Sarah Palin’s political bandwagon is wobbling under the weight of contradictions

That, my friends, was the banner headline that greeted me as I perused my Daily Telegraph the other morning while spreading the marmalade upon my third slice of toast.

The knife slipped from my hand in terror. The toast lay recumbent and uneaten on the plate. My tea began to cool in the mug as no hand reached out to drink it.

Frightening thoughts raced through my head. Had Sullivan finally persuaded the Surgeon General to order a full scale investigation into Trig’s birth, all costs to be drawn from President Obama’s overdraft at the Bank of China?  Were there rumours that Sarah Palin was about to endorse Harry Reid in return for a bulk order for her new book from Searchlight Library? Had R A Mansour been spotted having lunch with David Frum and Geoffrey Dunn in the Washington Post restaurant?

But then I saw the byline and the tension drained out of my shoulders. No need to worry – the piece had been written by resident Telegraph hack Alex Spillius as Part XXVI of the long running saga authored jointly with Toby Harnden “The Political Extinction and Increasing Irrelevancy of Sarah Palin 2008 2009 2010….” otherwise known as “What we manage to pick up at Beltway Dinner Parties to fill a few empty lines in The Daily Telegraph”

In other words to describe it as fish wrap would be an insult to cod – it was more something handy to parcel up your used cat litter.

The basic premise – “imminent Palin car crash” – was standard recycled NYT/WaPo drivel and it’s the only picture of Sarah Palin that we in the UK ever get because, of course, most of the Brit correspondents rarely leave the NY/DC Corridor to find out for themselves what is going on. It’s loosely written, poorly researched and relies more in wishful thinking than solid facts.

As R S McCain would undoubtedly tell you – the sound that you hear is Hunter S. Thompson turning in his grave.

Sarah Palin’s political bandwagon is wobbling under the weight of contradictions

The Sarah Palin phenomenon is finally beginning to fade as contradictions mount up, says Alex Spillius in Washington

Now, as Sgt Joe Friday would say in Dragnet – “All we want are the facts….”

Well, says Spillius, it’s the Carly Fiorina endorsement that’s finally loosened the wheels

The suspicion is that Palin either didn’t do her homework on Fiorina – who favours a “cap and trade” energy reform bill and is considered insufficiently robust against abortion – or is indulging in old fashioned, Washington-style back-scratching.

(Actually, Alex, the suspicion is that it’s you who didn’t do your homework on Fiorina re cap and trade…all you had to do was to access her website to discover her position – and if she is considered insufficiently robust against abortion why has she been endorsed by the National Right To Life Committee, The California Pro Life Council and Susan B. Anthony’s List? All you had to do was a little homework there, Alex – after all that’s why the Daily Telegraph sends you those regular cheques….)

Apparently the Fiorina endorsement has caused uproar amongst her Facebook followers

Dissent is most evident among Palin’s 1.5 million Facebook friends, who have revolted against her decision to endorse Carly Fiorina, the controversial former Hewlett Packard executive, in a California Republican senate primary over the Tea Party favourite, Chuck DeVore.

Hey Alex – you are so right on the button with that one. She now has only 1,555,482 Facebook friends. Now that’s what I call a mass desertion. Or perhaps arithmetic isn’t a Spillius strong point otherwise he might have come to the same conclusion as CK MacLeod

Chuck DeVore is a solid conservative, very well-qualified to be senator or to hold other important offices or positions, but he doesn’t seem to have a prayer of both overtaking Carly Fiorina and defeating Tom Campbell in the June 8 Republican senate primary.  He should drop out and, following Sarah Palin’s lead, endorse Fiorina for the good of the conservative movement, the state, and the nation.

For hacks like Spillius Governor Palin is damned whatever she does. If she had endorsed DeVore he would have characterised her as a dim-witted small town hick playing to her right wing redneck base, while, endorsing Fiorina, she is clearly “indulging in old fashioned, Washington-style back-scratching.”

As an honest and unbiased journalist, of course, Spillius must have written about her other wide ranging endorsements but, unfortunately, the DT sub editors cut them out…..whoops..that flying pig just missed my chimney….

From where is Spillius getting his information? He doesn’t say, of course, but there are one or two clues that can be picked up from this particular dumpster. Take this

It is not just that they have doubts about a would-be president who wants all her questions pre-screened, who needs to scribble her talking points on her palm and whose favourite modes of communication are those of a 15-year-old, namely Twitter and Facebook.

Or this

She attacked “big government” healthcare reform but accepts free care for her grandson, an entitlement received only because her husband Todd is one quarter native Alaskan.

Smell Huffington? Smell Shannyn Moore? (Yes, that Shannyn Moore, who is being pressed by Alaskans to stand for US Senate according to the ultra reliable and even handed Philip Munger) The Tripp healthcare story, which came out of Bristol’s court deposition for the custody hearing was only bigged up through Moore via HuffPo – it didn’t have much traction in the MSM. It would appear, therefore, that Spillius saved a lot of shoe leather by bottom feeding with Huffington – hardly the mark of the quality journalism with which the Telegraph claims it fills its pages.

All in all this shoddy palisade of piffle constructed by Spillius is a feeble attempt to reconcile the two recurring memes of contemporary anti Palin reportage.  The original “Palin is an ignorant airhead” message (scribbles on palm, uses Twitter etc) and the more recent “Hypocrite Palin is only in it for the money” approach (sells lots of books, endorses big business candidate etc)

What Spillius and his informants seem unable to grasp is that the sharp operator meme just fails to lock up with the concept of the ignorant airhead.

But then when was Alex Spillius ever concerned with the truth as far as Sarah Palin is concerned. He could, with a little leg work, have written an interesting analysis of all her endorsements including the controversies following her decisions in Kentucky and California. He could have interviewed some of those candidates. He could even have requested an interview with Governor Palin herself.

But maybe such an approach was beyond his paygrade – that would have been a proper piece of journalism…………….

A lot of support for Blackburn magistrate Austin Molloy both locally and across the nation.

There’s a Facebook page to show your support and here is the e mail address of Blackburn Courts if you would like to express a view

[email protected]

The Mayor of Darwen, Molloy’s home town , likes his style

“I believe in calling a spade a spade. I’m a down to earth person and a lot of people are fed up with political correctness.

“It’s pathetic he had to stand down. It’s political correctness gone mad again.”

I’ll second that….

The two teenagers walked into Blackburn Cathedral, scribbled racist and sexual comments in some prayer books and tore the pages out of others. They found a priceless John the Baptist cross and bent it out of shape. It cost £3000 to repair.

Then they walked out.

Just an everyday tale of the vandalism and sheer mindless destruction prevalent on our streets today and so common that the authorities tend to shrug shoulders and factor it into normal running costs without expending too much effort in tracking down the offenders.

But the Cathedral staff didn’t have to contact Sherlock Holmes to solve this particular crime. The two 16 year olds proudly wrote their names in the Visitor’s Book, their collars were felt and they found themselves up before Austin Molloy, chairman of the bench at Blackburn Magistrates’ Court.

No soft touch was Magistrate Molloy.

One of them was given an 18-month supervision order and a £1,500 fine after pleading guilty to damaging the cross at a hearing last month. The other had a 12-month supervision order and a £100 fine after pleading guilty to defacing and damaging the books.

But Mr Molloy had not finished. He gave them a piece of his mind.

“This court is disgusted by the mindless destruction you have caused. Normal people would consider you absolute scum.

“If it was in our power, we would have you both stand in front of the congregation at 10am on Sunday and explain your words and actions to them to see if they could understand it, because we can’t.”

In every factory, workshop, office and farm in the land ordinary everyday people gave three silent cheers for Austin Molloy, a 57 year old company director with 18 years experience as a magistrate. At last a Justice of the Peace with a quaintly old fashioned view of the law.

“They needed to be told off. The courts need to start looking after the victims rather than the criminals.”

Amen to that – but, regrettably not a feeling shared by the clerk to the court, usually a legal professional whose job it is to inform the lay magistrates about the law. She jumped up and announced to an astonished court that Mr Molloy had used “inappropriate language” and encouraged the mothers of the teenagers to make an official complaint.No doubt the teenagers themselves thought that Christmas had come early – they were suddenly transformed from vandals to victims with the possible prospect of a tidy sum of money as compensation for “hurt feelings”

I’d love to report that the higher officials at the court awarded Mr Molloy their full backing and gave Christine Dean, the clerk of the court, a short and sharp reminder of the facts of life.

Dream on….this is UK 2010. Mr Molloy has been suspended and a very large question mark hangs over his future as a magistrate.

In my alternative universe, however, he would be summoned by the Queen and knighted for his services to common sense and his statue, financed by the subscriptions of the grateful citizens of Blackburn, would be erected in the Cathedral precinct. Engraved on the plinth would be a dedication reflecting the feelings of everybody in the UK except the handful of spineless panjandrums who, regrettably, appear to dominate the legal profession.

“In honour of one of the few brave men and women in our courts who are willing to tell it straight and to the point “

First of all – ignore all the pundits. They are still in shock and really haven’t a clue about what will happen. True they will generate their 900 word pieces because that is what they are paid to do. But in essence they are in the same position as a stagecoach owner in 1825 when he heard about the opening of the world’s first passenger railway between Stockton and Darlington. He didn’t know how it would develop but in his bones he knew it would be a game changer.

The coalition between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats announced by David Cameron is a totally unknown quantity because, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it has shattered the conventional wisdom of political physics. Politics in the UK has always been based on competing political parties whose members have a tribal loyalty to their own circle and a visceral loathing of rival groups.

True.

But note that I speak of party “members” – voters are a different kettle of fish. Annoyingly they do not always share the fetishistic totems of party loyalists. They pay little attention to those “how many angels can dance on a pinhead” disputes and debates that fascinate political junkies. What is even more frustrating for the junkies (and I confess to being one myself) is that it is those voters who actually make the final choice at election time!

Let’s get one myth out of the way. Nobody went to the polls and voted for a “Hung Parliament” – we each of us went in and marked our cross against the candidate of a particular party. The outcome was a parliament where the Conservatives had the biggest share of seats and votes (and the biggest swing) but did not attain an overall majority. The Lib Dems had a slight improvement on 2005 but not anything of any significance. Labour underperformed quite badly but were not wiped out. The outcome was the coalition.

Americans who are used to the concept of an elected executive completely separate from an elected legislature do not find our system easy to grasp. In the UK the executive power lies with a group of the members of the elected legislature. We also do not have a two party system – we have a two and a half party system plus a scattering of minor (mainly regional) parties. Clearly in the US you could not have coalition government – but you can have administrations where the President is not from the party that controls Congress. It is to that kind of situation you should look when trying to work out the mechanics of coalition.

Of course all parties are essentially coalitions often encompassing a wide range of different viewpoints so even Prime Ministers with strong majorities like Thatcher and Blair had to be aware of the potential strains that could be placed on party loyalty if certain groups were antagonised. For David Cameron these possible strains and stresses simply loom larger.

There is another myth which needs to be deconstructed – that the Lib Dems are a soft left version of the Labour Party.

The formation of a Conservative-Liberal coalition government finally blows apart the lazy assumption that the Lib Dems are natural bedfellows of the Labour Party. Or that the party is a subset of some entirely fictitious centre-left “progressive alliance”. It has always suited the Labour party and left-leaning Lib Dems to perpetuate the myth that there was some sort of philosophically coherent anti-Tory block that always secures more than 50 per cent of the popular vote. This week’s historic events leave that assertion in tatters.

Clegg and most of the other Lib Dems currently in the Cabinet have, over the last few years, moved their party away from the old high tax, big spend mantras of previous leaders like Kennedy and Ashdown and shifted back to traditional market oriented liberal virtues. Even before the election if one looked at the two parties without the blinkers of tribal loyalties there was a common theme shared by both Clegg and Cameron.

that expensive, big government, state-run projects don’t just tend to fail, but actually crowd out more benign, more efficient and more rewarding private, individual efforts. Both Clegg and Cameron instinctively seek to find policy solutions that remove the dead hand of the state from the shoulders of the citizenry.

Of course, without the mischievous genie of electoral mathematics, Cameron and Clegg would now still be political rivals sniping at each other from the benches of the House of Commons. The coalition is still the stepchild of Expediency and Chance. But, as the Duke of Wellington once said

A good general knows when to retreat – and when he does it he does it damn well…

A good leader has to be sure footed and able, at times, to act with low cunning. Cameron, faced with difficult and unexpected circumstances appears to have deftly sidestepped a deep pothole and maintained his progress along the road.

Concessions have had to be made and there is no lack of sniper fire from the disenchanted in both parties. But the Tories have probably got the best of the deal

the deficit reduction plan, scrapping Labour’s planned NI increase on employers, an emergency Budget followed by a comprehensive spending review, a strategic defence review, the creation of a National Security Council, the retention of the Trident nuclear deterrent, a cap on immigration, no more power ceded to Brussels – all have survived the negotiations.

Reducing inheritance tax and lowering the tax burden on married couples are key Tory policies that have had to be put on the back burner and, of course, Lib Dem demands for Proportional Representation in Parliamentary elections have had to be assuaged with the promise of a referendum. But Cameron’s ambitious plans for reducing the number of MPs and equalising the sizes of constituencies will go ahead (much to the chagrin of Labour) as will Schools reform and some form of elected agency to control local policing.

Above all the Coalition is agreed that the main priority will be the reduction of the massive deficit inherited from Gordon Brown – a stance welcomed by the usually neutral governor of the Bank of England

Mervyn King has today stepped aside from regular tradition in the UK and gave his backing to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats party plans for a £6 billion reduction in public sector spending this year. Historically the Bank of England, via the Gov of the Bank of England, has been very reluctant to become involved in political matters although today saw something very different.

There will have to be some very tough spending and taxing decisions made over the next few months. By sharing this burden with the Liberal Democrats Cameron has appeared to be placing the national interest above party considerations. It might, of course, all end in tears and confusion. But if it succeeds it might well produce a sea change in UK politics that could marginalise the Labour Party and the left leaning cultural elite for a very long time.

“I think we have got to respect the results of the general election and we can’t get away from the fact that Labour didn’t win.”

Thus spoke Labour Cabinet member Andy Burnham on hearing that The Weasels (Mandelson and Campbell) had cobbled together a cunning plan to construct a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition by persuading Gordon to promise to resign by October once a new Labour leader had been elected.

He wasn’t the only angry Labour voice

It’s not just David Blunkett, John Reid and Tom Harris speaking out against the idea of a Lab-Lib coalition. Andy Burnham has now broken cover on BBC World at One and said the election decision should be respected. At Cabinet yesterday, he spoke out against the idea of a rainbow coalition, as did Bob Ainsworth, Sadiq Khan and Jack Straw.

The weasels’ wheeze (with Brown’s full support)was to bring together all the “Progressive” forces (Labour, Lib Dem, Scottish Nationalists etc etc) into an anti-Tory Lovefest that would consign the forces of Reaction to the dustbin of history.

There was only one problem – if there’s anything a Progressive hates more than a Reactionary it’s another Progressive. Most Labour MPs hate Lib Dems more than Tories and Scottish Labourites (and they are legion) loathe the SNP…..and, above all, most Labour MPs dislike Mandelson and Campbell who both spent the Blair years bullying and knifing anyone who stepped out of line. When Brown brought them back two years ago to act as his minders that dislike morphed into detestation.

For years, however, fear of the Weasels was greater than hatred so they were able to strut the stage with impunity. But even as they were busy orchestrating Brown’s five month exit people like Burnham sensed power draining away from Mandelson and Campbell – it became Labour’s Vichy France 1944 moment. The Lib Dems returned to the Con/Lib table and the Weasels were left spinning in the wind.

Savour this picture from The Times – it is a Mandelson/Campbell nightmare. David Cameron and his wife Samantha about to enter 10 Downing Street, the new tenants of a house  that for thirteen years echoed to the footsteps of the Weasels as they prowled the halls of power – and now they have been evicted.

 “Ultio dulcis est” as the Romans said “Revenge is sweet”

Great news – late this afternoon Gordon Brown who, as Prime Minister never won an election, declared that he would resign in four months time once the Labour Party has chosen a new leader. The Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg, who were coming to the end of what appeared to be a promising round of negotiations with David Cameron and the Tories, have suddenly anounced they will enter formal negotiations with Brown to discuss a possible Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition – even though there is no evidence that the Tory/Lib talks had broken down or even stalled.

Even if one could ignore, just for a moment, the seedy, shady nature of this move to set up a Coalition of Losers the mathematics must be flawed. Together Labour and Lib Dems can put together 315 MPs – not enough to ensure a Parliamentary majority of 326. They must bring in the nationalists from Scotland (SNP), Wales (Plaid Cymru) and the Unionists from Northern Ireland in order to cobble together a Rainbow Coalition. The price for the support of these regional parties would be sackloads of taxpayers gold heading for Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to be spent on a whole range of Celtic fantasies.

Then finally, in October, a new Labour Party leader would grease his or her way into Downing Street…..an unelected Labour Prime Minister replacing another unelected Labour Prime Minister….

Thus Gordon Brown leaves Number 10 in the same manner by which he entered – through plotting and scheming and fixing the roulette wheel. No wonder the pound collapsed immediately after Brown’s statement – would anybody in their right mind invest their money in a Government of Weasels?

Dan Hannan (Glenn Beck’s favourite Brit) once again hits the nail on the head on the issue of the Hung Parliament and Cameron’s offer to Clegg and the Liberal Democrats of concessions in return for their support of a minority Tory administration. Some of the “purists” like Delingpole, Heffer and Tebbitt decry this move as a classic surrender to the left revealing Cameron in his true colours as a pseudo liberal “wet”in the Edward Heath mould. Promises of more tax cuts and less tree hugging, they claim, would have produced a solid majority paving the way for the restoration of the Thatcher legacy.

Only one problem with that scenario. “Read my lips – lots of tax cuts” constantly proclaimed during the campaign would have been revealed as a huckster’s lie once the first post election budget was announced because Brown’s regime has left us with a massive deficit.

While we’ve been snarled in our domestic quarrels, Greece has been falling to pieces. Unless we take immediate and drastic measures, we might find ourselves in the same position. Our deficit is projected to overtake Greece’s next year, and our economy has until now been propped up, at least in part, by the markets’ confidence that a new government would bring spending under control.

Tough decisions need to be taken. There will probably have to be public spending cuts plus some tax increases – not as traumatic as those to be imposed on Greece but unless implemented now we could find ourselves in a Greek scenario by 2011.

Hannan also sees some overlap in Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies

Both parties, meanwhile, want to scrap ID cards and reverse some of the more statist legislation passed by Labour in the guise of anti-terrorism measures. Both agree that our political system needs renewal. Both want recall mechanisms, popular initiative procedures, reform of the Upper House, fewer MPs, a shift in power from Whips to backbenchers and from executive to legislature. These things would have a far more tangible and benign impact on our political system than proportional representation.

As for tax, I rather agree with the Lib Dems that, when cuts become possible, they should first be directed at low earners. My guess is that most of my fellow Conservatives sympathise: lifting the poor out of tax, as Lords Saatchi and Tebbit propose, would do more to incentivise work than any number of tweaks to the benefits system.

The markets could possibly hold for a day or two waiting for a Con/Lib deal to be sealed but the longer the delay the greater the danger.

Back to the UK. Any falls in sterling, gilts or the FTSE 100 today ought to be modest. But what investors do not want to see is any sign that this is 1974 redux. The longer things drag on, the more likely that becomes, raising the risk of bigger falls.

Fortunately, although Brown is still clinging by his fingernails to the doorknob of Number 10, Downing Street, some Labour MPs are becoming increasingly embarrassed by his refusal to accept reality.

Another former minister, George Howarth, said that ”the maths” were against Labour being able to form an administration and that David Cameron should now be given his chance.

He said: ”I think the proper thing to do, in the interests of the country and in the interests of the Labour Party, is for the Conservatives to form a government, for us to be the Opposition – and be in opposition in a constructive way and where anything the Conservative Party puts forward is in our view in the national interest, to support it.”

…..and so the clock ticks……

OK – let’s get it out of the way…I was wrong in Message #11

BTW…….waving my fist defiantly in the face of the gods of polling and punditry let me make my prediction now……A TORY WIN WITH A SMALL OVERALL  MAJORITY…..excelsior!!!

I was clearly O/Ding on that most tempting of political drugs Wishful Thinking. Instead of gaining the 336 seats that would have provided an overall majority of 10 the Tories were just 30 MPs short.

Here are the figures compared with 2005

Notice how the unequal sizing of constituencies favours Labour. Although the Tories had a greater percentage of the popular vote than Labour in 2005 they won fewer seats and, the other side of the same coin, Labour’s lower percentage than the Tories in 2005 still got them 50 more seats.

Still the key word in that diagram comes on the 2010 overall majority line – “none”. It means that no single party can form a majority government on it’s own. So, although Cleggmania proved a deflated balloon, the  Liberal Democrats still hold the balance between Labour and Conservatives  so young Mr Clegg has been on the receiving end of a flirting offensive from Brown and Cameron whose very transparency would make Jane Austen blush.

David Cameron opened talks with Nick Clegg today about a possible power sharing deal after making a “big, open and comprehensive offer” to the Lib Dem leader in the wake of Britain’s first hung parliament since 1974.

After the closest election race for a generation the Conservatives were left with 307 seats, a net gain of 97 but still 19 short of a majority.

Gordon Brown, who returned to Downing Street at 7am, said that he wanted to try to form a government in the national interest with the Lib Dems and other parties.

The constitutional convention in this situation is fairly set by precedent. The sitting Prime Minister has the first bite of the cherry in forming an administration even though he does not lead the largest party. Only when he feels he would be defeated fairly quickly on a vote of confidence does he then tender his resignation to the Queen who would then, on the advice of her officials, send for the leader of the largest party (in this case David Cameron)

But Clegg has already delivered a pre emptive strike by re iterating his pre election declaration that his first inclination would be to work with the largest party. So, while for the time being Brown remains brooding in Downing Street as Prime Minister Cameron began to  take soundings with the Lib Dems to work out and negotiate parameters of support.

He really had three options.

1. Proceed as a minority administration with every serious parliamentary vote liable to spring the trap of a confidence motion. Though at first sight this could  appear to be a kamikaze mission in reality it might not prove quite so suicidal. This is because electioneering is expensive for political parties who rely on donations and subscriptions to finance their campaigns and, at present they are spent out. Additionally no electorate wants all the inconvenience and distraction of political campaigning inflicted on them within months of the first one and a party or parties which forced a new election might find themselves punished in the polls
2. Run a minority administration through informal understandings with other parties arranged during regular unofficial contacts.
3. Include representatives of other parties in his cabinet thus involving them in the formulation of policy. This would be a coalition which might even subsequently manifest itself as an electoral pact in a future campaign – something which actually happened in 1918 and 1931.

What he has chosen to do is option number two. In a carefully worded statement he listed certain areas where there already appear to be some overlap of agreement with Lib Dem support – education, green issues, lower taxes. He also suggested that a Tory government would work with other parties on investigating possible ways of reforming the voting system which currently, as in the USA, allows candidates to win with a plurality rather than a majority of the votes cast. This is always a hot button issue with third parties.

What he didn’t say was that his government would introduce it – merely investigate the possibilities.

He needed to give an overall impression of flexibility to attract Lib Dem support but he also had to draw some definite lines in the sand to avoid antagonising his own supporters.

He stressed that the ‘bulk” of the Conservative manifesto must be implemented.

He reiterated his line on Europe, immigration, and defence.  That looks like a commitment to Trident, no amnesty for illegal immigrants and – most challengingly – his manifesto position on the EU.  Team Cameron know that these are talismanic symbols to activists of real conservatism – which is why he stressed them.

Cameron, having set out his stall, will now leave key figures in both parties to hammer out some basis of agreement over the next couple of days. If successful then he can then assure the Queen that he has a government that can do business. If it all goes pear shaped then Clegg might then try to work out some sort of agreement with the Labour Party. But public opinion might not be too happy with such a deal. In a recent poll 81% of respondents said that in a hung parliament the party with the most votes and MPs should form the government.

And, over everything, looms the black shadow of the massive deficit that is the legacy of the Brown government. During the campaign this was rarely mentioned but in most quarters there is an understanding that there will have to be substantial cuts in government spending coupled with some tax rises. Both Cameron and Clegg realise some very tough decisions will have to be made and it is quite likely that these cold, hard facts will, in themselves, be sufficient to bring their forces together.

Interesting days indeed…..

To any soldier SNAFU is almost always the order of the day. In war situations things can unravel so fast that no planner can afford to ignore the need for flexibility. So when in Basra in 2005 an SAS undercover operation went wrong and two men were captured and held as hostages by pro Sadrist police and militiamen the regiment immediately prepared to mount a rescue mission. The fear was that unless they acted swiftly the soldiers would be smuggled into Iran and paraded in public as part of a humiliating propaganda coup for the Mullahs.

With the troops all ready to hit the ground running word suddenly came down the line from the UK government in London – no rescue must be attempted as it would give the lie to Whitehall’s claims that Basra was under control. The men had to be sacrificed to save the face of the politicians.

The reaction was swift and stark – the SAS ignored London and rescued their colleagues with clinical precision. Belatedly London changed tack and approved the mission (when it was already well under way) having realised that many members of the elite regiment were willing to mutiny and then hand in their resignations in disgust after the rescue had been completed.

So men’s lives could have been risked for the sake of a feelgood PR puff fed to the BBC.

Lions led by weasels?

Read the full story here.

13 Years of Labour – The Disaster Movie