What Ed Miliband Should Say At Labour Conference, But Won’t

It is now beyond question that Ed Miliband is moving his party to the left, or redefining the centre ground if you prefer, or drawing a line under the New Labour era. Or whatever.










The latest symbolic move has been to back Palestinian statehood in advance of a vote at the UN. This is a peculiar decision that makes no real sense before knowing what the Palestinians are putting on the table, except to send a strong message to the party faithful that Ed Miliband is shifting policy on the Middle East. This line on Israel/Palestine is one that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would never have countenanced and that is the whole point.

Ed Miliband is determined to ditch the legacy of the Blair-Brown era (which is odd considering that he is its creature) and I can’t help thinking this is a terrible strategic error.

The opposition is hamstrung by the fact that it still hasn’t found the right language to take on the government. Miliband has squeezed himself into a tiny ideological sliver, where he can’t move any further to the left for fear of inviting ridicule, but can’t entirely embrace the achievements of the Blair-Brown years either.

In welfare to work, education and health, the Cameroons are engaged in implementing the Blairite reform agenda. The logic of Ed Miliband in the new post-New Labour era should make it possible to oppose this from the Left. But there are still too many Blairites around him to quite pull this off. With Liam Byrne in charge of the policy review it will be impossible to dump the New Labour policy agenda in its entirety.

Instead of trying to persuade people that Cameron is a Thatcherite in disguise, Labour should concentrate on questioning the Tories’ competence in government. Ed Miliband’s conference speech should recognise that all the most adventurous ideas of the new government are stolen from New Labour and give them a cautious welcome. He should then say that the job of opposition is to forensically examine the government’s record on delivery and stand back.

He won’t do this, of course, because to embrace the Blairite legacy would mean immediate death within the party.

Tony Blair Blames Terror On Extreme Muslim Ideology

Tony Blair yesterday insisted “significant blows” had been struck in the war on terror but admitted: “It’s not over.”













The former Labour Prime ­Minister said that it was “deeply naive” to believe the West’s ­response to the 9/11 attacks had radicalised Muslim extremists. He said: “They believe in what they believe in because they ­believe their religion compels them to believe in it.”

















Mr Blair warned on Radio 4 that the threat would only end when “we defeat the ideology”.

And he indicated that he would back an attack on Iran if it ­continues to try to make its own nuclear bombs.

How MI6 Deal Sent Family To Gaddafi's Jail

Exclusive: Libyan Islamist reveals how wife and children were 'rendered' before Tony Blair visit.












Sami al-Saadi is considering whether to sue the British government after he and his family were 'rendered' in an operation between MI6 and Gaddafi's intelligence services.

A Libyan Islamist has told how he and his family were imprisoned after being "rendered" in an operation MI6 hatched in co-operation with Muammar Gaddafi's intelligence services. The rendition occurred shortly before Tony Blair paid his first visit to the dictator.

Sami al-Saadi, his wife and four children, the youngest a girl aged six, were flown from Hong Kong to Tripoli, where they were taken straight to prison. Saadi was interrogated under torture while his family were held in a nearby cell.

"They handcuffed me and my wife on the plane, my kids and wife were crying all the way," he told the Guardian. "It was a very bad situation. My wife and children were held for two months, and psychologically punished. The Libyans told me that the British were very happy."

Saadi says he is now considering whether to sue the British government, making him the second Libyan rendition victim to threaten legal proceedings in less than a week.

The evidence that the family were victims of a British-led rendition operation is contained in a secret CIA document found in the abandoned office of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi's former intelligence chief, in Tripoli last week.

In London, meanwhile, an official inquiry into Britain's role in torture and rendition since 9/11 says the government has provided information about the UK's role in the affair, and Whitehall sources defended intelligence agencies' actions by saying they were following "ministerially authorised government policy".

It is the first time evidence has emerged that the British intelligence agencies ran their own rendition operation, as opposed to co-operating with those that were mounted by the CIA.

Saadi was held for more than six years, during which time he says he was regularly beaten and subjected to electric shocks. Shortly after his arrival in Tripoli, he says, Moussa Koussa visited in person to explain how Gaddafi's new friends in the west were helping him track down the regime's opponents around the world. "He told me: 'You've been running from us, but since 9/11 I can pick up the phone and call MI6 or the CIA and they give us all the information we want on you. You've nowhere to hide.'"

Saadi, a leading member of a Libyan mujahideen group who was known by the nom de guerre Abu Munthir, was interrogated on one occasion by British intelligence officers, who he alleges did nothing to try to protect him after he told them he was being tortured.

The Foreign Office has declined to say whether it knew what became of Abu Munthir's family as a result of the rendition operation, describing this information as an "intelligence matter". A spokesman said: "Our position is that it is the government's longstanding policy not to comment on intelligence matters."

Saadi says he was tricked by the British authorities into travelling to Hong Kong. While in exile in China in March 2004 he approached British intelligence officers via an intermediary in the UK, he says, and was told that he would be permitted to return to London, where he had lived for three years after seeking asylum in 1993. First, however, he would have to be interviewed at the British consulate in Hong Kong, and would be met by British diplomats on his arrival.

Saadi flew to Hong Kong with his wife, two sons aged 12 and nine, and two daughters aged 14 and six. They were not met by any British officials but were detained by Chinese border guards over alleged passport irregularities, held for a week and then despatched to Tripoli.

Saadi says he always assumed the British were behind his rendition, "working behind the curtain". Confirmation came when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a cache of papers in Moussa Koussa's abandoned office.

Among the documents was a fax that the CIA sent to Tripoli on 23 March 2004. Marked SECRET/US ONLY/EXCEPT LIBYA, it concerns the forthcoming rendition of Saadi and his family. The wording suggests the CIA took no part in the planning of the operation, but was eager to become involved.

It says: "Our service has become aware that last weekend LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] deputy Emir Abu Munthir and his spouse and children were being held in Hong Kong detention for immigration/passport violations. We are also aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect Abu Munthir's removal to Tripoli, and that you had an aircraft available for this purpose in the Maldives."

It goes on to explain that although Hong Kong had no wish to see a Libyan aircraft land on its territory, "to enable you to assume control of Abu Munthir and his family", the operation would work if the Libyans were to charter an aircraft registered in a third country, and that the US would assist with the cost.

The operation coincided exactly with Tony Blair's first visit to Libya. Two days after the fax was sent, Blair arrived to shake hands with Gaddafi, and said the two nations wanted to make "common cause" in counter-terrorism operations. It was also announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a £550m gas exploration deal. Three days later Saadi and his family were put aboard a private Egyptian-registered jet and flown to Tripoli.

Associates of Saadi cannot understand why his capture and interrogation would hold any great intelligence value for the British authorities, and are speculating that he may have been a "gift" from the British to the Gaddafi regime.

"On the plane I was told I was going to be electrocuted, hanged," Saadi said. "When we got to Tripoli my wife and I were in handcuffs, and our legs were tied together using wire and we were hooded. My wife recalls that she thought we were going to be hanged."

Saadi and his family were held initially at a jail in the Tajoura district, which he describes as "Mousa Koussa's family jail", and then at Abu Salim jail, a location where prisoners have been murdered and tortured for decades, according to human rights organisations. He says he spent the first 14 months in complete isolation in a cell measuring 6ft by 7ft.

"Whenever they felt I was withholding information they would beat me and subject me to electric shocks," he said.

As well as being tortured, he was repeatedly told that his family would be harmed and that he would be killed.

The UK was involved in the rendition of another Libyan Islamist earlier the same month. Other papers found among the Tripoli cache show that an MI6 tip-off allowed the CIA to abduct Abdul Hakin Belhaj in Bangkok. Belhaj, who later became a leading figure in the rebel forces that toppled Gaddafi, says he was tortured first by the CIA and then flown to Libya where he suffered severe abuse for several years, being hung from walls and immersed in ice baths. Belhaj says he too was interrogated by MI6 officers, who indicated they knew he was being tortured, but did nothing to help him.

On Thursday Belhaj met with British government representatives, who declined to make any apology. He too is considering whether to bring a claim for damages in the UK courts.

A number of Whitehall sources have said MI6 was complying with "ministerially authorised government policy" when Saadi and his family and Belhaj were rendered to Libya. However, the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Downing Street are all declining to say which department's ministers authorised the operations. A spokesman for Tony Blair said he knew nothing about the matter.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, said he welcomed the fact that an inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson would be examining the matter but did not answer questions about whether he had authorised the operation.

The inquiry headed by Gibson, a retired judge, that has been established to examine Britain's role in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects since 9/11, says that it was informed about the UK's involvement in the removal of Saadi from Hong Kong before the discovery of the Libyan government documents last weekend. It is unclear how much detail has been passed over to the inquiry staff.

It may be difficult for former ministers and intelligence officers to tell Gibson that they could not have expected Belhaj and Saadi and his family to be mistreated after they were handed over to Gaddafi's government. The use of torture had been well-documented by human rights groups, while the Foreign Office's human rights report for 2004 (pdf) states: "The UK remains seriously concerned by the human rights situation in Libya, including restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, political prisoners, arbitrary detention and conditions in Libyan prisons." It added that the British were very keen to see Libya sign international agreements against torture.

Darling: EU Must Get A Grip On Greece

The European Union must "get a grip" of Greece's economic woes before the contagion spreads, ex-chancellor Alistair Darling has said.

In a gloomy assessment of Europe's economic prospects, Mr Darling told Sky News the EU had to find a solution to the problems in Greece.

He warned a failure to tackle the problem would have a "damaging impact" on European banks and governments.

"That's why the EU has got to be realistic and at long last do something that actually fixes the problem and not this series of short-term fixes that keep failing, that keep coming back," he told Jeff Randall Live.

"This is what they've been doing now for the last 18 months and it doesn't work."

Mr Darling offered the pessimistic analysis of EU economies in an interview also critical of former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.











Economic troubles provoked clashes on the streets of Greece.

He was speaking in advance of the publication of Back From The Brink, a memoir of his time as chancellor during the financial crisis.

The former chancellor said he had to elaborate on his fraught relationships within the government in order to tell the story of the turmoil that engulfed the markets in 2008.

He said Mr Blair and Mr Brown had been allowed to assume too much control.

"In the 1990s, we were happy in some ways to let Tony and Gordon run the show - it wasn't quite a dictatorship - they made the changes Labour was desperately needing to make but hadn't done so.

"The problem was the decision-making became increasingly centralised," he said, adding policies on tuition fees and the economy would have benefited from wider debate.

"Collective discussion, the benefit of getting a combined wisdom, is I think something we didn't pay enough attention to," he added.











The ex-chancellor explained his criticism of Gordon Brown.

Asked if Ed Balls was among those who unleashed the "forces of hell" in negative briefings about him during the financial crisis, Mr Darling refused to attack his Labour colleague.

He said he backed the whole Labour front-bench, including the shadow chancellor.

Mr Darling said he acknowledged Labour did not always get it right in government and expressed regret more had not been done to fully implement welfare reform.

He cited the minimum wage as one of his party's greatest achievements.

An MP since 1987, Mr Darling was chancellor between 2007-2010 and also served as secretary of state for work and pensions, transport and trade and industry.

His outspoken remarks since leaving office are considered to be a contrast to the more low-key style he adopted in government.

Miliband Goes For His Clause 4 Moment

Ed Miliband is set to try to implement the first major change to Labour's founding principles for 17 years at this year's party conference.












In a move with strong echoes of Tony Blair's Clause Four campaign, when he scrapped the party's commitment to nationalising industry, Mr Miliband will insert a clause that brands Labour "a force for social justice".

Early reports of the document suggest there will also be a subtle but potentially important change in the party's organisational structure – Clause One.

Instead of aiming "to organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour party", the party will "bring together members and supporters who share its values to develop policies, make communities stronger through collective action and support, and promote the election of Labour representatives at all levels of the democratic process".

While the change sounds bureaucratic, it could herald wide-ranging alteration to the way the party operates. Mr Miliband hopes to introduce new categories of members, salvage Labour's economic prospects and encourage community organising.

The idea, originally proposed by Peter Hain, chair of the national policy forum, could see a registered supporters network bring in people who are non-partymembers who are willing to work on single-issue campaigns, such as local service cuts.

It could also ensure MPs demonstrate engagement with constituents via their candidate contract and trigger a wave of community campaign training.

Members of the public could also register as supporters, rather than members, and have a say in choosing party leaders. Such a move would replicate David Cameron's moves towards local primaries, by giving non-party supporters a say in which candidates are selected.

The proposals are particularly interesting, given that David Miliband had planned to reword Clause One if he became party leader.

They could anger union supporters, however, given they are already wary of the new Labour leader after he mooted plans to reduce their voting influence at party conferences.

Savour Your Moment, Dave. But Don't Get Hooked On War Like Blair

David Cameron once famously scoffed that you don’t impose democracy from 10,000ft up.

But that is just what he — courtesy of NATO bomber jets — has done in Libya.

Having just about won the first foreign conflict he’s been involved in, the Prime Minister is now straining every sinew to avoid triumphalism.


















Tough decisions: Mr Cameron, with troops, shouldn't go the same way as Tony Blair.

There will be no repeat of George Bush’s laughable 2003 made-for-TV assertion of ‘mission accomplished’, even as Iraq descended into post-war chaos.

That is the first of many lessons that Cameron hopes he has learned from that debacle.

To remove a tyrant, as Bush and Tony Blair discovered, is the easy part. It’s reconstructing countries numbed by dictatorship and torn apart by war that’s desperately difficult. Which faction is best suited to rule? What kind of political system should follow? How long should international forces be involved?

These are just a few of the questions facing the foreign leaders.

What Mr Cameron — and his advisers — must be wary about now is that this victory does not give him a taste for other foreign adventures.

Downing Street sources suggest that he spends as much as half of his day on foreign policy, and while it is right that Libya receives due attention, there is a danger in becoming too caught up in events beyond our shores.













Nearing the end? Rebel fighters gesture as they stamp on a part of a statue of Gaddafi inside the main compound in Tripoli.

When, alongside France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, he decided in January to launch air strikes to defend the city of Benghazi, the short-term aims were clear and laudable: to prevent a potential atrocity on the scale of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia in the Nineties.

It was the legacy of the world’s appalling decision to turn away then that spawned the notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ — the idea that states should use military force, where necessary, even if that meant flouting the traditional rules of sovereignty.

Blair, a man who had shown precious little interest in foreign affairs before he entered Downing Street soon found himself consumed by the idea that he could police all kinds of problems around the world and burnish his reputation on the international stage in the process.

He ended up fighting four wars in his first five years of office — Operation Desert Fox, during which Iraqi targets were bombed in 1998, Kosovo in 1999, Sierra Leone in 2000, Afghanistan in 2001, and then, fatefully, the war in Iraq in 2003.

It is easy to forget how, before the Iraq imbroglio, Blair was feted wherever he went. One high point was a trip in 1999 to Aachen, a city on Germany’s western border, to receive a prize as the world’s most respected international statesman that year.













Terror over? One of Gaddafi's men is arrested during search for the Libyan leader - but will Cameron take the credit?

The award is named after Charlemagne, the first Western emperor — and it was particularly notable that it had been given to a man who had come to see himself in that role.

Two years later, straight after 9/11, Blair luxuriated in the ovation he received from the American Congress for the support he had offered in America’s darkest hour.

He was rewarded with the unofficial title of Bush’s special emissary, tasked with winning round recalcitrant figures such as Vladimir Putin of Russia and General Pervez Musharraf to supporting Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan, and the ‘war on terror’. At that point, Blair was in his element and succeeded in securing a broad alliance for these ventures.

He believed that the UK’s place in the world was defined by our proximity to whatever administration was in office in Washington. This was standard Whitehall practice, but Blair took it to a logical extreme.

Cameron is working in a somewhat different environment. Bush, the ‘toxic Texan’, is long gone. Barack Obama has shown a studied reluctance to become the world’s policeman-in-chief, knowing that fighting global battles no longer goes down well on Main Street U.S.

His support on Libya was cursory. In spite of the effusive words during his summer visit to London — and the perfect picture opportunity of the barbecue for service personnel on the Number 10 lawn — Obama no longer regards the British premier as the first button to press on his speed dial.


















Agreement: French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to back intervention in Libya.

What little attention he does pay to foreign affairs, he has concentrated on the economic threat posed by China. It is not just the diplomatic landscape that has changed when it comes to committing British forces abroad. So have the economics.

While administering 8 per cent cuts to the defence budget, Cameron has found himself involved in two major conflicts: Libya and Afghanistan.

A recent House of Commons Defence Select Committee report pointed out glaring inconsistencies — ones that should cause any premier with a growing fascination with foreign adventures to pause for thought.

How, it asked, could the PM preside over a sudden intervention in Libya and a continued engagement of attrition in Afghanistan while cutting back the armed forces?

‘We are not convinced, given the financial climate and the drawdown of capabilities arising from the Strategic Defence and Security Review, that from 2015 the Armed Forces will maintain the capability to undertake all that is being asked of them,’ the MPs noted.

As for Cameron’s claim that the UK retains ‘full spectrum defence capability’ — that he could fight the good fight wherever he wanted — the committee was caustic: ‘We can only conclude that the Government has postponed the sensible aspiration of bringing commitments and resources into line.’ In other words, get real.

Cameron seems to have learned half the lessons of the Iraq debacle. Certainly, he was keen to avoid the duplicity and machinations of Blair and his ministerial team (although coalition ministers have been worryingly reluctant to divulge the costs of the NATO campaign in Libya).

Thus was Cameron was eager to secure the support of the UN, which approved the aim of saving Benghazi (but not the add-on of removing Gaddafi).















Dogs of war: It is hoped Cameron doesn't get as 'hooked' on war as Tony Blair and George Bush were.

Now, Libya is on the verge of erupting in celebration at the fall of the tyrant, at which point and Cameron and Sarkozy will discreetly give themselves a pat on the back. It will be worth celebrating the removal of one more despot. But many of the questions that dog interventions such as these will remain unresolved.

Blair fell in love with his own image on the international stage. It was so much more enjoyable than trying to reform recalcitrant public services, not to mention the myriad other squabbles and deal-making that make up the tedious slog of domestic politics.

During his wars, the hero worship from a small town in Germany to the U.S. went to his head. He then fell to earth with Iraq, his reputation in tatters. Cameron, as is so often said, believes himself to be the heir to Blair.

His aides have studied the speeches and read the books.

But having made a good fight of the North African venture, the Prime Minister would do well to keep his confidence in check, and to work doggedly for a coherent reconstruction of Libya.

And all the while, he would be wise to remember that ultimately prime ministers are re-elected — or not — on their performance in domestic affairs.

A Britain still recovering from the riots and in the throes of economic malaise is in need of all the care and attention that some premiers prefer to expend on countries thousands of miles from Downing Street.

Man In Court Over Clegg Paint Attack

A man has appeared in court accused of splattering Sheffield Hallam MP Nick Clegg with blue paint during a visit to grassroots Liberal Democrat activists.














Stuart Rodger, aged 22, was charged with assaulting the Deputy PM and three police officers during the alleged attack on Thursday night in Glasgow.

The preliminary court procedures were heard at Glasgow Sheriff Court last night and adjourned until a further hearing, for which a date has yet to be set.

It is understood Rodger, from Inverkeithing, Fife, is a former Liberal Democrat member who left the party over its decision to enter into coalition with the Conservatives.

He is accused of throwing a paint-filled egg which struck Mr Clegg “on the body”. The defendant made no plea and no declaration and was granted bail.

Mr Clegg got paint on his face and his jacket outside a question-and-answer session. But he made light of the incident, saying: “These things happen. It’s not a big deal.”

A spokesman for the Deputy PM added: “Nick’s got three children under 10 - he’s not worried about a bit of paint.

“Nick certainly was not going to let it stop him from talking to Glaswegian Liberal Democrats about their concerns.”

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, who was also hit by the paint, blamed “disgruntled individuals” who “chose not to speak about their concerns in advance but were purely interested in a stunt”.

He added: “I’ve always wanted a blue streak in my hair but my mother wouldn’t let me.”

The attack comes just a few weeks before September’s Lib Dem conference in Birmingham, when Mr Clegg is expected to come under more pressure from party activists.

Former PM Tony Blair was the target of a Fathers 4 Justice ambush in 2004, when he was struck by a purple powder bomb as he stood at the House of Commons despatch box. More recently Jonathan May-Bowles was jailed after attacking media mogul Rupert Murdoch with shaving foam.