Stygius

UK's local elections see gains for fascists

Looking more and more like he's going to be dragged from office, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is shuffling his Cabinet around today, after Labour takes it on the chin after some disastorous local elections threatens to put the part in eclipse.

The Conservative Party saw significant gains on the local councils, according to the BBC:

Labour came third in the overall share of the vote in local elections in England, losing control of 18 local authorities. The Tories were the biggest winners, gaining 274 extra councillors and 40% of the vote.

The Guardian on the Tories' 40% gain.

A Sky News projection suggested that the Conservatives would have a 10-seat majority in the House of Commons if last night's figures were repeated in a general election.

After a series of weak leaders, these results will consolidate Leader David Cameron's grip on the party, as he has been facing percolating criticism from various ideological purists. With rank-and-file members smelling general election victory, the pressure will be on for the backbenches to keep it down a bit.

What is most troubling and appalling in all of this, however, is the inroads the thuggish British National Party (BNP) made. More BBC:

The party fielded more than 350 candidates and now has 44 seats in England. Before Thursday's local elections it held about 20 of 22,000.

This is a challenge not just to the ruling party, but to all three major parties. It is a challenge to Britain's constitutional order to have fascists thriving politically.

But back to Labour: How much more implosion can Labour withstand before Gordon Brown seizes control of a party viable enough to win a fourth general election? If the party is truly yearning for opposition, as some have wittily put it, then things are going great. But if Gordon Brown wants to rule in the epoch-defining manner I'm sure he intends, he needs to push Blair out soon.

Tony's trainwreck

It seemed that the managed transition ending Tony Blair's hold on Downing Street, and the elevation of Chancellor Gordon Brown, was proceeding smoothly. That was always "a preposterous idea", according to one Telegraph piece. Now, from this Guardian piece (reporting fratricidal machinations apparently spiked, from this dutifully tepid Times refutation), it appears that the Prime Minister might have to be dragged from office muttering his pieties about "social justice priorities" and whatnot, as Labour pathetically descends further into opposing "camps."

Backbenchers have already begun taking soundings for signatures to support a 'stalking horse' challenge against the Prime Minister should the local election results prove disastrous. Initially, they plan to ask Labour's ruling body, the national executive, to persuade Blair to go quietly rather than trigger a damaging contest.

'If the local election results are anything like as bad as people are predicting, and then as a result afterwards the signals coming out of Downing Street are "We don't care, we are going to carry on", coupled with no clear timetable for Blair's departure, people will feel there probably isn't much option but to start to organise,' said a source close to the discussions.

The "stalking horse" concept illuminated here. However, you have to hand it to Blair; I never expected him to survive in the post for this long. Writes Andrew Rawnsley:

Gordon Brown believes - I think correctly - that Tony Blair does not really want the Chancellor to succeed him. The Brownites fear that Blair will continually conjure up things to do - reform of the Lords, 'sorting out' the health service, putting a man on Mars - to justify prolonging his rule.

Close friends of the Prime Minister report that he thinks that Gordon Brown is now trying to execute a creeping coup against him.

"Trying to execute"? Hell, the "creeping coup" is merely reaching it's last few stages.

Monday Update: A decidedly pro-Tory Financial Times editorial terms Blair, "in office, but not in power."

But the probability is that a change of leader would do nothing to rescue a government whose ruling party has become tired of power. Too many of Mr Blair's backbenchers seem to have concluded that opposition is preferable to the challenges of running the country.

British uncover al-Qaeda's "007"

A Washington Post op-ed:

For almost two years, intelligence services around the world tried to uncover the identity of an Internet hacker who had become a key conduit for al-Qaeda. The savvy, English-speaking, presumably young webmaster taunted his pursuers, calling himself Irhabi -- Terrorist -- 007. He hacked into American university computers, propagandized for the Iraq insurgents led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and taught other online jihadists how to wield their computers for the cause.

Suddenly last fall, Irhabi 007 disappeared from the message boards. The postings ended after Scotland Yard arrested a 22-year-old West Londoner, Younis Tsouli, suspected of participating in an alleged bomb plot. In November, British authorities brought a range of charges against him related to that plot. Only later, according to our sources familiar with the British probe, was Tsouli's other suspected identity revealed. British investigators eventually confirmed to us that they believe he is Irhabi 007.

Relief, or alarm? Rita Katz and Michael Kern go on:

The Internet has presented investigators with an extraordinary challenge. But our future security is going to depend increasingly on identifying and catching the shadowy figures who exist primarily in the elusive online world.The short career of Irhabi 007 offers a case study in the evolving nature of the threat that we at the SITE Institute track every day by monitoring and then joining the password-protected forums and communicating with the online jihadi community. Celebrated for his computer expertise, Irhabi 007 had propelled the jihadists into a 21st-century offensive through his ability to covertly and securely disseminate manuals of weaponry, videos of insurgent feats such as beheadings and other inflammatory material.

And was al-Qaeda's Internet guru captured too late, now that others have been taught by him and are wielding his skills?

Will Blair make it through summer?

Last May, after Tony Blair's humiliating victory giving him a third go at the premiership, I wrote:

Labour netted a 47-seat loss, and the retention of its majority is attributed to nearly anything but the Prime Minister. One letter writer calls it "a victory worse than any defeat." Tony Blair is a liability, while his rival and successor is indispensible. You do the math.

I also expected him to be gone by the end of the 2005, but have been wrong on that. Blair, at the time, was intimating a long last lap was ahead. However, Blair is now clearly on the way out, and the momentum is picking up. Thus, the United States will have to adjust to a new prime minister in the United Kingdom.

For instance, the Saturday Times claims voters want Blair gone "before the end of the year," which will mean by summer as soon as momentum begins to build. The Telegraph, meanwhile, reports on succession jostling (which merely underscores Blair's lameduckness). Further, from tomorrow's Guardian:

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are now in effect running Britain as 'a dual premiership', according to one of the cabinet's most senior figures and close ally of the Prime Minister.

Brown is embarking on a series of speeches that extend beyond his current, formal portfolio as head of Treasury.

Brown's new status as joint Prime Minister will be displayed tomorrow when he uses a major speech on national security to disclose that three serious terrorist attacks in Britain have been averted since 21 July - using the evidence of continued threats to justify controversial plans to outlaw the glorification of terrorism and introduce ID cards. The government faces knife-edge votes on both issues this week.

And if those votes then succeed -- where Prime Minister Blair spectacularly failed -- we will be talking weeks, not months.

Abu Hamza convicted on 11 counts

While he still faces many terrorism charges in the United States, Britain has convicted al-Qaeda ideologue Abu Hamza al-Masri on 11 counts of 16 counts. Bloomberg gives a quick overview of the case. The Times reports a sentence of seven years.

The sentence is clearly insufficient, although he does face US charges. However:

Those proceedings have been stayed by Abu Hamza's appeal although under present law he could not in any case be extradited until his release from jail in Britain.

I think a parliamentary bill ordering extradition is in order. We'll will be happy to let him serve out his UK time here.

Another Times piece provides details -- previously sealed -- on the weapons and chemical gear Met officers seized in a 2003 raid on the Finsbury Park mosque.

At the very least, this shows that Britain's "lawfare" is progressing along, if only in a stumbling fashion. London became an ideological cesspit for Abu Hamza and other al-Qaeda abetters, and only now are we seeing that start to change.

For more background on Abu Hamza, and what a piece of work he is, see an old quote list, and quick profiles at  BBC and the Times.

New Tory leader elected

Thirty-nine year old David Cameron MP has been elected to head Britain's Conservative Party. BBC, the Telegraph, and the Times. While exciting for the party, this has been emblematic of its internal chaos; a pattern that Cameron will have to arrest if he ever wants to be effective in opposition, and eventually become Prime Minister.

His first performance at Prime Minister's Questions comes tomorrow. Should be fun.

Off to lunch.

Bolton somehow isolates himself...and us

Surprise, surprise! While I agree with John Bolton that -- theoretically -- unilateralism is not isolationism, an isolated unilateralist makes the two a distinction without a difference. Via Steve Clemons, it looks like Bolton's tactics at the United Nations are managing to alienate America's most steadfast partner. The Telegraph:

Britain has rebuffed a Bolton move to join him in refusing to pass the organisation's 2006 budget until member states approve wide-ranging management reforms.

While Britain is all for the reform package, which would introduce needed management restructing at the United Nations, that doesn't mean that Bolton will get the accompanying pleasure of bullying it through the UN, rather then finessing it through.

"He gets results," was the administration mantra that never quite sold John Bolton to America or to the US Senate, forcing Bush's recess appointment. If one's "style" can't even keep Great Britain from being alienated, the evident absurdity ought to be some getting attention from Congress.

But then again, as Steve Clemons puts it:

Hopefully, the recess-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN will drop the feuding theatrics and get back to diplomacy -- but in the words of one high-ranking State Department official with whom I spoke on Wednesday, "We are lucky Bolton is no longer here (at headquarters)."

Blair fading fast

Somewhat along the lines of what I wrote in the aftermath of Labour's third majority win, Prime Minister Tony Blair's grip on power is evidently slipping. Stupidly, he reappointed David Blunkett to the Government, and now Blunkett has re-resigned from it. Reuters has the quick and dirty.

Update: Also, the Blair Government's anti-terrorism bill survived the House of Commons by one vote where he has a 60-vote majority. I bet this will lead to some slicing and dicing of the bill in Lords. The Times, FT, Scotsman, and Telegraph report.

Straw pressures Rice on Bolton

Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has apparently gone out of his way to demand Secretary Rice rein in Bolton. Or so the ministry leakers to the Guardian would have us believe:

The Guardian has learned that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, has made a personal plea to his American counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, for the US to withdraw opposition to plans for wholesale reform of the UN. He has asked Ms Rice to rein in John Bolton, the US ambassador to the world body.

(HT Steve Clemons) Like I said, the ludicrous ambitions of this summit primed it for collapse. However, senators need to know what effect John Bolton is already having on close allies, not to mention on the operation of the State Department. The promise was that he would be gone if he kept doing this rogue operator stuff. We never did want it to get to the point of saying, "Told you so," but here we are.

Blair institutes hate deportation policy

Given London has long been an intellectual and communication center of gravity for violent, radical jihadists, it is past time Britain attacks the problem. It is finally doing so. WaPo:

Prime Minister Tony Blair, responding to last month's deadly bombings in London, outlined a series of unprecedented steps that would allow Britain to deport and exclude foreign nationals who promote or incite extremist violence or are "fostering hatred."

Among those excluded would be non-citizen clerics "not suitable to preach." In addition, Blair said the government was preparing orders allowing the government to shut down places of worship used as centers for "fomenting extremism."

Some of the steps may require legislation or court involvement. Others can be done by government order. Blair acknowledged the potential controversy that could arise from the proposals.

These are fairly extreme and hasty  steps, obviously the kind taken in the wake of attacks -- rather than preventive in nature. Since such preachers will naturally gravitate to other European urban centers, it will be prudent for other governments to follow the French and British and draw up deportation legislation; and do so in a balanced way, rather than reactive way.

I've criticized in the past Blair's authoritarian tendencies, which now must be running through his body at a fever pitch. The Government's attempt to push through extra-judicial detention powers were, in my opinion, over-broad and not specifically tailored to the problem. While some of these solutions strike me as over-reach -- while stronger deportation policy is crucial, shutting down mosques may feed persecution complexes even further while driving jihadist preaching underground -- there has to be some acceptance of a facilely illiberal response at this point. Blair's celebration of Britishness -- which blankets a demand for assimilation to enjoy the benefits of inclusion -- will be closely followed by other leftists European government struggline with the paradoxes of multiculturalism.

Blair announced that two Islamic organizations, Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun, would be banned in Britain.

The outright banning of the loathsome Hizb-ut-Tahir shows that Blair means business. It raises the question, "Where are tolerance's boundaries?" The anti-democratic caliphate party, while ostensibly non-violent, has been an intellectual incubator for violent jihadist rhetoric. (See Nathan Hamm on the topic.) Germany already bans the group, which has long used London as its prime communications node. Pulling the plug on this  group will seriously effect the prime quasi-legitimate disseminator of this ideology, a nest of terrorist apologism. This public policy change reflects the quiet disruption of hundreds of al-Qaeda/jihadist-affiliated websites, which is thought to be the work of British intelligence.

Perhaps the most controversial element will be changing deportation rules to allow deportation to countries that practice torture. However, the abuse of asylum has allowed for this problem to fester for a long time; any other solutions ought to be advanced, but til then . . . .

The full text of Blair's statement. It lays out 12 separate proposals, and many are quite breathtaking in scope.

Reporting by New York Times, Times of London, and Telegraph. The Guardian moans; the Telegraph applauds.

Cross-posted to LAT