Tuesday, 2 January, 2007
- 3 Jan 07, 12:21 PM
We're a bit short of clairvoyants here on Newsnight - otherwise some of us would already have won the lottery and would no doubt be spending January living next to a retired Bee Gee somewhere in Florida.
But it does not take much of a crystal ball to predict that two of the biggest stories of the year ahead will be how the United States tries to disentangle itself from Iraq, and how the British political system reacts to the end of the Blair era.
We devote most of tonight's programme to these two enormous issues which affect all of us.
Also: dangerous dogs; Asian corner shops; and Jimi Hendrix... or not.
Comment on here.
Comments Post your comment
Am I alone in being shocked that Newsnight showed the graphic pictures of Saddam Hussein's last moments? The issue of the death penalty, and in this case, how it was administered, must be debated, but I do not believe we do not need intrusive pictures to be able to do so.
Complain about this post
Blair & Bush....What can one say except to repeat it will be very good for all when they have gone.!
Dangerous dogs... N Labour shouldn't have watered down the 1991 Legislation in 1997... another first for Labour.! & just why are the Police not involved much earlier when these/this breed of dogs are reported in similar situations?Hope the owner is held to full account legally... as well as emotionally.
I shall miss the Asian corner shops... they work so hard & are always open.
Complain about this post
So Tony Blair will be gone by the summer? It's going to be a strange political scene without the Big Beast. Well, some of us will miss him anyway. On the programme tonight Olly Grender of the Lib Dems voiced what must be on the PM's mind: why should HE alone take the flak for any expected failures in the May elections, after all the progressive changes he's made in the last ten years? Yes, I know he is the *devil incarnate* for Iraq, but he will hope his legacy will be the repositioning of Labour and the other parties to his "ideas" and agenda. That's what it should be, unless the Labour party is about to go back to yesterday. Despite Brown being joint-architect of New Labour, his "renewed" party might hope for that. I think it will be a vain hope, and it may not take long for Labour and the country to wonder why they dropped their election winner when still at the top of his game. Other issues of concern will be how Brown, if he is the new Scottish/British PM, handles Scotland if the SNP do well in the locals. And how Brown works with the rest of the EU when for years, in contrast to Blair, he has been clearly against any deeper real European involvement for the UK. And at the next general election, since only 15% of the vote will bring a hung parliament - and so proportional representation - when does Brown go to the country risking the end of Labour's present hegemony (which is mainly due to Blair)?
Big decisions. What they should do, of course, is keep Blair until this consummate politician tidies up the present concerns and hands over when he said he would - well into the third term. Remember we are not even half way into this one yet. More time would mean that Blair could exit Iraq with some dignity; Cameron would have time to find a few policies (some of which would cause a break-off of his right-wing to UKIP); the SNP could frighten the horses in Scotland back to the main parties; and there could be a REAL election for the next Labour leader/PM.
My blog, to be found by clicking my link, has the likely vain hope to Keep Tony Blair for PM.
Complain about this post
Are we to assume that the average newsnight viewer is deemed less sensitive than John Prescott? That is the only conclusion I can draw from Newsnight's extraordinary decision to ambush us with such unpleasant video footage without the slightest health warning.
No,Carmel1,you are not alone.
Complain about this post
If you were in the least surprised or appalled to see the footgae of Saddam on the programme then I suggest you stick to Newsround in future. More suited to your intellectual level.
Complain about this post
Was Prescott really bemoaning the video but not the barbarous behaviour it revealed, the public getting to know, but not the event itself? How New Labour. The spin, the spin.
Of course Newsnight was right to show the video as it did. How else could it be discussed? No one interested in news could have failed to expect it to be shown. But what could well have also been discussed was the official video and how that was shown elsewhere. It is not the phone footage that will have tended to brutalise our own society. That shows the truth of how ugly and inhuman it easily becomes when humans take the life of another.
The offical video, thinking to pretend that the event was measured and careful of the rights of the condemned man, whilst ignoring his rights in international law not to be demeaned by pictures of him as a prisoner, and inadvertently (one presumes) appearing, since the executioners all wore balaclavas in that grubby, crowded, confused room, very like a militia killing, was the bringer of unwonted brutality into our homes. Maybe the media of Texas are used to featuring executions, and maybe the White House assumed we are all used to, indeed dieing to see such scenes. But we are not, and should never be.
But the evidence that truth was hidden, and that, in the execution chamber of a former Iraqi secret police building in an American base (did the US forces co-opt for their own use every hated and feared building in the country?), in the presence of independent witnesses, sectarian militia have unchallenged control, and used it to attempt to humiliate a man at the point of his death, but that he bore it with great dignity, is a quite different story.
Another point that seems to have escaped most is how the death and burial of the man who was certainly Iraq's strongest and longest-lasting head of state, and respected by many of its citizens, has been in total contrast to the pomp and respect piled upon Gerald Ford in the same week. I'm sure that too will have increased bitterness amongst some, and not only in Iraq.
One often gets the impression that the Bush White House has taken most of its middle-east advice from Israel. The Israeli policy of always humiliating its Arab opponents, and then humiliating them yet more, whenever it can, seems alive and well in Iraq under the US occupation. But that doesn't play the same to non-believers. The "trial" and killing of Saddam Hussein has been yet another fine American mess in Iraq.
Complain about this post
If only Saddam could have put his own increduality and that of his victims aside so as to have some inkling of the groundwell of sympathy that could exist for him in the West,then he would surely have got himself out of Iraq.
As ill mannered and vulgar as the behaviour may have been in his final moments,painlessly,he left a 'Mother of all Hells' without an improper mark on him.
Complain about this post
BOY GEORGE’S INEVITABLE CHOICE
We are, supposedly, all holding our breath awaiting George Bush’s carefully considered decision on the future of Iraq. He has promised to take into consideration the Baker Report; which really was well considered. But, just a hint to prepare you for the actual outcome, Georgie Boy never has been much for honoring promises. Remember his fingers-crossed promise to Tony Blair that, in return for his support for the invasion of Iraq, he would get behind the Middle-East ‘road-map’. Georgie, with the immaturity of a small boy, never considers anything other than his own desires; though he will promise anything to achieve those. Even those around him only are listened to when they agree with him, and flatter his ego (Condy) or subtly manipulate him (Cheney).
The current position simply is that he has nothing to lose by carrying on, and even expanding, the war in Iraq. Like Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands he stands to lose nothing if he is defeated; his reputation is already shredded, with future generations likely to see him as the young (very young and immature) pretender whose throne was only gained by lies and a loaded Supreme Court. If he wins, albeit against odds of a million to one, his reputation will be restored. For him it’s a no-brainer. For the rest of us, and especially Iraquis, it’s a disaster. Unlike Thatcher, who was saved by the SIS of friendly nations sabotaging the Argentinian munitions, nobody can in reality save the US invaders. But none of that will carry any weight with Boy George, who still dreams of that million to one chance of success.
Complain about this post
SETTLING THE SCORES FOR THE 20TH CENTURY
The current situation in Iraq is just one of the fall-outs from ‘solutions’ imposed in the 20th century; typically in the outcome of the world wars. Them politicians, sometimes for the best of reasons but more often for much more venal motives, drew lines on the globe which artificially created the nations they wanted.
For much of the 20th century the resulting mongrels were held under subjugation by strong – indeed despotic – regimes. Then, as their leadership weakened (or, as in Iraq, was toppled by the US), they descended into chaos. We have seen this happen in South East Asia, Palestine/Israel, the Balkans and even – to the astonishment of all – in the USSR. Now it is Iraq’s turn. Saddam Hussein may have been the monster he has been shown to be. But he was the sort of monster needed to keep Iraq together. The choice, loathsome despot or political chaos, is unwelcome but if the outcome is to be controlled the disagreeable nature of the choices must be dealt with.
Specifically, it is now inevitable that Iraq will fragment into at least three parts. The best we can hope for is that these parts are, like the Balkans, eventually brought into some kind of balance. The one thing we can be sure of is that continuing to dream of a united Iraq, where the nation never was united (except by force), will guarantee the worst of all worlds for its citizens.
Complain about this post
You miss my point completely Jim Bob.I did not say that the footage should not have been shown,simply that those who might find it disturbing should have been given the chance to turn away.
Complain about this post
Tonight’s Newsnight (2nd January,07) showed remarkable hypocrisy in reporting the most revolting treatment of Sadam Hussein by his executioners. While Gavin Esler repeatedly calling such treatment ‘deplorable’, Mark Irvin’s camera not only focused on Sadam Hussain with a noose around his neck, the camera remained in that focused position for a considerable time. This is unacceptable to the nation that has rejected capital punishment as uncivilised act. 91Èȱ¬ takes perverse pleasure in showing the American electric chair of execution, and now a condemn man with a noose around his neck. We would expect a higher civilised behaviour from the 91Èȱ¬
Complain about this post