Twitter Cabinet – A new forum for debate on the social network

The appearance of a “Twitter Cabinet” has taken the popular social networking site by storm. It’s a fantasy that I have long had, but thought un-do-able. But, to my delight, I have been proved wrong.

The concept is an attractive one. A bunch of political tweeters get together, and regardless of policy, form a Government and an Opposition. The non-party alignment idea is to encourage debate, rather than party political ‘yaaboo’ insults throwing and blind following. It is important to the founders, and of course to me, that this debate forum inspires thought and policy, rather than following the real Government and Opposition.

However the dream was lost. After looking from afar at how Twiter Cabinet was developing, I was appointed to Minister for Northern Ireland. Soon after my Secretary of State and I agreed policies. But, alas, once those that get power have it, they become those they despise.

Twitter Cabinet has fallen about into childish infighting, squabbling over titles and jobs, and, frankly, a joke, to be made fun of and belly-laughed at by those who have not included themselves in this experiment. It is time for that to end.

Tonight there has been a shocking development. I resigned from government in protest at the turmoil and infighting. I had time to watch the Ten O’clock news before all hell broke loose. A leadership challenge. Naturally, I threw my hat in the ring. Why? Simple.

This “Government” has collapsed. But more than that, the idea of Twitter Cabinet is at great risk of being lost. It was supposed to be all about debate. So I propose:-

• Two new all member debates per week. Cabinet ministers may also submit policy ideas for government backing, which will then be voted on by the government as to if we should take the policy up.
• Ministers and Shadow Ministers must show healthy discourse in their fields. Interesting debates should be posted on site.
• Misgivings about government policy will be brought to me or DPM. Dissenters to collective responsibility will be reprimanded.

We must remember. This is a reasoned, enlightened, grown up debate. Not a free for all. So why not support me to lead the Twitter Government Cabinet? The current administration has failed. The Prime Minister has lost credibility, and has failed in the aim of Twitter Cabinet. Let’s have a new start to see if we can make Twitter Cabinet work. A social networking policy and debate forum, not to be laughed at, but to be respected and listened to.

A vacuous bunch of liars, ne’er-do-wells and silly little boys

So, Parliament has risen for the first time since the election this week. Labour MP’s go home as the opposition and Tory and Lib Dems return to their constituencies for the summer, leaving the Government side of the house empty. However this does not mean, thankfully, an end to politics for the summer. The Labour Leadership contest is still going on, and more political chatter has been ignited by Cameron’s India trip, where he demonstrated his new “frank” foreign policy, and the BBC documentary ‘Five days that changed Britain’.

Many welcomed Cameron and Hague’s plan, revealed this week, to establish a new special relationship with India. He was to take a huge delegation of Cabinet Ministers and business leaders to India in order to impress, but also to flatter the Indians into thinking Britain cared immensely about our country’s historic, cultural, and of course economic ties, which of course we should do. Many, including Labour supporters, decry the fact that the Labour Government did not show more effort in engaging with India. Once the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire, India is now a crown all on its own. Its rising global prominence is not to be ignored. Rapidly developing global powerhouses like India, or in fact Brazil, should no longer be considered as the second rung of the global political economic strata, or pretenders to the throne, but rather countries whose international importance cannot be questioned.

It is not this tactic of engagement that I deplore, but the “frank” approach which Cameron now seems, in a moment of panic and cover-up, to have labelled his foreign policy strategy. First visiting Turkey, Cameron made the first of his mistakes in sucking up to his host and insult their enemies with snooty nosed dismissal. It is as yet unknown whether Cameron intended to go to Turkey and employ the ‘cushion method’ of international relations, or if it just happened. No one, and certainly not I, would disagree with the sentiment of Gaza being a prison camp, and Israel’s lack of scruples when it comes to the blockade. However there are ways of saying things, and standing in Turkey and insulting Israel is never one of the best.

On to India, and Cameron goes on to accuse Pakistan of “looking both ways” in relation to the prevention of terrorism and relations with India, and accusation quickly rebuked in a rare move for Pakistan. All this came after claiming in the US that the UK was very much the junior partner in the much cherished “special relationship”. (Much as it had been in 1940. And there was me thinking Eton was regarded as a high class institution...who teaches History?)

While our beloved leader was on his tour of the world, we were treated here to the leader of the Liberal Democrats (yes, remember them) Nick Clegg, making the king of gaffes in Parliament. Firstly he contradicted the Foreign Secretary William Hague about the pull out date from Afghanistan and was quickly corrected. Then after Jack Straw re-stated that he would answer for his damaging decisions in this coalition at the ballot box, Clegg, clearly lacking a response, came back with the assertion that Jack Straw would have to answer for his involvement in the “illegal Iraq war”.

Oh the box of worms that has now been opened. It was soon affirmed by the speaker that contrary to the Government’s statement that Clegg’s comments were his own, in fact comments made at the dispatch box were and would be taken to be, that of the government. Oops Clegg.

The series of mistakes made by one Mr Gove is well publicised. Now I am informed that he is seeking a new departmental assistant...another one might be able to get it right. I can’t see a rush for that job though, can you? Across the Cabinet table sits Vince Cable, until now he has largely escaped public criticism. Until now. His new proposal of a graduate tax was a surprise. Not only does it go back on Lib Dem (yes that bunch again) proposals on student finance before the election; it wasn’t even Conservative policy, but completely new. It doesn’t matter though; already it looks as abandoned as the principles the Liberals left behind when they chose coalition with Cameron.

Furthermore, yes there’s more, Dr Fox the Secretary of State for Defence has been put on the naughty step and today publicly rebuked by Chancellor Osborne over his pleadings for Trident not be included in the defence budget, but paid for separately. “No”, came the response.

And then there’s the rest. Andrew Lansley is proposing to restructure the NHS at a cost of up to £5-6 Billion, for no apparent reason. Theresa May following in the same vein, proposes a restructure of the police force and the creation of elected Commissioners, again a plan which will take money away from the front line to pay for pointless changes with no proof of rising standards. Jeremy Hunt at the Department for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is under pressure for making heavy hints at reduction of the BBC licence fee, and taking away the Olympic contingency fund. Eric Pickles, Communities and Local Government Minister helped Cameron launch the ‘Big Society’ campaign, or as I like to call it ‘Cover for Cuts’ campaign. And Ken Clarke has lost the key to his red box at the cricket.

It seems to me that the way forward for Labour is clear. Attacking the Lib Dems should no longer be a priority. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun, but after watching the BBC’s ‘Five days that changed Britain’ documentary I was struck by two things. One, is this the fastest an event has been made into history by being made into a documentary, and two, why didn’t I see it before! The truth is this coalition is so natural for Clegg that I don’t understand what took me so long to realise. I’ve never like Nick Clegg, from when he became on MP, then became leader of the Liberal Democrats. You see, have a guilty secret. In my days as a young, carefree teenager, I regarded myself as a Liberal Democrat. I know. The shock, the horror, the shaaaame! Don’t get me wrong, my ideology was the same, I believed then what I believe now. But then, you see, had this misguided belief that the Liberal Democrats were a centre left party. My mistake I know, it has now come to my attention that they are nothing more than rag-tag bunch of assorted discontents that never had the courage to admit they were either a conservative, or a socialist. In Nick Clegg’s case he has proven himself to be a liar, a cheat, and a conservative.

‘The Big Society’, another name for ‘the great abandonment’

David Cameron launched, or re-launched, his Big Society policy today. It pledges, as the name suggests, a new involvement of communities, culture of volunteerism, an age of utopian living, in which we all help, support and care for each other instead of relying on the state. A wonderful thought, but at its base, a lie. The Big Society is little more than a nice name for the impending great abandonment.

Conservative ideology about the size of the state is well known. Thatcher rolled back the state in the 80’s in an attempt to reduce the responsibility government had towards its citizens. Now, under the auspices of deficit reduction, Cameron is aiming to go even further. In just a couple of months a new education policy of ‘free schools’ has taken the place of Labour’s policy to rebuild and renew secondary education. The Building Schools for the Future programme aimed to do what it said on the tin, rebuild shattered, derelict schools which were falling down around pupils struggling to learn. This scheme was halted with the onset of the coalition government. The new Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, announced that the scheme would be scrapped. Let’s be clear, the scheme was the biggest ever school buildings investment programme announced by a government, and promised to make every one of the 3500 secondary schools in the country fit for teachers to teach in, and pupils to learn in. It aimed to rid England of the crumbling schools which were the signature of the last Conservative government. That is what the Secretary of State was stopping (once he could get the list right). Instead, he would spend that money, as well as money from the free school meals budget, on the introduction of the new free schools and academies policy. At best, it is a shameless introduction of the private sector into the state education system, and at worst, the dismantling of state education as we know it.

Next for the shopping block, the NHS. Andrew Lansley has announced “The biggest shakeup of the NHS since its inception”. I don’t know if it was just me, but this statement filled me with terror, maybe the same terror the Prime Minister feels at the prospect of sending his children into the state schooling system, poor kiddie Cameroons, having to learn like normal people. I have posted an earlier blog (below) on the NHS white paper introduced by the new Secretary of State for Health. In the same short evaluation has above about schools, I can sum up the changes in a sentence. At best, shocking introductions of the private sector into the public health sector, at worst, the break up and privatisation of the NHS.

In Liverpool Cameron has announced how he sees the future of the public sector. The Big Society, as I have long warned friends, should not be batted away or ignored as a gimmick. This is serious. As a Labour member and supporter, I am all for the idea of greater community action, more involvement of local people in local services. Much as state retrenchment is the ideology of those on the right, so greater social cohesion and sense of community is of my own social democratic views. But beware, this is not BSF, and it is not what it says on the tin.

The Big Society is little more than a relabeling of Thatcher’s “Rolling back the frontiers of the state”. It is, at its core, and abandonment of local services, people, charities. A friend of mine, also a Labour supporter, has worked tirelessly as a volunteer for years in her local community. She welcomes any attempt by government for more funding and responsibility locally. But she laments this new policy. It is, unfortunately, asking local services to fill the hole left by conservative retrenchment with less funding. All under the guise of furthering the brilliant volunteers, dedicated local service providers and sense of community already alive around us, this government is hiding its true ambition, small state, reduced responsibility, centralised government.

As per, we have seen uncomfortable Liberal Democrat faces, yet they remain next to gleeful conservatives grins. It, once again, falls to the Labour party in opposition, to defend the most vulnerable, protect the poor, and guard the defenceless. Clegg has proved himself to be the wolf in sheep’s clothing any suspected him to be, the Conservative’s take the role of the woodcutter wielding the axe, while the vulnerable Little Red Riding hood, the public, remains blissfully unaware if just how damaging this new alliance will prove to be.

Ryanair - Once you've had cack, you'll never go back

The volcanic ash cloud brought European airspace to a halt this year, much to the annoyance of air passengers and airlines. But through my parents personal experience of Ryanair, I have been propelled into writing this blog in an attempt to help others have have come up against the brick wall of O’Leary’s defiance not to refund customers who were delayed.

Under Regulation (EC) 261/2004, airlines are bound to provide re-imbursement to passengers who have been delayed or had their flight cancelled. There have been a number of different scenarios opened up by the ash cloud. Some passengers have been cared for by their airlines and tour operators; others have met with a stubborn wall of uncooperative resilience, as airlines refuse to pay for accommodation, food, and transport expenses.

The regulations provide that airlines have a duty of care to look after stranded passengers, even if cancellations are due to exceptional circumstances out of their control. This “exceptional circumstances” excuse was the one used on my parents by Ryanair. At the airport, ready to board their flight home, they were informed by the check-in desk that, due to the volcanic ash, the flight had been cancelled. As rules dictate, they were given a sheet of instructions telling them what to do in an even such as this. It told them to find alternate accommodation, keep all receipts for food, accommodation and travel for the duration of the delay, in my parent’s case two days, on when they got home to claim to be reimbursed by Ryanair.

My parents followed these instructions. They returned to the hotel they had been staying in. They kept the receipt for the extra time, the taxi fares between airport and hotel, and, because the alternate flight they had been given was to Birmingham, money to travel from there to Liverpool where their car had been parked. In total, their expenses amount to £250 (alright £248.80, I’m rounding up). They attempted to claim for it, and were sent a letter telling them their claim was being “auctioned”.

Two months later, and a letter from Ryanair telling them that they were not due compensation from them, and to contact their holiday insurer later, my parents are still out of pocket, with no prospect of being reimbursed.

Today, I sent another letter, informing Ryanair of their obligations under Regulation (EC) 261/2004. If you are in the same situation, I advise you to do the same. Included these details in your letter, plus the receipts you have to prove your claim. Let’s see if we can get O’Leary and his reprehensible company to stop avoiding it’s obligations, and pay for the travel, accommodation and food which it’s delayed passengers were forced into paying for themselves.

If you also know of a similar situation, please contact me with details. They may be able to ignore us individually, but together we will be an unavoidable reminder of the terrible way in which they have dealt with this issue.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The EU rules that state that I should have been assisted by yourselves are in Regulation (EC) 261/2004. In this Article 5 states that in the case of cancellation or delay of more than one day I am entitled to be reimbursed or re-routed under Article 8 and also offered assistance, including accommodation, meals and transport under Article 9.

Article 9 states:

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:

(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
— where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary,
or — where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).

2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.

3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.

Under Article 5 part 3, airlines are able to avoid paying compensation in accordance with Article 7 in the case of 'extraordinary circumstances', but this extraordinary circumstances clause does not apply to the entitlement to assistance under Article 9.

__________________________________________________________________________

(See here for more help)

(EU Regulation here)

No spoonful of sugar will help this medicine go down!

We are still only a few weeks into the coalition, and yet so much has been done. Some may laud the coalition for their swift action; however we should also be afraid of the terrible speed at which the government is bringing forward their policies.

This week the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, introduced the government White Paper on the health service. Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS is a near 60 page long document setting out the changes the coalition wants to make to the NHS, as well as some unbearably sloppy language which tries to convince the reader how much the government cares etc.. I skipped this part, no one needs to be told how much the Tories care about the NHS, we know exactly how they feel. Moreover, when I read the important parts of the White Paper, it becomes clear to all that the same old Tory thinking on the NHS is still alive and kicking.

Let me start in my analysis of the White Paper where the White Paper starts with the NHS, by praising it. It is one of the most loved institutions this country has. A Health Service which cares for all, is paid for through general taxation, and is free at the point of use. It provides the people of Britain, and indeed visitors to the UK with the same service, a service that we would struggle to find elsewhere in the world, and one that we are lost without. There has been plenty of criticism of the NHS recently, mainly from conservatives in the US, (and here, thank you Daniel Hannan), following US Health Care Reform promised by President Obama. Because of this, and also because of the global financial crisis and the need to reduce the deficit, we have also seen an extraordinary defense of our National Health Service, and rightly so.

I have used it, as have many others, and so can appreciate it in ways that those who have not, cannot. Many in this country view the health insurance system prevalent in the US, and other countries, with horror. Fortunately, they think quietly, we have our NHS. But, and I hate to be alarmist, that maybe on shaky ground. The White Paper purports to merely cut waste and bureaucracy from the system. But look slightly closer, and it becomes more and more concerning. Privatisation springs to mind immediately, and it worries me.

The document promises that the government will make the NHS accountable to patients, get rid of bureaucracy, and increase spending in real terms year on year. It can't only be me who doesn’t believe this at first glance from this government. Patients will also be in charge of decisions about their care, via a new pledge No decision about me, without me. Lovely little rhyme there, that should make us all feel better. It simply takes ‘the customer is always right’ to a new level. As a customer I will admit freely now, I am not always right, especially when it comes to making medical decisions, and the best way I should be treated. I doubt that this will actually happen. Doctors will make the decision, but now we have a lovely new rhyming policy to make us all feel more involved, which is nice, isn’t it?

The government also promised to abolish targets. Let me be clear. This is a mistake. Getting rid of the A&E four hour waiting time is madness, and will take us back to the days when patients waited on trolleys for hours, and days to be see a doctor or be treated. Instead, the government will assess the NHS by looking at improvement of survival rates from cancer and strokes etc. (sound like reaching for targets to you?). It may also be worth reminding the government, that while, yes, England has one of the lowest five-year survival rates in Europe, according to the office of national statistics, survival has actually improved in the last decade from the decade before. (see here)

“Customers” will also be able to rate their surgery, or the hospital department they have been in, depending on how satisfied they are with their service, with more choice about who cares for them, which doctors, and where. Are we supposed to accept that all this will save money? HealthWatch will be established, a new agency (yes, they did say they were going to cut them), it will take on the work the Care Quality Commission currently does in regulating and inspecting hospitals. CQC will remain in place (so now there is two NDPB's where before there was one) it will simply be less useful. Keep an eye out; there are plenty of examples for these foolishly hypocritical moves.

These plans will apparently save £20 Billion in ‘efficiencies’ by 2014. They will also reduce management costs by the staggering figure of 45%. Even they can’t believe that, surely. They will ‘radically’ (yes, a conservative white paper uses the word ‘radically’) reduce the Department of Health’s own functions, and abolish Quango’s, such as the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Medicine and Healthcare Regulatory Association (MHRA). I’ve been told they are making worrying noises about NICE ( The national institute for health and clinical excellence, which is mentioned numerous times in the document). Vaccination and screening services have also been yanked away from the Health Service, to be incorporated into a new Public Health Service which will be legislated for soon.

In the biggest change to the current system, Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities are to be abolished. Before, the Department of Health would fund PCT's directly, while SHA's had the job of managing and monitoring healthcare and PCT's within their area. Primary care included GP Practices, Walk-in centres, dentists and ophthalmic services. While Secondary care encompasses Ambulance trusts, Emergency care, NHS, Mental health and Care trusts. Not any more. To satisfy Liberal Democrats who wanted elections to PCT’s to make them more democratic, some powers are to be transferred to local authorities, a paltry gesture designed to save face more than anything. Other powers will go to a new Director or Public Health, working within the remit of the Public Health Service mentioned above, who will manage NHS budgets. A new commission will be appointed (yes, another one, we haven’t got enough) to assess long term care funding. It will report within a year, possibly suggesting an end to state funding and the start of a voluntary insurance scheme.

I won’t need to remind anyone that PCT’s and SHA’s were set up after full consultation. But what will replace the PCT’s and 28 SHA’s when they are abolished? Well, we all know about the new GP consortia, a new plan which has come from little or no consultation. It’s a brilliant idea (can you sense my sarcasm?). It gives healthcare professionals, who struggle to run a practice on their own especially where I live, management and financial responsibilities. As if they haven’t got enough to do? Here’s how it will work. Follow closely, or I’ll lose you in the maze. New GP consortia, bands of GP practices, will now commission a great deal NHS services for patients. They will not, however, commission the services GP’s themselves provide, rather tell hospitals what to do. They will not commission dental, pharmacy or ophthalmic services. This will be done instead by a new NHS Commissioning Board (yes, new, again, replacing a perfectly good old). In news last night (13^th July) two soon to be ex-heads of SHA’s have been poached by the Health Secretary. The Head of the North East SHA, Iain Dalton, and his counterpart at the West Midlands SHA, Dame Barbara Hakin, will be given cushy new jobs at the heart of the department’s policy, retaining their £200,000 per year salary. (See here) So much for new politics and getting rid of top heavy, large salaried management...

In other funding news, the document says that the government will increase NHS funding in real terms year on year. But, contrastingly, also says, and I quote, “In the next five years the NHS will only be able to increase quality of care by implementing best practice and increasing productivity”. I could almost add ‘because you won’t be getting any help from us’ to that, and shockingly, I wouldn’t be joking. The NHS will have to make massive efficiencies to deal with the huge cuts it will suffer.

The new system means that Parliament will have to approve money to the Department of Health, which will in turn then give it to the Commissioning Board, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission. The Commissioning Board will then give money to GP consortia, who will acquire services from providers, and local authorities, which will fund HealthWatch. Accountability will go in the opposite direction. But this new complicated system means that Andrew Lansley has rid himself of any blame if anything goes wrong, and if something does go wrong, it has happened so far from Parliament that regulating it is near impossible! The job not made any easier by the assertion that “All health and social care regulation will be reviewed and reduced”. And what happens if the consortia don’t work and funding is made a mess of? Nothing. The government will wash its hands and walk away. It has refused to bail out any failed group; instead, Monitor will be given that responsibility.

To cap it all, hospitals have been asked to make up 25% of their own funding by taking on increased private work to mirror that of the Royal Marsden in Kensington. What the Tories have failed to realise is that Kensington, London is not Walton or Fazakerley, in Liverpool, or even Hull, and cities like this cannot be expected to meet this expectation. (See here)

In conclusion, these health changes are not simply a cost cutting exercise. They are not even aimed at improving the health care the NHS can provide, but simply a new way of deconstructing the normal cohesion of the NHS, breaking it down into small blocks, giving the private sector more influence and opportunity, at the cost of reducing the role of the public sector massively. As this article in the Guardian says, the most critical risk of this White Paper is that the NHS won’t survive the shock of what many see an appalling, ideological, dogmatic ambush on the NHS

An ode to injustice

W. H Auden's Sempteber 1, 1939. Auden is one of my favourite poets, and I was reminded of this piece while reading a New Statesman article today. (http://bit.ly/aB5nYM). I thought it would be nice to share it here. It alludes to the invasion of an innocent country, takes a swipe at the democratically industrialised man, and introduces the concept of sin later on, before becoming more optimistic. I hope you love it as much as I do.

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

Needless death in the name of peace - a sad day for us all

Israel has come under sustained attack this week after it sent out the Israeli Defence Force to prevent an aid flotilla, with boats from Turkey, Greece and Cyprus (an Irish sponsored boat was disabled and made the trip later) from reaching the blockade it set up in 2007.

The conflict in the Middle East is well known to anyone who is interested in anything outside their immediate vicinity. I have previously blogged about the subject when in March it seemed like the US- Israeli relationship was faltering, and storm clouds were forming above Jerusalem. Little did I know two months later, the situation would boil over into a full scale diplomatic crisis.

Weeks before the arrival of the aid flotilla, the IDF had been told of the mission that they would be required to carry out. Flotilla 13, a small brigade which takes on important and daring missions on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), were told to prepare for minor resistance from activists when they boarded the ship. They were armed with paint guns and tasers, weapons rarely, if at all, used by the IDF before.

While this preparation was going on in Israel, boats carrying international peace activists and humanitarian aid to Gaza convened with the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish registered ship which was under the control of the IHH (a Turkish acronym for The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief), a group that Israel maintains in connected to fundamentalist Islamic jihadists. On the Mavi Marmara was Sarah Colborne, the director of campaigns and operations at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in London. She said that when IDF ships were detected on radar and sighted, “the decision was made to move further back into international waters”. She also told of how transmissions had then been sent out informing any listeners that the ships were aid vessels, while a medical room was prepared and passengers were told to put on life jackets. An attack was sensed. Theresa McDermott, an Edinburgh postal worker and member of the Free Gaza Movement described what happened as the boats were boarded. She was on the smaller vessel Challenger 1.

“It went very quiet, then at 4am we heard people starting their morning prayers on the Mavi Marmara. We were right next to them so we could hear the prayer call. It was still dark, then all of a sudden we saw smaller lights across to starboard and we knew the Israelis had dropped smaller boats, carrier craft, into the water. They went for the Mavi Marmara first, with Zodiac commando boats that sliced through the flotilla. The Israelis started firing smoke bombs and sound grenades onto the Mavi Marmara. We heard the cracks of gunfire and I realised they were much more forceful than when they had taken us of boats before. They were coming really hard”

In fact, it was 4:10am Israeli time (2:10am in the UK) when Vice Admiral Eli Marom fired three shots from his handgun into the air 50 yards from the Mavi Marmara, signalling the start of the operation. Commandos were lowered onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara from helicopters over head. IDF soldier after IDF soldier was lowered into a throng of angry young Turks. Soldiers radioed a request to use handguns. They had not been prepared for such stiff resistance. This was when IDF soldiers went into combat mode. There were reports that one soldier killed six Turks alone. The IDF has denied this. Regardless, within minutes, several activists were dead on the deck, one shot in the eye, others lay injured. Post mortem reports have confirmed most of the 9 dead from the raid were shot in the head, in classic Special Forces style. On the Mavi Marmara three IDF soldiers had been taken hostage. Others went in search of them, knowing that hostage taking would turn Israel upside down and give Hamas a huge bargaining chip. Commandos found the room where their colleagues were being held, killing the guards, they found one of the three soldiers; the other two had escaped by jumping out of a porthole. The IDF said that on an initial search of the ship they found gas masks, small knives, flak jackets and money.

On other ships activists reported being beaten and tasered. On asking the IDF why they were doing this Henning Mankell, the Swedish writer who was on the boat Sofia, was told it was because they had weapons. He told the IDF that they didn’t. The ship was searched and razors and a small knife were found with which to justify the boarding.

The attack sparked international condemnation. Greece has suspended joint military manoeuvres with Israel. Turkey, once a key Middle Eastern ally of the Jewish State, has aligned itself with public anger. Egypt has capitulated also, opening the Rafah crossing on its border with Gaza. Britain and France displayed a show of unity when the British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited his counterpart Bernard Kouchner in Paris. They offered greater EU involvement, called for the observation of UN resolution 1860, and that Israel at the very least launch a full investigation, with an international presence, into events. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week condemned the raid, while it is expected to further damage US Israel relations when they are already stretched to breaking point.

There is no doubt; the action taken by the IDF was illegal. It broke International Law by attacking ships in international waters in an attempt to enforce a blockade which breaks International Humanitarian Law and goes against UN resolution requiring its rescission. It is true that IDF soldiers came under attack when they boarded the ships. But what did they expect? Aid workers or not, Israel must be familiar with the term “right to defend themselves”, and so should understand what motivated activists on board the ships when a foreign, enemy force decided to forcefully and illegally take control of their ships.

Various people have thrown the question out “Why were they taking aid to Gaza in the first place?” This comment shows great foolishness. Either because it reveals obvious idiocy or deep seated blind following of the Israeli governmental line. The flotilla was taking aid because Gaza desperately needs it. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last week said that aid given to Gaza by Israel was not enough. In fact, it was only a fifth of what is needed. The Gazan people are suffering a deep humanitarian crisis. The war last year has left deep scars, both on the cities and infrastructure, and on the people. Israel has decided to blockade the territory, and therefore, it must ensure that the people of that territory are getting enough food, water, fuel, and other humanitarian aid. At present, it is not.

The operation was botched. It was illegal. And it was disproportionate. These are comments that are all too often being associated with Israel. Instead of deterring more scenarios like this, more flotillas, more support for the lowering of the blockade, all that this operation has served to do it intensify the support for the people of Gaza, and unfortunately, in some areas, the support of Hamas itself. It has alienated those in the region that would have been allies, and worsened the reputation of Israel around the world.

As a person on the outside, living in Britain, I see my, our role, and the role of the EU too, as trying to find a solution to the conflict. We should not take sides, even when there is sometimes strong reason for the condemnation of certain acts. We cannot move forward while both sides are so stubborn, so determined to be violent, so resolutely unable to see the others point of view.
Peace does not come from determination, but understanding. Not from stubborn grit but sympathy. Not from hate, but tolerance. I see none of this in abundance between the Israeli Government and Hamas. I am not unwise enough to assume I might. But maybe the people of Gaza and the moderates in Israel can offer an elusive hope that can restore stability, if not install harmony.