Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

This blog is cautious about the value and wisdom of a No Fly Zone. At the moment it is a non runner. America sits on the fence. Russia, China and Germany are opposed. Only Britain and France are gung ho and pressing the case. So far the Arab League have supported, conditional upon a U.N. mandate, which kills it at the moment. The G8 have walked away, as has the EU.

Gaddafi is now winning, though not as convincingly as his propaganda proclaims. There is no certainty that his troops will remain loyal in sufficient numbers to overcome Benghazi. Without that victory, Libya remains divided. Gaddafi’s stand has impacted events in Dubai. Here the ruling family are now willing to use sufficient force to crush the rebellion. The Saudis are willing to help. In the long run all these autocracies will fall, but though this may be the beginning, the time for the wholesale Arab Revolution is not yet.

Part of the reason is the calamity of Iraq and Afghanistan, where bright new dawns turned at once to a long and bloody night, without being able to raise a government with a writ over all its territory. America is hobbled by this past foreign policy mayhem; thus it waits for others to lead. France, which opposed the Iraq invasion, is unburdened by this shameful legacy and thus feels strong enough to speak out. With a certain deftness, which may pass unnoticed in the wake of its recent blunders, the British foreign office has lined up with the French, to create a new dynamic on the international scene, independent of the U.S.

This is a very worthwhile development. Logically this should lead to a four power cohesion of Britain, France Germany and Russia. That will not happen on the Libya issue, but it should be a long term aim.  Meanwhile the failure to gain support for the NFZ, is a direct outcome of the shambolic Iraq invasion and the indecisive, never ending war in Afghanistan. In foreign policy, as in everything else, one thing leads to another.

This is going to be more interesting than at first it appeared. I repeat, having posted it often, that under our constitution there is no need whatever to hold a referendum to vary the voting system and no such referenda have been held in the past. When negotiating the Coalition Agreement, the Lib Dems believed a referendum would be easily carried, while the Tories hoped that it would be lost. That is why they offered it.

There is some comparison between this AV referendum and the Monarchy referendum in Australia. Most observers thought Oz would become a republic;  instead it voted for tradition. Everyone at the time of the coalition negotiations who was not schooled in the subtleties of political mood, supposed that at last this country would seize the opportunity to modernize its democratic process. Now it looks far from certain that this is what will happen.

The reson is this. First past the post works perfectly if you have only two major parties. It becomes unfair if there is a third party big enough to count its votes in millions. The rise of the Lib Dems made the case compelling. But things have changed. The lib Dems are in government and their supporters have fled. People are not impressed. They may easily be persuaded that Tory or Labour is enough choice. That is what the No vote campaign is essentially saying.

The reason the Lib Dems are in trouble is not that they have behaved badly in government, or have not made a difference. Their contribution has been measured, courageous and positive. Their ministers are every bit as able as their Tory colleagues. Their problem is that during the last general election and for years before, they made loads of rash and silly promises and pledges which they are now unable to deliver. People who voted for them did so, not because they were tribally bound in, as with Tory and Labour, but because they liked Lib Dem ideas, those pledges and promises, in fact. They feel badly let down. Moreover they feel that if coalition provides an excuse for parties to break even more promises than usual, maybe it is not such a good idea after all.

Thus the Yes campaign will have to fight very hard on two fronts. One is the principle; the other is the perception. The first they can win, but the second they may lose. If that happens the Lib Dems will have lost all, including most of their seats at the next general election.