James Alexander, a Prospective MP for York Outer, writes on Labour List…

I consider myself to be very much a citizen of the world and an egalitarian. These are some of the reasons why I am a member of the Labour party.

…

To ensure a centre-left future for the UK, we must also fight to retain a Democrat in the White House and that other centre left parties are in office in major democracies around the world.

…

The Labour party has a lot in common with foreign counter-parts and working together in a more coherent way could be achieved on a party level, helping centre-left Governments work more closely together.

I don’t share Alexander’s enthusiasm for a “socialist defence force” – he seems to be endorsing a conspiratorial elite without quite realising it – but I agree that we should work harder to aid dissidents and democratic movements internationally. Let’s look, for a moment, at how the Labour government has “worke[d] together” with “foreign counter-parts“…

• Here’s Labour MP Kim Howells, schmoozing with Columbia’s High Mountain Brigades. Our government gives them money and arms, and they’re best known for butchering workers and trade unionists.

• Here’s Islam Karimov, the Uzbekistani autocrat. He’s a pal of the current Labour government – he hands over information that he’s extracted through torture and they slap down his critics and let him to freely export arms. Elsewhere, he’s known for torturing political prisoners to death and boiling dissidents alive (warning – NSFW and NSFLunch images).

• Here’s Tony Blair explaining to Jeremy Paxman that the Saudi Arabian officials “have their culture, their way of life”. It would be nice if they were discussing, say, food or religious festivities, but really they’re talking about the charming practices of forced amputation and institutional torture. The Labour government so reliant upon Saudi Arabian oil and exports that it cuts off investigations into their large-scale corruption.

There’s a valid argument which proposes that the interaction of states should not and need not be influenced by their respective human rights standards. However, the fetid deviousness of New Labour is luridly illuminated in its bland pretensions towards an international morality. There are politically convenient denunciations; memberships of Amnesty International; glib references towards the “equal worth of human beings” and their “equal right to independence“.

A consistent amorality would at least be honest; would at least be a platform on which to build. As it is, the “stances” of the Labour government are little more than murals. They may attract, they may enrage, but really they’re just paintings splashed across opaque, unyielding surfaces.

Gary Slapper – a Professor of Law at the Open University – has a superb guest column in the Times today, which, cooly and meticulously, takes Jack Straw to pieces over his nauseating decision to block the release of the minutes of cabinet discussions that preceded the invasion of Iraq…

“Jack Straw, in ruling against the release of cabinet minutes relating to the UK’s going to war in Iraq, has violated a key principle of the British constitution. That principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be a judge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by the continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers.

The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as “a serious violation of international law”. The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time.

If there was something unlawful taking place how can one of the possible culprits be the person who makes a quasi-judicial decision that the evidence must remain secret? That is the equivalent of a police suspect telling the police there will be no investigation as there is nothing to worry about.

The point is not narrow and academic. The war in Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, massive social upheaval and has been condemned as unlawful by many eminent international lawyers and senior judges.”

Guano – the best blog commenter around, though, I think, blogless – concisely details why these minutes are so relevant…

“At these two meetings the Cabinet changed its line from “we will get a second resolution” to “we will be involved in the invasion of Iraq without a second resolution”. This should mean that these two meetings deal with all the implications of that change in policy, including the legality of invading without UN authority. There is a clear public interest in knowing how this reversal came about.”

The psychology of this decision is quite interesting.

The perceptions of all people are shaped by their circumstances, and ours reflect the fact that we live in a fairly peaceful, prosperous society. This doesn’t mean that we need to get all relativistic, but to identify situations where our attitudes become unpleasantly skewed. At times I’ve particularly failed to do this, prizing the effectiveness of rhetoric over the quality of opinion – tribalism over common humanity, vanity over compassion. Without wanting to paint y’all with a broad brush, I’m sure that most people have been also been suspectible to that (to varying, probably lesser, extents). Yet, when directly confronted with suffering, we still react to it, and we still recognise the direct consequences of our own actions.

Thus, our and Jack Straw’s conceptions of ethics just don’t align. He holds direct, personal responsibility for a war that’s killed, wounded or displaced millions of people, and one that he’s watched unfold over six years. He’s chosen to block this release – just as when he lied over torture – purely so that his role, and that of others, can remain obscured. What a terrifying mindset. What an iron will towards self-preservation. Never mind Justice Secretary, I wouldn’t this guy to be within fifty-metres of me. I can’t think of anything he wouldn’t be capable of.

Update: And yet, when I read an interview with him, he comes across as a decent, if stupid, man and I feel a sort of reflexive “should I be so nathty to him?” The answer, I think, is “Yes, ya soppy bastard, and stop getting tribalistic about people who come across as affable“.

Hmm, there’s still imperialism and authoritarianism to put an end to, but once in a while every person must don their nerd hat and dive into the murky world of internet anality. Labour blogger Matthew Cain kindly left this comment on my Labour List post earlier today…

“Newscounter has conducted an initial evaluation of Labourlist and found that the site is outperforming most people’s expectations…”

The post that he links to admits that…

“[Labour List] has certainly been controversial and site editor Derek Draper’s conduct occasionally aggressive and even offensive. But whether you like it or not, it’s working.”

MMMMhmmm?

“Last week I noticed that it had attracted a significant number of links into the site. This was particularly surprising as some of the biggest right wing bloggers have refused to link to labourlist. It isn’t yet competing with the biggest sites but is growing at a significant rate and if it continues, won’t be far behind its main rivals before long.”

Doubtless, da List has gained statistics that they can swing about with the big boys, but I feel that Matthew’s optimistic if he thinks that this interest will endure, let alone grow.

While most blogs start small and slowly gain recognition, the site surfed straight up an intimidating wave of publicity. It kicked off with two articles in The Daily Mail (one positive/one critical), as well as a couple of link-heavy Comment is Free posts. Moreover, it was the talk of what I shall call, for the sake of convenience, “the town”, with analysis from Liberal Conspiracy, Iain Dale, Bloggerheads, Guido Fawkes and Matt Wardman. Nasty or nice, it all sent da List links, hits, comments and everything else that gives blogs the appearance of success.

However, pending dramatic revelations there won’t be any more coverage from the Dead Tree media, and it’s hard to see how the interest from blogs will be maintained. Much of the publicity that Labour List has gained has been negative – Draper’s wars of words with Tim*, Iain and Guido, especially – and there’s only so many times that the guy can piss people off. Without that conflict, readers of his opponents won’t have any reason to engage (even if it’s just to call him something rude).

The big problem is that the actual, y’know, posts haven’t gained much interest. Matthew praises the site for “set[ting] the agenda on bigger blogs” and ” ignit[ing] a chain of conversations on multiple websites”, but most of the conversations have revolved around Draper being an arse. Attempts to move beyond that, admittedly broad, field have been unsuccessful, as the mix of apologias, Tory-bashing and policy-pondering has garnered little attention. It looks like there’ll be scant opportunity to reach the population at large, and they may be better suited to trying to build a community of Labour activists…which is exactly what Labour Home has been trying to do, but…I hope they have fun…

For those reasons, I think that my expectations are and have been justified…Not that that’s of any discernable good to anyone, of course.

[*] Who I apologise to for lumping into that triumvarate.