George Monbiot (Guardian Utd): Extreme measures needed to remove Blair

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Tuesday March 2

Extreme measures
The only way to bring down Blair and change the political context is to take direct action
By George Monbiot

So now what happens? Our prime minister is up to his neck in it. His attorney general appears to have changed his advice about the legality of the war a few days before it began. Blair refuses to release either version, apparently for fear that he will be exposed as a liar and a war criminal. His government seems to have been complicit in the illegal bugging of friendly foreign powers and the United Nations. It went to war on the grounds of a threat which was both imaginary and known to be imaginary. Now the opposition has withdrawn from his fake inquiry. Seldom has a prime minister been so exposed and remained in office. Surely Blair will fall?
Not by himself, he won't. If we have learned anything about him over the past few months, it's that he would rather stroll naked round Parliament Square than resign before he has to. The press has a short attention span, Iraq is a long way away and the opposition is listless and unpopular. He has everything to gain by sweating it out.
In many ways, the strength of the case against the prime minister has been an advantage to him: our tendency is to assume that he is so badly wounded that all we need to do is to sit back and watch him bleed to death. But we reckon without the clots who run the country . . . .
The formula for making things happen is simple and has never changed. If you wish to alter a policy or depose a prime minister between elections, you must take to the streets. Without the poll tax riots, Mrs Thatcher might have contested the 1992 election. If GM crops hadn't been ripped up, they would be in commercial cultivation in Britain today. In the 1990s, protesters forced the government to cut its road-building budget by 80%. Most of the cities where roads were occupied by Reclaim the Streets have introduced major traffic-calming or traffic-reduction schemes. Gordon Brown stopped increasing fuel tax in response to the truckers' blockades.

Read more.

At least we will have a shot at Bush in November. Hopefully, we will be able to bring him down by conventional means, although Bush has shown in the past he has no respect for the democratic process even in his own country.

Note to lurking rightists: Political legitimacy is like virginity; once it is lost, it cannot be regained. The legitimacy of the Bush Administration is like the virginity of the Whore of Babylon; it is something she was born without and could never have. Even if Mr. Bush wins the election by a landslide in November, which does not seem likely, he will not be the President; he can never be the President and no American owes him any allegiance. However, he is a war criminal.

[barbaraann]

1. I used to think that voting was the most important activity

for citizens in democracies. Now I believe that "taking to the streets" is the crucial thing.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Interesting.

As soon as I finsh my coffee I am going to vote.

[T_i_B]

3. How did the voting go Jack?

Regarding the article, I think that direct action should not be the first resort but the very last and only then when you are certain of having an effect. Building a viable electoral alternative to "new" labour and the tories is the most pressing task here in the UK.

The one protest I went on with a significant direct action slant on it was an anti-war demo in Colchester last year which finished with a few of us sitting down in front of the army barracks and promptly getting arrested. I'm glad I did not do the sit-down bit as it would not have acheved anything other then getting me arrested. I can't say that the direct action that day really did any good.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. As you see, Kerry will oppose Bush in November

Otherwise, we had four ballot propositions in California and I voted in the minority on all of them.

One was a mundane school bond that probably would have passed in better times. I voted Yes, but almost decided to vote No under the present circumstances.

Two were the state financing initiatives being pushed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Both of these passed, although I voted No on both. One of these floats a $15 billion bond to finance the state's debt. It has short term benefits, but in the long term I don't think borrowing money to pay off the money that has already been borrowed is a good idea. However, the proposal had bipartisan support and that carried the day.

The third was a badly needed constitutional amendment. Several years ago in California, as part of a frenzy of trendy tax cutting, voters amended the state constitution to require that the state budget be passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. Ever since then, the state budget has not only been late every year but ridiculously late. A few years ago, there was an attempt to restore sanity by bringing it back to a simple majority, but it went down by a narrow margin. Yesterday, we tried to lower the required figure to 55%, but that went down, too.

[T_i_B]

5. Sounds to me...

...like you have something of a healthy democracy in CA, Arnold or no Arnold. :-)

The big local issue round where I live is that which plagues much of British local government, namely council tax. This website should be something of an introduction to what's going on. This is the latest protest movement in the UK but the mainstream politicians do seem a little bit keener to listen to this then they did the anti-war protests.

http://www.isitfair.co.uk/

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Indeed, we have a healthy democracy in California

Or, at least we have some healthy trappings of democracy here.

You may have read last year about our direct democracy features built into the California state constitution, namely, the initiative, the recall and the referendum. Although I don't think recalling Governor Davis last year was wise, I rather have the voters make a mistake than to remove these features.

Keep in mind that my reasons for opposing the recall of Governor Davis were somewhat arcane. I think there should be a high bar for recall, just as there should be a high bar for impeachment. Davis' opponents did not assert that he was guilty of any malfeasance, just that things were going badly (no argument from me on that point) and that a change in leadership might help. In effect, what happened was that the voters gave Davis a statewide vote of no confidence.

In our separation of powers system, office holders are elected to a fixed term and should be able to complete that term unless the most extraordinary circumstances. In my view, Davis could have been a pretty poor governor and still not have met the bar for removing him from office.

On the other hand, in your parliamentary system, if things aren't going right there is nothing wrong with just removing the government by giving it a no confidence vote. Were Davis the prime minister of California rather than the governor, I'm sure he would have been given a vote of confidence long before the recall election.

One might half-seriously suggest that if we Californians want to recall the governor if things aren't going well that we should switch to a parliamentary system. At least mid-term no confidence votes are more consistent with the principles of a parliamentary system than they are with those of a system based on separation of powers.

Thanks for the link. I'll look at today at my leisure.

[The Stranger]

7. I can't count the number of times that British leaders have sworn that the

poodle was through politically, and nothing happens. They huff and they puff, but they just can't seem to blow the house down.