respect. Perhaps it could go forward. We cannot do it.

Nobody knows the end game-we all realise that. If we were God, perhaps we would, but we do not. We live in hope. We do not have the end game plotted out carefully.

We acted morally on the highest authority in the world-the Security Council of the United Nations. Thank goodness we did, because last Friday Colonel Gaddafi suggested he was going to go through houses in Benghazi and butcher everyone who opposed him. That did not happen. We have, by our actions, saved life. Politics can sort things out hereafter, but one thing is quite clear: there will be a lot more people around to watch what happens from now on than there would have been if we had done nothing last Friday. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much, the Opposition, for your full support. It is deeply appreciated by all of us.

Let us hope that someone has the brains of Methuselah and that we find out what the end game is in due course. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has the brains of Methuselah. “ (Colonel Stewart and the remaining speakers were required to reduce their planned comments from six to four minutes).

The Leader of the Opposition, Edward Miliband also included a personal family reference in his important and powerful speech for which the Prime Minister thanked him at Question Time on Wednesday.

Mr Miliband said :

Let me end on this point. Today's debate is conducted in the shadow of history of past conflicts. For me, it is conducted in the shadow of my family's history as well: two Jewish parents whose lives were changed forever by the darkness of the holocaust, yet who found security in Britain. This is a story of the hope offered by Britain to my family, but many of my parents' relatives were out of the reach of the international community and perished as a result. In my maiden speech in the House, I said that I would reflect

"the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago".-[ Official Report, 23 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 489.]

These are the kind of things we say in maiden speeches, but if they are to be meaningful, we need to follow them through in deeds, not just words. That is why I will be voting for the motion tonight, and why I urge the whole House to vote for it.”

Sir Malcolm Rifkind Kensington Cons, opened his contribution by mentioning the very eloquent and moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I am also agree with Jim Dowd Lewisham West and Penge Lab who in his contribution mentioned that the late Member Eric Forth had said that when there was unanimity between the Front Benches it is almost axiomatic that they are wrong. He said this was an exception and I agree with him. He also finished his contribution in a great way saying:

“We have a difficult choice. I will support the Government in their motion to support resolution 1973, because I believe that is less bad than the alternative of doing nothing. It is also consistent with the type of nation that I believe the majority of the British people make up. We are not the kind of people who pass by on the
other side of the road. Sometimes we have to put up or shut up. On this occasion I shall certainly now shut up, but I believe we should put up.”

I also liked the way Ben Wallace Wyre and Preston North Con referred to experience of someone who had recently worked for him:

“We should remember that authority in the middle east has changed. It has moved away from the Ministers of Arab countries to whom we used to look for reassurances and towards the Arab street. Some Arab Ministers are not in as strong a position as they would like. We should not forget that the Arab street is becoming ever more emboldened throughout the region.

We should be consistent in our criticism. Bahrain is currently setting out on a course of sectarian violence and oppression against its 70% Shi'a majority. Indeed, a lady who worked for me recently and left Bahrain for Dubai was asked at every checkpoint whether she was Shi'a or Sunni. The Shi'as were taken out of the car and beaten and the Sunnis were allowed to progress.”

Jack Straw Blackburn Lab said that he had recently re-watched Hotel Rwanda : “the chilling film portrayal of the massacres of the defenceless civilians who were hacked to pieces by the so-called forces of law and order because they had the misfortune to belong to the wrong ethnic group. In July 2005, when the UK had the EU presidency, I went to Srebrenica in Bosnia for the 10th anniversary commemoration of the day in 1995 when 10,000 unarmed civilians were brutally murdered by the forces of law and order because, in that case, they had had the misfortune to belong to the wrong religious group.

In Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN solemnly considered what it should do. In both theatres, there were already blue-hatted UN troops on the ground, but they stood by as the massacres took place in front of them. Those troops were there as peacekeepers, but there was no peace to keep-rather, peace urgently needed to be made.

Doing nothing in the face of evil is as much a decision with consequences as doing something. This resolution is historically significant not just on its own terms, but because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, this is first occasion on which the Security Council has acted decisively upon the words relating to the responsibility to protect, which were agreed in the UN General Assembly in 2005, and in Security Council resolution 1674 2006.”

He was one of many who commended the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary for their work.

Another Conservative Member Paul Uppal of Wolverhampton South West also spoke with great feeling and a sense of personal and relevant history. He said that

We all have a personal history and personal experiences that form our political opinions. Just last Wednesday, I came to the end of a very long political journey when I took a group of sixth formers from my constituency to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was a cathartic day and a very personal experience, which I think will stay with me for the rest of my life. On reflection, there were many lessons to learn about that journey but one thing was more pertinent than anything else in my discussions with those sixth formers-they wondered how we had let that tyranny and oppression come to fruition.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the holocaust in his speech, and I realise that some hon. Members might think it too much of a stretch to relate that situation to this one, so let me give another example. My maternal grandfather gave me many things, including a love of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, a mischievous sense of humour and a very personal story that strongly resonates with me to this day. At a time of partition in northern India, he stood against a mob who were determined to burn out their Muslim neighbours. They said, "We will go from house to house and there will be no mercy." Those words have rung very loud in my ears over the past few days because they bring home what is right and what is wrong. To my pride, my maternal grandfather stood against the mob and said, "If anyone attacks this house, it will be an attack on my household," and to this day that Muslim family is still in that village.

I have referred specifically to some personal issues and other right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted how difficult this issue is. I know that there might be charges of hypocrisy and that people are asking why we are choosing Libya and not Bahrain, why we are not addressing the situation in Yemen and why we are choosing to act in this specific situation, but we can only deal with the situation as it is presented to us. Colonel Gaddafi has shown that he is prepared to use his own people as human shields. He is prepared to go from door to door and show no mercy. I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is absolutely necessary to do the right thing.

The choice is simple and stark and has been laid out eloquently both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The choice, as in the terms of this motion, is to do something or to do nothing and I for one think that we do the right thing by acting. “

This is the point made time and time again in debate and appropriate moment to cover the words of the Prime Minister who formally moved the motion that

That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.

The Prime Minister explained that the purpose of allied bombardment was to create a no Fly zone and to protect civilians from immediate attack by the regime and that in both instances the action had been initially successful.

The Prime Minister reminded that the terms of the United Nations resolution, and which he, together with the President’s of the United States and France had advised Gaddafi and his regime were not negotiable, was an immediate ceasefire which the regime had said they had implemented twice while continuing to behave to the contrary; that regime forces (troops, mercenaries and armed civilians with heavy weaponry) should stop attacking the city of Benghazi, and this objective had been met in greater part, and thirdly “ he should pull his forces back from the Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah. He had to establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas, and he had to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Libya.”

It is in relation to third objective that in my assessment is that the greatest difficulty arises without either the use of ground troops or the enhancement of the fighting ability of those Libyans who appreciate that without their action a sustainable outcome is unlikely as the continuing evidence is that attacks are continuing causing the deaths of civilians as well as armed individuals defending.

The Prime Minister attempted to give many Members the opportunity to ask questions with him directly thereby covering most of the issues raised in the rest of the debate with the first intervention was by Angus Robertson (Moray SNP) who prefaced his question by saying, as did a succession of Members that his difficulty in supporting previous International Operations was the failure to secure the mandate of the United Nations, while others mentioned the Legal aspect, and many the important of the request and ongoing support of the Arab League of Nations and that because of this there was need to stick closely to the terms of the United Nations resolution and avoid any expansion of the mission. Confirming with Tony Lloyd that any action was limited by the terms of resolution and legal advice on its meaning. In his Speech Bob Ainsworth, Coventry East Labour said he only supported because of the United Nations resolution and international involvement. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife Ld explained in his speech that he supported the action where he had not that in Iraq because of the UN resolution

This however also raises the issue of the meaning of the resolution, especially the phrase, “in the taking of all necessary measures “and that there would be no military occupation; It could be argued that these words do not exclude the use of servicemen to recover members of the airforce if their planes are shot down or get it into mechanical difficulties, a question posed by Dan Byles (North Warwickshire Con) which the Prime Minister evaded but not the Government Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde who confirmed this was possible in response to an intervention from Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon.

Some Members and the media demanded to know who is in charge, who gives orders and identifies targets etc, especially when the United States gives up its present organising role. David Lammy Tottenham Labour asked if it would be NATO knowing full well that that there is dissent within NATO about doing this from Germany and Turkey. I think the approach of Turkey has hopefully undermined their prospects of becoming a full member of the EC. I would like to see a new grouping of countries covering Turkey and other Muslim countries on Europe’s borders which developed commercial relationships but excluded rights to live and work.

There are other circumstances when I believe select forces could be used on the ground which it is perhaps not appropriate to discuss and I noted that the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Minister have been careful not to discuss. Concerns about this issues was expressed by Ronnie Campbell.

Arising from apparent confusion earlier in the day between various statements about whether it is legitimate to attempt to remove Gaddafi by use of the coalition force and the question of regime change, the Prime Minister, as has the USA President subsequently, emphasised that while his removal and the replacement of the regime was desirable and the sooner the better, it was not the purpose of the UN resolution. He affirmed this in answer to a question from Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford on Avon Cons) However Toby Perkins Chesterfield Labour expressed the view of the majority that without the removal of Gaddafi, his sons and others it was difficult to foresee that the safety of civilians will be secured long term.

This was a point which struck me when viewing those picture of women and children camping down for the night within the central compound. Given the risks of malfunctioning ordinance and misdirected ordinance, it is the heights of irresponsibility not to take all reasonable measures to remove civilians from proximity to targets and should provide visual evidence for the International Criminal Court Trials when they occur. He therefore agreed with Bob Russell (Colchester LD) that those who carried out the attacks on civilians could and would find themselves in front of the International Criminal Court and he urged that they put down their weapons, walked away from their tanks and stopped obeying orders from the regime. Matthew Offord Hendon Cons also raised the issue fo the use of human shields by Gaddafi with the Opposition Leader.

Barry Gardiner Brent North Lab also reminded that Gaddafi’s infamy had along history when he said

“Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major's Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action

There is a similar concern about the position of Journalists who accepted the invitation to visit Tripoli and who are the subject of threats and harassment and their potential use as human shields, a point raised by Mark Prichard, Wrekin Con, and which drew praise for their courage by the Prime Minister. Concern about Gaddafi’s use of mustard gas was expressed by Robert Halfon Harlow Cons. Mr Cameron shared this concern

An issues which several members raised in the debate was how far the coalition could and should assist the rebels in getting rid of the regime. Mr Baron wanted to know the view of the Opposition Leader if after all the work of the coalition Mr Gaddafi remained in place. Mr Miliband made the point that concerns about what several Members referred to as the end game had also been raised in the debate led by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in relation to the intervention in relation to Kosovo in 1999. The answer is that we had to do the right thing and respond to circumstances as they developed. Sir Menzies Campbell North East Fife LD paid tribute to the lead taken by Tony Blair who in 1999 first raised the doctrine of the duty to protect in a speech made in Chicago.


The opposition leader was also cautious when Nadim Zahawi, Stratford upon Avon Con raised the issue of recognising the rebel regime (although at the time of writing what has been described as an interim government has been formed with a Prime Minister and which may make recognition easier. Later still this was changed again to an Interim Council because of the wish to avoid suggestions of a divided Libya and the need to have one country with Libya its capital.

The Euro sceptic Bill Cash asked Opposition Leader Edward Miliband if the UN Resolution enabled arms to be provided the insurgents and he responded as had the Prime Minister in a previous exchange that we had to be cautious and stick closely to the UN mandate, especially as we are helping to enforce the restrictions imposed upon the Gaddafi regime. This led to the only party political intervention of the six hour debate by Robert Halfon who raised the relationship which had developed between the Labour Government and the regime after the Tony Blair initiative on behalf of the Western and other interests to successfully secure his move from obtaining weapons of destruction. There was also a follow up to the issue of the extent and nature of the intervention possible raised by John Redwood Wokingham Cons, to which the Opposition Leader said the nature of the regime and the wording of the resolution enabled appropriate and proportionate intervention, Sir Malcolm Rifkind was more specific in his six minutes contribution and wanted arms to be provided the what is now the Interim Government in order to get rid of the Gaddafi regime. He also emphasised that it was up to the Libyans to determine their future once the Gaddafi regime ended.

The Prime Minister continued that the UK was part of a coalition with wide support and that it was essential this support was maintained. He advised that Spain was involved with the use of four fighters, a tanker aircraft, a surveillance aircraft and an F100 Frigate; Canada was committing six air defence aircraft and a naval vessel; Norway and Demark were committing a total of ten aircraft; Belgium had offered air Defence aircraft; Italy has opened bases one of which is being used by the UK and Greece has also offered bases.

He agreed with Joan Ruddock, (Lewisham Deptford Labour) and who before coming to Westminster was a chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that the Arab League would remain an important part of decision making. ( she also raised with Mr Miliband the language that had been used in the headlines of some newspapers, a subject dealt with eloquently and thoughtfully in the speech by Rory Stewart.

While a strongly endorsing the action and supporting the framework provided by the Government, in his important speech The Opposition Leader, Mr Miliband also pressed the Prime Minister to ensure the ongoing support of the Arab League. Clive Efford Labour Eltham agreed with the Opposition on the importance of a collective approach internationally. At Prime Minister’s Question time the Prime Minister thanked the Opposition Leader for his contribution to the debate and support for the action being taken. Graham Stuart Beverley and Holderness Con suggested that in future action taken to protect would have to be first sanctioned by the UN Mr Miliband said that while International agreement was important decisions by individual government would need to be taken on a case by case basis.

An issue which has dominated much of the media since the action commenced is how will success be determined and at what point will it be possible to withdraw from intervention. This issues was raised by Emily Thornbury. The Prime Minister, understandably in my view, could not confirm that as a consequence of the initial success todate of the aerial bombardment it would immediately end or when it would end because of the need to meet the requirements of the UN in response to an intervention from (Elfyn Llwyd -Dwyfor Meironethnydd PC). Mr Denis Skinner of Bolsover who I call opposition man in that whatever any government does irrespective of party he can do not other that voice criticism and dissent, asked when will we know it is over, to which I shouted out at the screen when it is and while others then said this in the debate, the point he made is valid.

Andrew George asked the Opposition Leader how he would define successful outcome to which he also drew attention to the wording of the UN resolution and to the role of the British government. I liked the contribution from Jeffrey M Donaldson Lagan Valley DUP when he referred to the film the King’s Speech and said “When Chamberlain announced that Britain was at war with Germany, it struck me that it was a recognition that appeasement had not worked, but no one at that time knew the outcome of the decision to go to war. Very often, that is the case with war: one simply does not know what the outcome will be.”

The need for a clarity of purpose was made by Bernard Jenkins who I once enjoyed a social services seminar when he was a Shadow Minister several decades ago. The Member for Harwich and North Essex Con reminded of the words of Karl von Clausewitz

“Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members
should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that

"no one starts a war-or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so-without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."

We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again:

"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."

I was also interested by the contribution from Jo Swinson East Dumbartonshire LD because she was one of several members expected to opposed the action who did not. She mentioned that

“Eight years ago, this House discussed intervention in Iraq. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. Instead, I was marching on the streets of Glasgow to protest against that war, along with more than 1 million other people across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret not only the UK's role in Iraq but the legacy that it has left for UK foreign policy. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) so eloquently pointed out, it has undoubtedly made the role of our diplomats much harder in their negotiations with other countries around the world. It has undermined much of what they do. It has also, understandably, made the Government and the British public more sensitive about any UK military action, even when it has United Nations support. “

She went onto say

Not acting is not a neutral position, as there are huge risks in inaction, too, not least the bloodbath in Benghazi. Indeed, in Gaddafi's own words, we have heard exactly what would happen. He said that he would show no mercy, and that he would track the fighters down

"and search for them, alley by alley, road by road",

And house by house. In making that broadcast on Libyan media, he made it clear that his aim was to terrorise his own people and make them cower in submission. As I said last week in Prime Minister's questions, we must consider the risk of the message that we would send other oppressive regimes around the world-that they could do whatever they liked, and that under no circumstances would the international community act. In what other circumstances would we act? In this situation, there is regional consensus, there is public demand for action, and there is a clear legal position. If we did not act in this circumstance, in what circumstance would we act? “

Another who could have expected to have opposed the intervention was the Labour critic of Blair and his intervention in Iraq, the former late night sofa commentator with Michael Portillo and Andrew Neil, Ms Diane Abbot Hackney North and Stole Newington Lab said

“I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight, partly because I genuinely believe that only swift action at the weekend avoided a bloodbath in Benghazi, and partly because I am convinced that we have a solid legal basis for the military action. That has not always been the case.

However, the Government would be wrong to take this evening's vote as some sort of blank cheque. I point to the unsettling lack of real Arab involvement in the deployment so far. We know that the Arab League countries have plenty of military kit because we sold them most of it. Why is it not being deployed? Why are not senior Arab military people involved in the deployment? “

She also said

“Let me remind the House of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State who tried to argue against Iraq with his colleagues Bush and Cheney. He reminded them of the Pottery Barn rule. Pottery Barn is a chain in America that sells china. The rule is, "You break it, you own it". If we intervene with a massive military deployment in north Africa, we will inevitably own the development of the story from here.”

Another Labour Member Andy Slaughter Hammersmith brought his recent experience of visiting Egypt. He said

“I returned last night from a visit to Egypt, where I had the privilege of seeing Egyptian democracy in action. On Saturday, that country voted in a referendum on the amendment to its constitution. From visiting polling stations, I can say that what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech is quite correct. It is a fine example of a new democracy, from the enthusiastic queues to the independent scrutiny by the judiciary of the polling process.


I also had the opportunity to talk to people at all levels about the wider implications of the Egyptian revolution for the middle east, including Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. I talked not only to the interim Government and to Amr Moussa, but to the opposition forces, from the youth coalition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one person or group to whom I spoke was opposed to the letter of the UN resolution, which is perhaps unsurprising given the empathy of the people in Tahrir square for the people of Benghazi.”

Before coming to the House today, I met Arab Muslim community leaders to take their views. They, too, were broadly in favour, but they expressed views that ranged from, "We should do anything necessary to get rid of Gaddafi"-one can understand why Libyans living in Britain take that view-to, "We are already exceeding the limits of the resolution," in the sentiments that Amr Moussa has expressed.

In the brief time available, I should like to develop those caveats. First, the basic picture shows western planes bombing a Muslim Arab country and killing people, including civilians. That is why it is so important to get the support of the wider Muslim and Arab community. I hope we have done that through the Arab League resolutions.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North Labour) who had attempted to get an amending motion debated drew attention to the decision of the Chinese government to convene a special meeting of the UN security Council and that India and others were questioning the action taken and wanted to know what was the continuing objective in this changed situation. In response The Prime Minister made the point that China, India and Russia had chosen to abstain and not use their veto and in response to amendment which had been tabled and a point of Order intervention of David Winnick (Walsall North Lab) as to why the vote was taking place after UK involvement and nor before that it was the urgency of the situation that had enable the UN resolution to be passed and the need for coordination action between the coalition and UK mission implementation on the Saturday, prevented the immediate holding of the voting debated. I suspect an important factor was the disclosed position of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Government Coalition Partner which enabled the undertaking of action prior to the voting debate. He agreed with Graham Stringer, Blackley and Broughton Lab that the situation should be reported on a regular basis to the House. This issues was also raised with the Opposition Leader who agreed as did the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary from their sedentary positions.

In response to John Baron, Basildon and Billericay Mr Cameron explained that only the USA, France and the UK possessed the operational ability to immediately intervene in accord with the UN Resolution and that the others mentioned including the Arab states would take time before being ready or help in other ways including logistics and funding.

Because of the situations their countries, I believe it is right for neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt not to have a direct military involvement given their role in taking refugees from Libya, the likelihood that Gaddafi would have used his available weaponry on the closest coalition allies if given the opportunity, and the potential role of these two countries and others to provide UN Peace keepers and help in the reconstruction of the country if requested by whatever regime comes to replace that of Gaddafi.

Mr Cameron was able to give a categorical assurance to the other author of the amendment John McDonnell that the government did not use weapons which involved depleted uranium and would not use them. And in response to Dal Havard Merthyr Tydfil LD the Prime Minister emphasised the including of the arms embargo and that a number of countries were assisting in the inspection of ships arriving in Libya to prevent the arrival of any weaponry.

It was in response to the question from Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion Green) that the Prime Minister gave what I regard as the most important commitment about translating words about the future into position action in that he emphasised that the decision had already been taken to immediate review government policy on approving licences to export military equipment. This subject was also raised with Mr Miliband by Jeremy Corbyn referring to Saudi Arabia, the Congo and the Ivory Coast as well as the Yemen and Bahrain. And supported what the Prime Minister had already said on the issue. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party and Brighton Pavilion also reminded of recent political and commercial dealings with Gaddafi and other regimes in the region. She said

“In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds' worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX-international defence exhibition-arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today-the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east-will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes“

Also reminding of recent and previous dealings was David Lammy Tottenham Lab

Clearly, all war is evil, and we should remember that when we talk about the business of war. But some evil is necessary. In reflecting on the vote tonight, we should bear that in mind. Some of the language in our media over the past few days has left me cold. It is indicative of a country that has not experienced bombing for well over 60 years, but for those who are poor and who see bombs raining on their country from up above, with necessary supplies disrupted and real fear in their heart, the urgency and seriousness of what we are talking about is very great indeed.

In reflecting on how to vote, I think of how this all began on 17 December 2010 with one man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who burned himself to death because of the oppression he saw and experienced in Tunisia. That set off a wave of activity across the middle east. In supporting this, we line up with him and with the young people of the region--the 29% of the population aged between 15 and 29 who have had enough. They are educated, too often unemployed, and concerned about an ossifying political system that does not seem to relate to their experience. They want to do something about the dictators and the lack of democracy across the region. That is the test. Those are the people we support, despite the UN resolution that is the subject of today's motion. In doing so, we should recognise the changed circumstances in which we have such a debate and the kind of scrutiny that is expected of us.

Any action taken must clearly be proportionate. We must be mindful of the fact that the British public at large do not expect there to be large-scale civilian death as a result of our action. Any action must be proportionate and multilateral. This generation is mindful of the imperial past of our country and those countries that are part of the allied effort. That is important. That is why the multilateral approach is the right one. Against that backdrop, it is concerning that the Arab League, although it is prayed in aid, seems neither present, nor wholly behind what is happening. It is concerning that the African Union, too, clearly wants to disassociate itself from the bombing of Libya. How are we to present a multilateral force if those two major players are not part of it?

The generation of young people on the streets in the middle east, who are in communication with their generation in this country, ask two other major questions. First, what are the criteria by which we intervene? Why not Darfur or Zimbabwe? What is our position on Yemen and Bahrain? Is there consistency when we intervene? They are entitled to some answers on the new and changed circumstances t particularly in the context in which we are talking not about being invaded ourselves, but about intervention that is perhaps necessary in this new age. Secondly, that generation also asks for some consistency, integrity and principles in the UK's position on arms. Just as we have taken noble positions on nuclear proliferation, the time has come not just for another review, but for statutory implementation on arms. We must ask ourselves why in the last year for which figures are available Europe spent €343 million arming Libya, involving companies from the UK, Italy, Germany and France. It was unacceptable when my party was in government, and it is unacceptable now. “

Conservative Geoffrey Clinton- Brown representing the Cotswolds asked about reconstruction after the conflict was brought to an end and the importance of involving the Arab League. The Prime Minister said that the International Development Minister was leading cross government preparations for any humanitarian matters arising in the context of action taken by the UN and the EU. Sam Gyimah, East Surrey Cons wanted assurance that any form of humanitarian disaster could be met, Mr Cameron said the priority was to minimise civilian casualties.

There were several interventions during the debate about the need to review the Defence budget in the light of cost of the British involvement and the need to deploy ships and planes. The Prime Minister attempted to forestall the issue by drawing attention that even after the recent review and it implementation the British Defence budget will remain the fourth largest in the world. Dr Julian Lew New Forest Con, asked Mr Miliband about the costs of involvement and in his Budget Speech two days later the Chancellor confirmed the any costs would come from the government reserve.

As I have already indicated by highlighting the contribution of the important aspect of British and United Nations Development is the implications for future relationships with the Muslim and Arab worlds and the issue of why Libya and why not Yemen or Bahrain. Andrew George, St Ives LD, asked about the Yemen. David Winnick also asked about the Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia

The Prime Minister hoped dictators would take note of the UN intervention in response to a question from Angus Brendan MacNeil, Na h-Elleanan an Iar SNP. Keith Vaz Leicester East Lab asked the Opposition Leader if consideration was being given to intervention in the Yemen. Mr Miliband agreed with the Prime Minister that because we did not intervene in every instance this did not mean should never intervene. Graham Stringer Blackley and Broughton said he would be happy if criteria for intervention could be agreed in advance. Mr Miliband agreed saying it was a matter for the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.

Mr Brendan MacNell suggested to Mr Miliband that we had reached a watershed moment and he replied that it was too early to judge but he hoped it would be an important step collective action

One Member hoped for outcome of any regime change is closing the case of the death of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and the provision of ordinance to the IRA in Northern Ireland, a point raised by Daniel Kawczynski Shrewsbury and Atcham Cons and where the Prime Minister agreed.

Yvonne Fletcher was also mentioned by David Morris of Morecombe and Lumsdale Con, who also told the story of a friend

“Let me tell the House a story of which I have personal knowledge. A good friend of mine who was a radio officer on a ship jumped off it into the ocean when he saw a British destroyer come past. The military on the ship from which he jumped threw grenades at him, one of which hit him but bounced off and, thankfully, did not explode. He swam for his life, and our boys pulled him out of the sea. He came to this country, and was thankful for that. He has been here for nearly 30 years. Just think of that. Let me tell the House something else. When the students were bombing Manchester in the 1980s, that man lied to everyone that he was Italian, because he was in fear of his life. That is the kind of regime that we are discussing today, and the kind of regime that we want to sort out once and for all. “

My summary would be unfairly biased without including additional references to those who had made up their minds against the action before the debate and were not to be influenced by it. Jeremy Corbin did raise several concerns which I share

However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.

When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many Palestinian Diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt-all over the region-want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.

We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.

We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.

Stephen Gilbert St Austell and Newquay LD who shared the analysis of Mr Corbyn reached a different conclusion

There is no such thing as a good war, but there could be such a thing as a just war. My grandfather fought Nazism in the very desert over which our planes are now flying, and he was right to do so. In standing up to this brutal warlord using our capabilities to protect civilians, we are doing the right thing today.

There are, however, lessons to learn. For too long, it has been common to assume that people in north Africa and the middle east live under dictatorships and repressive regimes because they in some way choose to do so. Over the last few months, we have seen the end of the myth of Arab exceptionalism and an unprecedented grasp for freedom by people who no longer want to live under tyranny and in fear.

This is not the end of regimes in Libya and elsewhere that cling to power without the consent of their people, but it is doubtless the beginning of the end for them. Thousands of brave souls have been prepared to stand up and to lose their lives for things that we take for granted, such as the right to speak our minds, to meet with whom we choose and to vote for a political party of our choice. It is therefore right to stand with those people in their struggle.”

While many speakers referred to our historical legacy and that in Iraq and Afghanistan the positive aspect of British involvement should not be neglected. Dr Phillip Lee Bracknell Con ended his contribution thus

“ I want to share with the House a short anecdote. I was in Syria two or three weeks ago as part of a delegation. I went to the British Council and met some students who had had the opportunity provided by the British Council to learn English. My colleagues and I asked a series of questions about Egypt and Libya. Initially cautious, the students began to open up. At the end of the meeting, one of the students said, in answer to how he viewed the British Council, "It is my bubble of oxygen. It is my opportunity to express myself." That stays with me. It is why I am happy to support the motion. But if we are to be consistent and coherent and to have the respect of the middle east, we need to start looking at our dependence upon oil and gas. Unless we do so, we will be having these debates over and over again.”

As I approach the end of this marathon consideration of the debate the contribution of David Winnick revealed the motivation of the Prime Minister David Winnick, the only Member of the House of Commons with whom I had contact when forty years ago when I was the Parliamentary officer for the Association of Child Care officers and he was the Member for Croydon where I was born, and where he is also the holder of a Diploma in Public and Social Administration, in his instance from the LSE. He has remained a strong a advocate of human rights and although a man of peace by nature he also supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to bring about regime change. He also expressed his horror at the Member’s expenses scandal and was involved the departure of Speaker Michael Martin. It is therefore not surprising that the Prime Minister not only listened to his contribution but took the unprecedented step of intervening in the speech and in doing so provide insight into what has motivated him on this matter. Mr Winnick had said

“ Let us look at the situation from the Arab point of view. In Yemen, the regime slaughtered 45 people last week. They were protesting. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia there is repression, and of course Saudi Arabia actually took military action to intervene in Bahrain. Has anyone suggested that we should intervene against Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Even if repression grew in Saudi Arabia itself, or in Bahrain, one thing would be absolutely certain: the British Government would not draft a resolution with the United States to put before the Security Council of the United Nations. We know that.

It is interesting that every time we go to intervene somewhere there is a reference to the occupied territories: "We are going to do what we can for the Palestinians." Yet the position of the Palestinians remains the same: more than 40 years of occupation, humiliating conditions, the wall, the deprivation of liberty, and the rest. Has there been any change as far as the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories goes? Not at all, but Prime Ministers-not just this one-always refer to it. I do not doubt their sincerity, but it is interesting as far as the occupied territories and the United States' support for this current military action are concerned.

Only a few weeks ago, a resolution-
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Yes, indeed.
Only a few weeks ago, a resolution passed by the United Nations, including the British Government, was vetoed by the United States. A moderate resolution, protesting against the illegal settlements, was vetoed.
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Winnick: Of course. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister:

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I am listening to very carefully. He asks us to see the situation from an Arab point of view, but does he accept something that was put very forcefully to me at a public meeting in Qatar; namely,

"You intervened in Iraq because it was about your security. Don't you see that in Libya this is about our aspiration, our democracy, our freedom? Isn't it time that actually you paid some attention to those things?"?

Was not that the Arab street speaking, and not just Arab Governments? Is not that something we should listen to?

Mr Winnick: Yes. I take the point the Prime Minister makes, but at the same time what about the lack of freedom-the repression-in the other countries that I have mentioned? It is not just Libya. Yes, I concede the point-I have said so-that Gaddafi's regime is so tyrannical, so bloody against its own people, and there was the arming of the IRA, Lockerbie and the rest of it. Gaddafi was up to his neck in Lockerbie, as well as in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I have no illusions on that score; all I am saying is that, from the Arab point of view, they do not quite see the situation as we and, to some extent, I do as a citizen of the United Kingdom.

I have many reservations. I must confess that I am debating with myself. I do not often do so, but I do not see any reason why I should not. [ Interruption. ] I do not recommend it. I may be somewhat introverted as a personality, but I do not recommend debating with oneself. The debate I am having is whether I should vote against the motion, because I cannot vote with the
Government. I will make up my mind, not because it is the Government's motion but because of the reservations I have expressed. Having expressed those reservations, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to vote for the motion, if there is a vote tonight-there may not be. If there is a vote, I am debating whether I should abstain or vote against the motion, and I will make up my mind.

I simply say this in conclusion: the action has been taken and we are in, but I hope it is going to be very short. Reference was made to mission creep. I hope we are not going to get involved in the same way as we did in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are out of Iraq, most people want to see the end of British military involvement in Afghanistan and they certainly do not want a new, long war. That is why I hope so very much that it will be very short indeed. The sooner it ends, the better, because I do not believe, at the end of the day, that it is in the interests of Libya or the United Kingdom.”

Before the vote at 10pm Mr Douglas Alexander Paisley and Reffrewshire Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister ended the debate for the Opposition. He began by saying

I believe that this debate has done justice to the seriousness of the motion before the House this evening. The House has benefited from speeches reflecting the huge experience, knowledge and concern that hon. Members bring to this debate and this decision. We heard cogent cases made by former Defence Secretaries on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke with wisdom and authority in expressing his reluctance to put British forces in harm's way once again. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke with his characteristic clarity and insight on the importance of the United Nations. His insight was matched by one of his old sparring partners, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who rightly urged that consideration be given now to issues of reconstruction.”

Giving recognition to the concerns of several members he also said

“I believe that it is the duty of the Government to act on what they judge to be the national interest, and that it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they agree in that judgment. Concerned voices in this House-such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)-are not only appropriate to this place;
they are appropriate to this debate. Let me therefore acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Opposition recognise the heavy responsibility that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have to bear in these difficult days. “

He then touched on why it was desirable as well as necessary to intervene.

“We will support the Government tonight not simply because it was vital to avoid what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife warned would be the "slaughterhouse of Benghazi". The impact of that decision-the decision we take tonight-will be felt not only in Tripoli but in other capitals across the region and across the world. I believe that for the United Nations, this now represents a test of faith as well as of strength. In the face of the global challenges we face, we need strong and effective multilateral institutions, so the United Nations should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action.

The lasting shame of Rwanda, Somalia, Srebrenica and East Timor cannot, of course, be removed in one Security Council resolution, but this resolution can give new life to the doctrine that developed in response to those failures-the responsibility to protect. That should not hide the fact that military action almost always leads to the loss of life, but it should give us courage that the motion tabled today reflects the broadest consensus of international views, approved by the highest multilateral body. If we believe in a responsibility to protect, if we believe that multilateral institutions should be used for the protection of civilian life, discussion should be followed by decision and by action.

Many Members from both sides of the House have mentioned the situations in Bahrain and in Yemen, which are both deeply concerning and deteriorating. Notwithstanding its historical ties, Britain must be unequivocal in its condemnation of the violence, and must make it clear to both the Bahraini and the Yemeni Governments that a security response cannot be an alternative to political reform. “

He concluded

The commencement of military action should not be a signal that the time for diplomacy is over. This crisis will test not just our military strength, but our diplomatic skill and stamina. It is vital that the diplomatic work continues to hold together this precious coalition. I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement
of regular political- level meetings of the coalition, and I would welcome a clear and continuing role for the Arab League.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to update the House on the work that is being done to sustain support in the region, to increase pressure on the countries that have allowed their citizens to become mercenaries in Libya, and to sustain non-military pressure on the regime. Our commitment to Libya's future, through our membership of the European Union, must be serious and long-term. The whole House will wish to know what work is under way on contingency planning for post-conflict reconstruction. What are the structures equal to this immense task, who will lead the work, and how will the House be assured that this vital work is being done? We should also bear in mind that Britain needs to be working, now, on a trade, aid and civil society response in case the Libyan people choose a new future.

The House has the privilege of discussion, but it also has the responsibility of decision. All of us who will support and stand with the Government tonight must have the humility to acknowledge that, at this moment of decision, we cannot say for certain what lies ahead. Intervention, even in support of humanitarian ends, brings with it unforeseen and uncertain consequences, but by our decision tonight we will be supporting action that has already prevented the foreseeable and certain killing of many Libyan citizens. We will also be supporting action that has broad support in the region and is underpinned by a Security Council resolution that authorises the necessary force required to protect the Libyan people.

We have a legal, political and moral mandate to act to protect civilian life. That is the international community's responsibility, that should be Britain's choice, and so that must be the House's decision. I urge all Members to support the motion.

It was then left to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague to make the final appeal to the House to vote for the Government motion. Given recent criticism in sections fo the media, including comments that he appeared to have lost appetite for his position he gave a bravura performance and which understandably made no attempt to refer to all the members who contributed.

“We have heard 50 speeches tonight, and I have listened to the vast majority of them. Every single one has raised proper questions and issues. It will, of course, be impossible to respond to all of them in the 16 minutes that remain, but I will do my best to respond to the general themes and to some of the specific questions “

He referred to recent developments in the region

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), for instance, referred to the dramatic changes that have taken place throughout the region: changes that may already constitute the most important event of the early 21st century-even more important than 9/11 or the 2008 financial crisis-in terms of their possible consequences.

If many of the countries of the middle east turn into stable democracies and more open economies, the gains for our security and prosperity will be enormous. If they do not, the potential breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism will prosper. That is why it is so much in our national interest to address these issues, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have argued that the response of the whole of Europe must be as bold, as ambitious and as historic in its intentions as these events are in their nature. We should be holding out to the countries of the middle east the prospect of free trade, areas of customs union and a new economic area with the European Union. We should be providing it with incentives and acting as a magnet for positive change in that region.

We can be optimistic about the prospects for positive change in many of those countries. In Egypt, the Egyptian army's decision to protect the people kept the spotlight firmly where it was supposed to be-on a Government who had to listen to people's aspirations. In Tunisia, too, after deplorable violence against unarmed protestors, the Government crumbled, accepting the will of the people and beginning a transformation of the political system. The situation in Libya is completely different. In the past three weeks we have heard reports of soldiers being burned alive for refusing to obey orders to crush the protests. We have seen the use of mercenaries to slaughter civilians, the cutting off of food, electricity and medical supplies to population centres and the broadcast of televised threats to purge whole cities and to hunt down people in their homes. Just today, after the announcement of a second ceasefire by the Gaddafi regime, Reuters has reported that Gaddafi's forces fired on a crowd of unarmed people late today in the centre of the city of Misrata. In Ajdabiya, there have been reports of body thefts, with military casualties being made to look like civilian casualties. Al-Jazeera reports that Gaddafi's forces continue to shell the town of Zintan heavily and that they have given residents two hours to surrender or face total execution. That is what passes for a ceasefire according to the Gaddafi regime.

It is against that background that the House has today weighed carefully the arguments that we have presented for and against our military actions. There has been nothing gleeful or gung-ho about the atmosphere in the House and there is nothing gung-ho about the atmosphere in and decisions of the Government. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken today have spoken in support of the Government's actions and the motion, and many explained that they did so with reluctance or regret. The Government have approached this issue with the same sense of gravity.

He referred to the contribution of Rory Stewart who he said

“made a memorable and powerful speech, and I would love to hear the 60-minute version, not the six-minute version. He reminded us that our mission is to protect human beings, and that the temptation to dig ever deeper in all such situations must be resisted. We are conscious of that in the Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, we are seeking to implement the United Nations resolution so that the people of Libya can determine their own future. We will make every effort to maintain and consult our broad coalition, closely consulting the Arab League and working with our NATO partners, including Turkey, as several hon. Members have asked us to do.

Some Members asked what the Arab League intended to say. I spoke to Mr Amr Moussa yesterday afternoon-the Prime Minister spoke to him today-and he made it clear to me that he did not mean to criticise the mission, and he supports the UN resolution and its enforcement. Others have asked if our approach is part of a wider approach to the region and a commitment to the middle east peace process; it certainly is. They asked whether we will make conflict prevention central to our policy; yes, of course we do, as we have shown recently in Sudan. They asked whether we will plan for different scenarios, including humanitarian assistance when it is necessary; yes, we certainly are doing so.

He ended

With our allies and partners, we have carried through the United Nations Security Council a resolution that is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive, and that leaves the legality of what we are now doing not in the slightest doubt. We have acted at the behest of the Arab League, and are joined by Arab nations. We have taken every care to ensure that doubts about lawfulness and regional support, such as those that have dogged earlier decisions, do not apply in this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said, we are right to act but right not to act alone.

This is not the west imposing its views on Libya; it is the world saying that the people of Libya should be allowed to express their views without their Government setting out to slaughter them. We are not trying to choose the future Government of Libya. That is a matter for Libyans, who must find their own solution to the mis-government that they have been subjected to, but this resolution, and our enforcement of it, gives them their only chance of being allowed to do so. This is not a legal fudge or a questionable interpretation of international law; it is the rigorous application of international law. Our actions are all the stronger for the breadth and determination of the international coalition, but they are also stronger for the breadth and determination of this House, which we have seen today.

The brave members of our armed forces who have patrolled the skies above Benghazi today or flown through the night to destroy the air defences of a regime that used air power against its own citizens can know that they do so armed not only with the weaponry that they are so well trained to deploy but with every advantage of knowing that what they do is legally warranted, morally necessary, internationally supported and, I hope, democratically agreed through a vote of this House of Commons. They can have the satisfaction of knowing that, in precipitating the retreat of Gaddafi's forces from Benghazi, they have already averted a catastrophe and a new outpouring of human misery. In pressing our case at the United Nations, in insisting that what we do must be legal, in taking extreme care to protect civilians and in acting with a speed and precision that few armed forces on Earth can rival, this country is doing what it said it would do, doing what it absolutely right and joining in giving a lead to the world, and it should enjoy the united support of the House tonight.

21 Mar 2011 : Column 802
Question put .

The House divided: Ayes 557, Noes 13.
Division No. 235]

But the last words should go to Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, The Cotswolds Con, or more accurately Edmund Burke

I end with a quotation that has been used by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), but which is apposite. As a former Member of this House, Edmund Burke, said to his electors in Bristol, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It would be very wrong for us to do nothing in this case.

Mr Donaldson who I have already quoted said

“It is often said that for evil to flourish all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing, but doing nothing was not an option for the Government and the international community in this case. “