The Australian Labor Party is duty-bound to exploit John Howard's mendacity over Iraq

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald reports on Prime Minister John Howard's address to his parliamentary caucus before the winter break. Apparently, Howard emphasised the necessity for the governing coalition to sell, for want of a better word, a new story about Australia's involvement in Iraq to the country's voters in the run-up to the General Election later this year.

This new narrative effectively acknowledges the folly of Australian involvement in the US-led invasion. However, it postulates the line of argument that the political, military and social cost of withdrawal would be disastrous for Iraq's fledgling democracy.

As far as it is possible to discern, Howard's motive for involving Australia in this illegal invasion was clear and simple; he simply wished to ingratiate himself with the ultra right-wing Bush White House. Therefore, he was prepared to risk the lives of Australian troops, disregard international law and contribute to exacerbating chaos in the Middle East.

All of this might have been at least partially understandable if it had advanced Australia's stategic geo-political interests. But it hasn't . It merely promoted Howard's own agenda at the expense of Australia's international reputation.

Ultimately, Howard has proved that he is inherently untrustworthy and cares little about the interests of the Aussie 'battlers' who his party have often claimed to represent. This is why I argue that the Australian Labor Party, despite its frequent displays of impotence and inertia, are duty-bound to expose and exploit Howard's mendacity over this issue.

Labour has nothing to gain from pandering to the BNP

During the last few days, there has been something of a furore within the British media about comments made by Trade Minister Margaret Hodge MP in which she suggested that new immigrants are benfiting from preferential treatment in the allocation of social housing at the expense of the "indigenous" population. She seems to have wilfully ignored the fact that only 1% of social housing is occupied by foreign nationals. Her parliamentary colleague, Diane Abbot MP, appeared on the BBC TV's 'This Week' and criticised Hodge for acting as though she were a press officer for the far-right British National Party (BNP).

It seems very clear to me that Hodge's comments are motivated by anxiety about the politics of her own constituency of Barking, in east London. Last year, the BNP made significant gains in local government elections held in Barking at the expense of the Labour Party. After all, they were afforded free publicity beyond their wildest hopes by an earlier intervention by Hodge in which she confidently predicted in the national press that the far right were on the verge of an electoral breakthrough.

It is probably unlikely that a groundswell of support for the BNP in Barking would cost Hodge her safe Labour parliamentary seat. However, the British electorate in recent years has proved itself to be far more volatile than many commentators, pundits and experts would have dared to imagine. Still, Hodge's pandering to the BNP's agenda will prove ineffective as a strategy for ensuring their electoral defeat as the results of last year's council elections demonstrated. In the past, Labour has successfully regained seats lost to the BNP in local council elections by running strongly anti-fascist campaigns. Hodge and the Labour Party should take note.

The reason why I have become a paid-up Republican

Today, I have finally done something that I have been meaning to do for years: I have become a paid-up Republican. In actual fact, I am a life-long Republican having never been able to discern any credible intellectual or moral justification for an un-elected Head of State in a country that proports to be a democracy. Yet in recent years, I had become faintly agnostic about the monarchy largely because of its irrelevance. However, I have been spurred to subscribe to an organisation called 'Republic' which campaigns for the replacement of the anachronistic monarchy with a democratic alternative. The cause of my renewed antipathy is the British media's cringeworthy coverage of the controversy surrounding the improbable deployment to Iraq of pseudo-soldier Harry Windsor.

I am not just a republican for intellectual or moral reasons; I also feel a deep irrational visceral loathing for the Windsor dynasty. To put it baldly, they suck. They contribute nothing especially worthwhile to national life but demand a quasi-religious level of adulation. Therefore, when I heard some sycophantic commentator refer to Harry's "duty" to the country stay alive, I had my moment of epiphany.

A monarchial system is inherently anti-egalitarian. It creates a hierachy of value for human life based on a genetic lottery. In reality, Harry Windsor's death might be tragic for those who know him, but it would not be any more tragic than the death of a proper soldier let alone a national tragedy. The fact that a 21st century democracy clings to such an invalid institution is a national disgrace.

Segolene Royal can still win the French Presidency

A recent poll conducted in France indicates that Segolene Royal, the Socialist candidate for the French Presidency, is now level-pegging with right-wing opponent and frontrunner, Nicolas Sarkozy. Royal's supporters must be particularly encouraged by this given that her poll ratings have been lagging in recent weeks following a series of gaffes. The poll suggests that Royal has a reasonable chance, not only of progressing to the second round of the election, but actually winning the Presidency itself.

Royal has campaigned upon a distinctively centre-left platform. In recent days, she has pledged to increase and improve transparency within the operation of the Presidency in contrast to the rather monarchial style espoused by incumbent Jacques Chirac. This message seems to have struck a chord with the electorate who are less than entirely convinced of the trustworthiness of Sarkozy. I think that Royal might be able to overtake Sarkozy if she can push this message just a little bit harder. Her victory in the second round would be particularly satisfying for Social Democrats everywhere.

Helen Clark: A Leader that Social Democrats can be proud of

A recent One News/Colmar Brunton poll, conducted in New Zealand indicates that the centre -right opposition National Party is currently enjoying a 7% poll lead over the governing Labour Party. However, the poll also indicates that New Zealand voters continue to prefer the incumbent Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark to her oppostion rival, John Key. In many ways, New Zealand society, although increasingly diverse and complex, is quite conservative partly due to its rural and agricultural heritage. Therefore, the continuation of Clark's high personal standing is particularly interesting.

In the international arena, Clark has developed a sound reputation for her economic competence, which was praised by the OECD, and her integrity which she has demonstrated by pursuing a foreign policy that is independent of the White House in stark contrast to her craven centre-right Australian counterpart, John Howard. On the domestic front, Clark's Labour government has managed to preside over economic growth while pursuing progressive social policies. This challenges many of the myths perpetuated by the centre-right about Social Democrats in government.

I am not for one moment proposing the deification of Saint Helen. Anyone who knows anything about New Zealand politics will appreciate that she is a consummate politician with the skills to match. However, this has enabled her to pursue a decidely centre-left policy agenda while retaining an unusually high degree of credibility among sections of New Zealand society with different political persuasions. She might even be re-elected to serve a fourth term in government. Social Democrats everywhere should be proud.

The Australian Labour Party faces political extinction due to its declining relevance

In his first interview since his recent removal from the leadership of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), Kim Beazley predicted that his party would cease to be a major political force if it is defeated in this year's federal election. Furthermore, he predicted that the re-election of John Howard's Liberal government would permanently entrench the recent industrial relations legislation that has been designed to further erode Australians' labour rights.

Interestingly, Julia Gillard, the new ALP Deputy Leader has recently indicated that an incoming Labor government would not rescind Howard's industrial relations legislation. And this is where the ALP's big electoral problem lies: it has ceased to offer a credible alternative programme to the Liberals. Not only has the ALP failed to capture the support of 'middle' Australia, its relevance to its core supporters has declined almost to the point of extinction.

As a social democrat, I have become increasingly frustrated by the ALP's failure, or perhaps refusal, to learn the lessons of its past electoral defeats. Ever since the economic 'Lathamisation' of party policy in the early 2000s, the ALP might be considered to have represented itself as 'Liberal-lite' when faced with an electoral contest. This strategy would almost be justifiable if it had produced any electoral successes. However, the ALP has been consistently been defeated at the polls in every federal election during the last decade. Their pitch to 'middle' Australia fails to convince and encourages apathy among their natural supporters.

Until the ALP accept that the politics of the 'Third Way' are not going to work for them, they will be consigned to total and permanent political defeat. And they will deserve to be.

It's too late for Blair to worry about his legacy.

The Guardian reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has cut short his Christmas break in Florida in order to deal with the latest political crisis in Northern Ireland. Typically, Blair's latest holiday seems somewhat lengthier than those enjoyed by his ministerial colleagues, not to mention the British public.

Media reports suggest that Blair, who is known to be extremely concerned with his 'legacy' to the world and to history, would prefer to leave office later rather than sooner. A speech by Home Secretary John Reid has re-fueled speculation and interest in the issue of Blair's successor, who is expected to form a government at some unspecified point later this year.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration, confronted by a potentially hostile new Congress, seems increasingly concerned with extricating itself from the chaos of its Iraq adventure. Somehow, I doubt that even the most ardent neo-con/Blairite seriously imagines that the ramifications of Bush and Blair's foreign policy will be tidily resolved within the next six months. Blair has already created a legacy that will probably haunt the Middle East and the world for decades to come.

On the domestic front, the schedule for Blair's departure, which admittedly seems to change with alarming frequency, will not allow him sufficient time to properly oversee his latest pet project: the privatisation of Britain's National Health Service. He certainly does not seem entirely convinced of Gordon Brown's commitment to this project.

More importantly, Blair has long since sacrificed his credibility with the British electorate. It is doubtful that he would ever be able to persuade a wary British Parliament to support a military offensive ever again. His silence over the manner of Saddam Hussein's execution is perhaps reflective of lost confidence or some other malaise.

In short, Blair has become a 'lame-duck' Prime Minister. He has already imposed his legacy on the world and he clearly is uncomfortable with it. However, he no longer has time to make amends. The time has come for him to relinquish his hubristic self-delusions and accept the inevitable consequences of his premiership. He should resign sooner rather than later.