Tagged: Cameron

Snowden leaks: David Cameron urges committee to investigate Guardian

The Guardian home

, political editor

Wednesday 16 October 2013

PM says leaks have damaged national security and suggests MPs could ‘examine issue and make further recommendations’

David Cameron

David Cameron speaks during prime minister’s questions, where he said: ‘The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security.’ Photograph: PA

David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

He made his proposal in response to a question from former defence secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden.

Speaking at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Cameron said: “The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files.

“So they know that what they’re dealing with is dangerous for national security. I think it’s up to select committees in this house if they want to examine this issue and make further recommendations.”

The prime minister’s spokesman refused to elaborate on what Cameron meant by the issue of the Guardian disclosures being examined by a select committee.

There are as many as four committees that might take up David Cameron’s suggestion, including the culture select committee, the home affairs select committee, the defence select committee and the intelligence and security select committee.

The ISC largely meets in private but is due soon to meet the leaders of the spy agencies in public and it is certain that the issues raised by the Guardian, including the impact on national security, will be discussed.

Cameron did not follow calls by the backbench Tory MP Julian Smith for the police to prosecute.

Fox had asked the prime minister whether “we can have a full and transparent assessment about whether the Guardian involvement in the Snowden affair had damaged Britain’s national security”.

He said it was bizarre of the Guardian to claim that leaving Britain’s secrets and security personnel more vulnerable was opening a debate about the accountability of the security services.

Related articles

PM pledges to crush Tory’s bid to quit EU early: Cameron faces pressure from dozens of MPs supporting leading rebel Afriyie

By Tim Shipman, Deputy Political Editor

PUBLISHED:01:46, 7 October  2013

Backbencher  Adam Afriyie plans to table an amendment for a vote in 2017

The Prime  Minister has promised an in-out referendum after the next  election

Afriyie  told Mail on Sunday the public was ‘not convinced’ by the  promise

Cameron  faces pressure from 81 Tory MPs who rebelled over a  referendum





Adam Afriyie, pictured with his wife Tracy-Jane, has been accused of de-stabilising the government


Adam Afriyie, pictured with his wife Tracy-Jane, has  been accused of de-stabilising the government




David Cameron moved last night to crush a bid  to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU next year as the Tories  were pitched into fresh turmoil on Europe.


Tory backbencher Adam Afriyie, who has been  accused of plotting against Mr Cameron, announced plans to table an amendment to  legislation which paves the way for a promised vote in 2017.


The Prime Minister has pledged to hold an  in-out referendum after renegotiating Britain’s relationship with Brussels  following the next election, if he wins.


But Mr Afriyie – who is reputed to have 25  supporters lined up for a future leadership bid – said the public was ‘not  convinced’ Mr Cameron would stick to his promise.


He revealed he will give MPs the chance to  vote for a referendum in 2014 instead when Tory James Wharton’s referendum bill  is debated next on November 8.


In an article for the Mail on Sunday, he  wrote: ‘Only by setting an early date can we kick-start EU renegotiation talks  and give the British people what they so clearly want – a say on our country’s  future with Europe.’


Mr Wharton warned that his bill – which is  backed by Downing Street – could be ‘killed’ if the amendment is debated since  backbench bills get very little parliamentary time, allowing Labour to talk it  out.


‘I’d like to see my bill go through and I  think this harms the chances of that happening,’ he said.


The amendment is also a major headache for Mr  Cameron since the 81 Tory MPs who previously rebelled over a referendum will now  come under huge pressure to back the plan for an early vote.


Senior Tories accused Mr Afriyie of seeking  to ‘destabilise’ the Prime Minister ‘at any cost’ and branded him a ‘fantasist’ with ‘little grip on reality’.




Under pressure: The Prime Minister blasted Afriyie's amendment. But many Tories are not convincedUnder pressure: The Prime Minister blasted Afriyie’s  amendment. But many Tories are not convinced




 




Causing a stir: Adam Afriyie, Tory MP for Windsor, is said to have 25 MPs' support for a leadership coupCausing a stir: Adam Afriyie, Tory MP for Windsor, is  said to have 25 MPs’ support for a leadership coup




 


the flat cap reshuffle


 


A No 10 source said: ‘We will not allow this  amendment to be passed under any circumstances. The PM will not let it stand’.


Home Secretary Theresa May warned that Mr  Afriyie had ‘got it wrong’.


Prominent Eurosceptics privately expressed  anger that they may be forced to choose between wrecking Mr Wharton’s bill,  which they support, and voting against a referendum for which they have  campaigned for years.


MPs privately expressed incredulity that Mr  Afriyie appeared not to have discussed the plan with any of the leading  Eurosceptics.


Philip Davies, who launched the Better Off  Out group in 2006, spoke for many: ‘Should there be a vote, I would be compelled  to support it since it’s something I have campaigned for all my  career.


‘However, I’ve never known Adam Afriyie care  about the subject in his life. It’s totally self-indulgent behaviour. He’s going  to put lots of my colleagues in a very difficult position.’


If Mr Afriyie had hoped to use his gambit to  boost his chances of succeeding Mr Cameron, it appeared to have failed, with  Tory MPs queuing up to condemn his grandstanding.


Labour’s Tom Watson and Keith Vaz both backed  an early referendum but Ed Miliband’s aides refused to say whether he will vote  with his conscience to oppose a vote or seek to inflict a tactical victory on Mr  Cameron.


‘We will respond to the amendment after it  has been published,’ a source said.


Nick Clegg will lay into the Tories this  week, using a speech on Europe to warn that Mr Cameron’s EU referendum promise  is ‘deeply flawed and bound to unravel’.


But UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage  backed an early referendum.


 


Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						Cameron Vows Tories Will Build Better Britain					
				

					


		

			
Sky News


2 October 2013, 13:15


1385930_369808196487063_1495419667_n


David Cameron has urged voters to hand him a majority at the next election so that the Tories can build a “land of opportunity”.


The Prime Minister evoked Winston Churchill as he asked Britain to give the Conservatives the tools to “finish the job” of “clearing up the mess” left by Labour.


He said the economy was starting to turn the corner but warned that anyone who thought the struggle was over is “living in a fantasy land”.


In a bid to adopt a more upbeat tone, his party conference speech talked of creating a better Britain and signalled he would slash taxes if he stays in power.


“We are Tories. We believe in low taxes. And believe me – we will keep on cutting the taxes of hard-working people,” he declared.


But he also warned of further austerity as the Conservatives aim to pay off the deficit and then build up a surplus for the future.


Mr Cameron signalled the under-25s would have to “earn or learn” under a Tory government and would not be able to opt for a life on benefits.


But there were no other major policy announcements in his 49-minute address in Manchester, which was mostly delivered directly to the camera.


Instead, the Tory leader sought to draw clear dividing lines with Labour, accusing Ed Miliband of adopting a “crazy” anti-business agenda.


He dismissed Mr Miliband’s promises to cut the cost-of-living as “all sticking plaster and quick fixes” – dubbing it “Red Ed and his Blue Peter economy”.


Borrowing the slogan Mr Miliband repeated 17 times in his own speech, Mr Cameron declared: “I tell you what, Britain deserves better than that lot.”


He insisted profit, wealth creation and enterprise were not “dirty, elitist words” but the driving force behind the recovery.


“It’s businesses that get wages in people’s pockets, food on their tables, hope for their families and success for our country,” he said.


He branded Labour’s plan to hike corporate tax rates for large businesses as “just about the most damaging, nonsensical, twisted economic policy you could possibly come up with”.


And he warned the call for more state borrowing and spending to ease what the Opposition calls a cost-of-living crisis would risk putting the UK on the same track as Greece.


He also rejected Labour accusations that the Tories represent the privileged and said he wanted a society where everyone has “the chance to make it”.


Mr Cameron declared that he is “fighting heart and soul for a majority Conservative government because that is what our country needs”.


But he warned Tory ambitions should not be limited to repairing the damage caused by Labour and eliminating the deficit.


“Finishing the job is about more than clearing up the mess we were left,” he said. “It means building something better in its place. In place of the casino economy, one where people who work hard can actually get on.


“In place of the welfare society, one where no individual is written off. In place of the broken education system, one that gives every child the chance to rise up and succeed.


“Our economy, our society, welfare, schools, all reformed, all rebuilt – with one aim, one mission in mind: To make this country, at long last and for the first time ever, a land of opportunity for all.”


His speech followed a raft of policy announcements aimed at countering Labour’s claim that it is the only party that will tackle the rising cost-of-living.


Tory plans include bringing forward the Help-to-Buy scheme, the prospect of a fuel duty freeze until 2015 and a tax break for some married couples.


Mr Cameron vowed a Tory government would replace the “casino economy” and “welfare society” as well as improve the education system.


He accused Labour of failing Britain’s young people and disadvantaged households by giving up and consigning them to a life on benefits.


“If you expect nothing of people, that does nothing for them. Yes, you must help people, but you help people by putting up ladders that they can climb through their own efforts,” he said.


“It’s this party that is fighting for all those who were written off by Labour. It’s this party that’s for the many, not the few. Yes – the land of despair was Labour, but the land of hope is Tory.”


He also sought to position the Tories as the true defenders of the NHS, hailed the “noble” calling of social work and vowed to drive regeneration in the North of England.


“Make no mistake who’s looking forward in British politics,” Mr Cameron said. “We’ll leave the 1970s-style socialism to others. We are the party of the future.”


Activists gave the speech a standing ovation as Samantha Cameron joined her husband on stage.


The pair left the hall to Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow), famously used by Bill Clinton as the soundtrack to his successful campaign for the US presidency in 1992.


Mr Miliband wrote on Twitter: “David Cameron’s speech shows he does not know where to start in tackling the cost of living crisis facing Britain’s hard-working families.


“The last thing families want is him to ‘finish the job’ when prices have risen faster than wages and average pay is down by almost £1,500.”


Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: “Businesses up and down the country will welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that they are the driving force behind the economy, creating jobs and putting money in people’s pockets.


“But they will be looking for him to match the sentiment with action. If tax cuts aren’t dirty, let’s have a few more of them. If profit isn’t elitist, let’s allow businesses to keep a little more of it.”


John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: “David Cameron has set out a clear vision, but the harder task of making it happen still lies ahead.


“The Government cannot afford to become complacent, and must focus on creating an environment that supports enterprise, and puts economic growth at its heart.”


Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						Britain is Booming! If You’re Going to Tell a Lie, Make it a Big One					
				

					


		

			
Scriptonite Daily 


11 Sept 2013


 


BB1


(Picture via http://www.mediaactivist.com)


In his 1941 paper, Churchill’s Lie Factory, Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels wrote “The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Goebbels knew of what he spake.


It would appear that the UK government is continuing the tradition, claiming Britain is booming when it is crumbling– and large sections of the mainstream media are letting them get away with it.


We Have Been Proven Right on Economic Policy


George Osborne


Chancellor George Osborne was wheeled out to produce one of the more absurd political speeches of our time this week.  Osborne set himself up in a building site in the City of London, then invited in the media to tell them that opponents of ideological austerity had “lost the argument” and that the UK economy was “turning a corner”.


“We held our nerve when many told us to abandon our plan” he said. “The evidence increasingly suggests that our macroeconomic plan was the right one and is working.”


This triumphalist moment came on the back of news that UK GDP grew by 0.7% in the first 6 months of this year.  This means the economy is still 3.2% smaller than 2008, and this is the slowest economic recovery in the last 100 years, meaning the UK recovered more quickly from the Great Depression than we are recovering from bailout out the banks.


More worrying than the lack of growth, is the manner in which even this meager growth is being generated – by an all-out assault on the rights of working people and the social contract.


What we are witnessing is not an economic recovery, in any sense of the words.  We are seeing a return to profit for a cluster of corporations, at the expense of their workers, the tax payer and those reliant on social security.


The Coalition government follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.


Employment? Not As You Know It


 BB3


The UK Govt was today cheerleading the latest jobs figures which appear to show a mere 0.1% drop in unemployment rate in the last quarter.  But the government simply ignored the bad news in the figures.


The number of men working full time fell by 272,000 and those in part time work rose 281,000.  This is the highest number of people in part time work since records began in 1992.  A third of those men in part time work stated they held those positions because they could not find full time work.


Unemployment among 16-24 year olds was up 34,000.  This means the UK has an unemployment rate of 21% among young people, with 960,000 now jobless.


And the picture was no rosier for those who had managed to gain employment. While unemployment may well remain lower than equivalent austerity nations, the nature of employment is shifting in a worrying direction.


Wages have fallen for 36 of the 37 months of the Coalition government.  This makes Cameron’s Coalition the the worst performing government in UK history on wages.  No former Prime Minister in the history of our parliamentary democracy has seen wages drop for this length of time – not Thatcher, not Harold Wilson, not Ted Heath.


There has also been the rise of Zero Hours contracts, which mean working people are not guaranteed regular hours by their employer, or access to basic employment rights such as sick pay, paid annual leave or a notice period before dismissal.  A recent survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, found more than 1 million UK workers is now on a Zero Hours contract. Unison claim the figure could be as high as 5.5m but Full Fact found some issues with the methodology by which these figures were derived.  Be it 1 million or 5.5 million – this is more than enough to seriously skew the unemployment figures, which showed a drop of just 24,000.


Professor Kim Hoque, a Professor of Human Resource Management at Warwick Business School, comments on the long term role of zero hours contracts and job insecurity on the UK economy. “The flexibility they provide may well have enabled the UK to avoid higher levels of unemployment during the economic downturn. They may also have enabled some people to maintain an attachment to the labour market who would otherwise not have been able to do so. That said such contracts could also be seen as part of the wider underemployment problem that has affected the UK economy in recent times, with large numbers of workers on part-time or casual contracts wanting to work more hours but being unable to do so.”


The claimant count for Jobseekers Allowance also fell 32,600.  Whilst this is being billed as good news, this has more to do with changes in eligibility criteria.  All the government has to do to reduce the claimant count, is make people ineligible to claim.  The Thatcher government was able to show a drop in unemployment of 550,000 in July 1986, and 668,000 in 1989 by transferring those unemployed into work programmes (workfare).  They also kept an average 90,000 unemployed under 18 year olds off the books by making them ineligible to claim benefits.


In short, where once people could have claimed Job Seekers Allowance while searching for new employment, people are being forced to accept ever worsening working conditions or join exploitative government work programmes to attempt to stay afloat while the social safety nets are ripped away.


Meanwhile, the government continues to claim these figures as a sign of the success of an economic policy which is devastating the UK economy.


The Coalition government follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.


The Cost of Living


BB4


While the jobs market offers more work to fewer people at lesser wages, the cost of living continues to rise exponentially. The cost of living is currently rising at four times the rate of wages.  The UK Essentials Index also shows that prices of the basic items that the poorest buy have risen 33% since 2007.  This gap between wages and the cost of living has resulted in the poorest sections of the UK being left unable to retain a roof over their heads or feed themselves.


Statutory Homelessness (people without a home who are eligible for local authority support) rose 21% in the last year, while Rough Sleepers (those not eligible for support) rose 31% in England and 62% in London.  The Bedroom Tax, where people receiving Housing Benefit have had their payments cut for having ‘spare rooms’ (while in most of the country, no appropriately sized housing exists) is also seeing many more lose their homes.


The cumulative effects of a range of social security cuts which have hit the working poor, the jobless, the elderly and disabled people has been a sky rocketing rise in reliance on food banks.  The number of people relying on food aid in order to eat rose by 300% between April 2012 and April 2013.  This was disgrace enough.  Yet, after a string of social security cuts since then, the numbers relying on food aid have shot up 200% in just three months.  150,000 people have joined the queues at food banks, on top of the half million people already there since 2010.


Opposition MPs have been repeatedly questioning representatives of the Coalition government on this disgraceful rise in reliance on Food Banks.  During a grilling by Andrew Neill on the BBC’s Daily Politics programme, Mark Hoban, a Minister for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was asked to explain how an economic recovery could be under way whilst the numbers of those relying on Food Banks to eat was growing.  Hoban’s response was “You’ll have to ask the Food Banks.”


Well, we did ask the Food Banks.  Food Banks themselves (and Oxfam) report that the enormous spike in reliance on Food Banks is directly linked to government cuts.  So, there is the opinion of the people on the front line, and (one might assert) the facts.


Yet Iain Duncan-Smith, Secretary of State for the DWP and architect of the cuts, refuses to engage with reality.  He has made several derisory comments in response to persistent questions on Food Banks, including that the rise was due to a ‘growth in awareness’.


Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education weighed into the debate this week with some victim blaming too, stating: “I appreciate that there are families who face considerable pressures. Those pressures are often the result of decisions that they have taken which mean they are not best able to manage their finances.”


The Coalition government follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.


Economic Recovery? For Whom?


BB5


Wages have fallen for 36 months straight, millions are employed on zero hours contracts without basic employment rights, disabled people are being evicted from their homes due to bedroom tax arrears, one million young people are unemployed, the cost of living is rising at four times the rate of wages, the NHS has been all but sold off and elderly people are being forced to choose whether to eat or heat their homes.  This is a recovery? For whom?


What is the point of growth if the wealth is not spread? What is the point of growth if it costs us our homes, jobs and health? What is the point of growth if we can’t take care of our vulnerable?


What we are seeing is not economic growth, but merely increased profits produced in an unsustainable and unethical way.


A real world recession for the majority is applauded as a recovery, when all that is recovered are the profits for transnational corporations, and incomes of high earners, most of whom pay little or no contributions back into the collective pot of the UK.


The Coalition government follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.  A risk it is willing to take, when a puppet media is busy telling people that Britain is Booming.


Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						Little Britain: The mouse that (finally) roared					
				

					


		

			
Written by RT News


Published time: August 30, 2013 14:49


27_si


British Prime Minister David Cameron’s weekend war was going according to plan.


     “I love that word ‘relationship’. It covers all manner of    sins, doesn’t it?”    (Hugh Grant, as the British prime minister in the film “Love    Actually,” referring to the so-called “special relationship”    between the UK and the US)


A horrific sarin gas attack in a suburb of Damascus kills  hundreds of men, women and children: the perfect pretext for  Western military intervention after two years of civil war have  left 100,000 people dead and turned 2 million into refugees.


President Barack Obama, flying in Air Force One to the G20 summit  in Russia, calls in the Tomahawk cruise missile strikes from US  warships in the Mediterranean, and drones take out selected  targets in the Syrian capital, Damascus.


The Syrian army HQ lying in a smoking heap of rubble, Obama steps  off the plane in St. Petersburg to declare “victory” virtually  overnight in a “punitive” attack against the Assad regime. With a  dutiful Cameron at his side, Obama makes sure to add a generous  note of thanks to Britain, Washington’s traditional (junior)  partner in imperialist adventures, for its military support.


Cameron then steps forward and shakes the president’s hand:  Mission Accomplished.


Back in London, church bells peal out in celebration as Cameron  graciously receives the applause of British members of parliament  and the cheers of the public lining the streets. People have  forgotten his woeful economic record, the deepening recession and  the latest secret services government spying scandal.


Newspaper headlines ring out: “Dictator Assad taught a lesson”  (The Telegraph), “Assad’s chemical weapons base destroyed” (The  Guardian) and “Bashar bashed!” (The Sun). As if by magic,  Cameron’s political fortunes are transformed, just like his hero  Margaret Thatcher’s were by her victory in the Falklands War….


But then Cameron wakes up. It’s all been a dream.


‘A tale of two wars’


Back in the real world, as Cameron woke up on Friday morning, the  UK newspaper headlines were a little different, however.


The prime minister’s best-laid plans, urging military  intervention on his senior partner in the White House, lay in  ruins: All but destroyed by a vote in the British parliament,  where MPs voted 285-272 against Cameron’s proposal for military  action against Assad for using chemical weapons. While the vote  was cited by Cameron as not a final approval, it certainly would  have prepared the ground for military intervention after a  follow-up vote next week.


The newspapers opposing Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal coalition  were bad enough. The Labour-supporting Daily Mirror sneered: “We  don’t want your war,” while The Guardian wrote: “MPs force Cameron to rule out war  with Syria.”




But it was the usually loyal Conservative newspapers that twisted  the knife in his back: “The humbling of Cameron” wrote a smug  Daily Mail, while the well-to-do readers of The Daily Telegraph  saw “No to war, blow to Cameron” on their front page. The Sun,  the UK’s top tabloid, said simply: “Cam Down.”




Yet it was The Independent newspaper’s cryptic headline, “A tale  of two wars,” that summed up best why Britain’s junior  partner/cheerleader/poodle relationship with Washington –  perfected during the US-led interventions in Iraq, Kosovo,  Afghanistan and Libya – had come unstuck.


The war on many people’s minds during Thursday’s debate in the  House of Commons was not the one that Obama may still launch  unilaterally, or with France’s support, in Syria. It was the 2003  invasion of Iraq, justified with great zeal but less honesty by  then-British PM Tony Blair, whose “sexed-up” dossier on Saddam  Hussein’s non-existent WMD did much to discredit the whole idea  of CIA-MI6 “intelligence” reports.


Cameron, clearly feeling the shadow of the Bush-Blair lies on  Iraq, felt compelled to publicly disavow the Blair-era aim of  regime change, even though that is what his government has been  pushing for in Damascus constantly over the last two years.


“It is not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict, it is not  about invading, it is not about regime change and it is not even  about working more closely with the opposition,” Cameron told a  skeptical House of Commons, adding: “The well of public opinion  has been well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode.”


  ‘We don’t want to be conned’


With Cameron’s Coalition government normally able to count on a  majority of 77, the parliamentary vote should have been won hands  down – even after Labour Party leader Ed Miliband backed out of a  bipartisan deal to support Cameron’s war plans at the last  minute.


Yet Cameron’s plans failed, as it was not just Labour MPs who  voted against paving the way to war: it was members of his own  government. Party managers tried to dragoon Conservative MPs into  voting for military action, but more than 30 rebelled, another 30  stayed away from parliament altogether and two ministers even  said they had “missed” the voting bell when it sounded.


Senior Conservative MP David Davis summed up many of the  dissenters’ unease: “We don’t want to be conned into a war in  effect by actions designed to do just that,” he said, noting that  the case against Assad’s regime was not proven. “There are plenty  of facts around, or at least reported facts, that the UN  representative for human rights in Syria thought there was  concrete evidence of rebels having sarin gas.”


So why did up to one-fifth of Conservative MPs rebel or stay  away? In large part it was due to Blair’s Iraq legacy: they don’t  want to face voters in the next election, at most two years away,  with the possibility that Britain had again got involved in a war  under false pretenses. Many Conservative MPs already fear they  will be kicked out the election over mass dissatisfaction at the  government’s tough austerity measures, and in Thursday’s debate  many of them said they had received an avalanche of e-mailed  complaints from local voters over Cameron’s war plans.


Polls show a clear majority of the British people are against any  UK military action, with 50 percent opposing intervention,  according to YouGov, and only 30 percent supporting a war  in a Daily Telegraph survey.


Max Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, writing in  the Daily Mail, also delivered a damning judgment on Cameron,  saying he had “misread the strategic arguments, the interests of  the Syrian people, the mood of Britain and now also of its  Parliament.”


While Cameron suffered the worst defeat of his three years in  power, the Labour opposition may not benefit that much either  from the anti-war mood in the country. Miliband also comes out of  the affair less than honorably. His flip-flopping – first  supporting military action, then calling for more evidence of  Assad’s involvement, but still supporting the principle of  intervention – rankled with many Labour MPs and anti-war  activists, who wanted him to fully oppose any military action.


The parliamentary rebellion against Cameron and Obama came as a  big surprise to just about everyone in mainstream UK politics,  mainly because it was not organized by any of the main political  parties. It came, rather, from the grassroots of society –  ordinary people who lobbied their MPs before Thursday’s vote, and  from the legacy of protests against the Iraq war.


  From tragedy to farce


In fact, as Cameron heads to the G20 summit, his dreams of  imperial glory make him look more like a character from a classic  British comedy than a world leader.


Not so much the “Great Britain” of Queen Victoria, Churchill, or  even Thatcher, Cameron’s version is more like the TV comedy  “Little Britain,” where his government is  forced to play a much more self-deprecating role on the world  stage.


And while politicians of various parties jaw-jawed about military  intervention in speeches for several hours, for ordinary people  it was much simpler. One UK Twitter user, Stenbizzle, took only  135 characters to deliver his verdict:


Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						After Syria, where next for Cameron?					
				

					


		

			
by Tom Wadsworth


30 Aug 2013


A look at what comes next for the PM having lost the Syria vote




12_articleimage


Like a man with a bad hangover, David Cameron will have woken up this morning with a head full of regrets, but unable to change what happened last night. It’s not quite Black Wednesday, but voters remember prime ministers who lose control of government.


The prime minister’s authority has been severely weakened and he faces a rocky autumn with a party conference season focused on his woes, instead of Ed Miliband’s relationship with the unions.


While Cameron may, as The Sun says, be down, he isn’t yet out. But his scope for action has considerably narrowed. There are now several things he can do to minimise the damage:


1. A short, sharp reshuffle. One was in the diary for next week, before the Syrian crisis hit parliament. While sacking people risks creating more backbench enemies, a decisive reshuffle can demonstrate one executive power Cameron does still retain.


2. No risky policies brought before parliament.  Cameron can no longer afford to bring legislation to the House that risks further rebellions – another defeat and he will be dead in the water.


3. But, no U-turns. Ditching policies now – even those unpopular with backbenchers – will make Cameron look even weaker.


4. Don’t bet the house on a conference speech.  Cameron’s good at one-off set pieces, but a great speech in Manchester alone will simply look like a flash in the pan; he needs a sustained, consistent focus on domestic issues.


5. Keep mending fences. The PM could do with a sunny September so he can have more BBQs for backbenchers, and be seen to be listening and responding more.


Points two and three create the biggest problem for the government. In some areas of policy-making, it is now likely to be entirely paralysed – with a PM unwilling to change course, but unable to win the argument. And opponents of all types of policies will be marshalling angry backbenchers to their causes to panic the government into inaction.


Cameron had become fond of using Tony Blair’s famous “weak, weak, weak” attack-line on Ed Miliband. Blair used it on John Major (watch from 4mins 10sec in) after the latter lost control of his party and became a PM who could barely govern. Cameron might reflect this morning that fate has a cruel sense of humour.




Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						The heir to Blair: PM makes ‘moral case’ for attack on Syria					
				

					


		

			
By Oliver Wright and James Cusick


Wednesday 28 August 2013


No sign that Britain will wait for mandate from UN Security Council as David

Cameron faces crucial test of authority with Parliament recall for debate


David%20Cameron-1679301


Britain has a responsibility to take action to punish the “morally indefensible” use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime even without a UN mandate, David Cameron has suggested.




In his first public comments on the crisis, the Prime Minister has said that the Government was considering “legal and proportionate” means to “deter and degrade” Assad’s chemical weapons capability.


Syria crisis: UK and US vow that any military response is ‘not about regime change’ as Parliament is recalled But Mr Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, appeared to imply that such action could take place without a mandate from the UN Security Council – or without waiting for weapons inspectors to report on their examination of the site of the alleged attack in Damscus last week, during which hundreds are reported to have died. Foreign Office lawyers and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, are understood already to have examined the legal route for military intervention in Syria using a controversial UN “ humanitarian” exemption that allows action without the Security Council’s authority.


Britain is to seek UN Security Council backing for “all necessary measures to protect civilians” in Syria in a draft resolution that will be put forward to a meeting of the five permanent members in New York this evening.




A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “Britain has drafted a resolution condemning the attack by the Assad regime, and authorising all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons.


Western intervention in Syria is likely to take the form of limited cruise missile strikes against regime targets and sites identified with chemical weapons sites. It is expected to take place within the next 10 days.


Mr Cameron will today chair a National Security Council meeting to discuss possible military plans drawn up in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack. The Prime Minister spoke to US President Barack Obama ahead of the NSC meeting, a Downing Street spokesperson confirmed, where both leaders “agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian president and Syrian regime had conceded this.” Mr Cameron and Mr Obama also “both agreed they were in no doubt that the Assad regime was responsible”, the spokesperson added.


UK Foreign Minister William Hague, who is attending today’s meeting, also called for the United Nations Security Council to “rise to its responsibilities by condemning these events [in Syria] and calling for a robust international response”.


Writing for the Daily Telegraph, he said: “We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century to go unchallenged. That would send a signal to the Syrian regime that they will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how barbarous. It would make further chemical attacks in Syria much more likely, and also increase the risk that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands in the future.”


In echoes of Tony Blair’s argument that there was a “moral case” for the war in Iraq even without a UN mandate, Mr Cameron said the use of chemical weapons was “morally indefensible” and Britain could not “let that stand”. But unlike Mr Blair he insisted Western action was “not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war”.


“I understand people’s concerns about war in the Middle East, about getting sucked into the situation in Syria,” he said. “This is not about wars in the Middle East, this is not even about Syria. It’s about the use of chemical weapons and making sure as a world we deter their use and deter the appalling scenes we have all seen on our TV screens.”


“It must be right to have some rules in our world and try to enforce those rules,” Mr Cameron added. “Any action we take or others take would have to be legal, would have to be proportionate, it would have to be specific to deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons.”


The Prime Minister said there was never 100 per cent certainty or a single piece of irrefutable evidence of their use, but said the world had agreed almost a century ago they should not be used.


But his stance was attacked by the former Chief UN Weapons Inspector at the time of the Iraq War. Hans Blix said Mr Cameron “ doesn’t seem to care much about international legality”.


“As far as they are all concerned, a criminal act has been committed so now they must engage in what they call retaliation,” he said.


“I don’t see what they are retaliating about. The weapons weren’t used against them. If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.”


Although action based on self-defence has been dismissed as inappropriate by London and Washington, senior Foreign Office lawyers and Mr Grieve believe humanitarian intervention, based on “ overwhelming humanitarian necessity”, was correctly applied  by Tony Blair when he authorised force in Kosovo in 1999, and can be used again.


Mr Cameron initially focused on  the “humanitarian” exemption to plan action in Libya, but eventual UN backing rendered it unnecessary.


Following  the Kosovo action, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee criticised the “humanitarian” justification as being “ illegal” but nevertheless backed its use  as “legitimate”.


Russia has dismissed  the use of the humanitarian route as illegal. The country’s deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, went further by accusing the West of behaving like a “monkey with a grenade” over Syria.


Mr Cameron also announced that MPs would be given a vote on a motion during an emergency sitting of the House of Commons on Thursday to discuss Syria.


After speaking to Mr Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband said he would consider giving Labour backing to action but only on the basis it could proved to be legal.


“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored,” he said. “When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals. We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”


The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg added that he agreed with Mr Cameron on the need for action.


“If we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed, where brutal dictators and brutal rulers will feel they can get away with using chemical weapons on a larger and larger scale in the future,” he said.


“So what we’re considering is a serious response to that. What we are not considering is regime change, trying to topple the Assad regime, trying to settle the civil war in Syria one way or another. That needs to be settled through a political process.”


But the Prime Minister is likely to face significant opposition to any intervention and is likely to face intense questioning over how he can justify the legality of any action without a UN mandate.


Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said international law had changed since intervention in Kosovo, when intervention was justified on the basis overwhelming humanitarian need.


“That doctrine [now] only supports intervention with the backing of a UN resolution, so if China and Russia veto any resolution, then clearly an intervention would not have the legal authority,” he told the BBC.


He added: “Unlawful is probably a slightly exaggerated phrase. I think there is no legal support for an intervention of this nature rather than describing it as illegal.”


Andrew Bridgen, who sent a letter signed by 81 fellow Conservatives to Mr Cameron demanding a vote earlier this year, said: “The House is going to seek assurance on the grounds for action, that there is compelling evidence it is the Assad regime that launched the chemical attacks – that will need to be proved and explained.


“We will need the aims of any action and limits and scope of action, and information on who else will be involved.”


Syria and Iraq: The parallels


Is/was intervention legal?


David Cameron


The Prime Minister knows that intervention in Syria is highly unlikely to be authorised by a United Nations resolution because Russia and China would veto it. He insists that any military action will be legal, proportionate and a specific response to last week’s attack on Syrian citizens with chemical weapons. UK officials argue that Syria has breached the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans them, and that justifies action. But legal doubts remain.


Tony Blair


The former Prime Minister, who backed intervention in Syria today, failed to secure a further UN resolution authorising action in Iraq and relied on a previous one passed after the Gulf War. Lord Goldsmith, his Attorney General, denied claims he was pressurised by Blair allies to change his legal advice to give the all-clear for war but doubts about its legality have never been lifted.


Are/were the weapons’ inspectors getting enough time?


David Cameron


The PM wants to study the report by UN inspectors who on Monday visited the site of last week’s attack, though it is unclear whether they will be able to give a definitive verdict. But Hans Blix, who was the chief UN arms inspector in Iraq, warned today that the “political dynamics” in Syria are running ahead of the “due process”.


Tony Blair


The former PM clashed with Mr Blix, who complained he was denied the “space and time” needed to search for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blair was convinced, wrongly, that Iraq possessed them but was frustrated at the regime’s alleged obstruction of the inspectors’ work and their failure to find a “smoking gun” that would have justified war.


Has/had Parliament been properly consulted?


David Cameron


The PM today tried to defuse growing demands for Parliament to be consulted by recalling MPs  from their summer break four days early to discuss Syria on Thursday. But some Conservative MPs are demanding a Commons vote to authorise specific action; they doubt they will be granted that in case Mr Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat.


Tony Blair


The former PM conceded a Commons vote on Iraq after Cabinet pressure and  did win Parliament’s backing for his Government’s position. But during the build-up to the invasion, he was criticised for ignoring critics among MPs and denying a proper Cabinet debate. The long-delayed Chilcot inquiry into the conflict is looking closely at whether Mr Blair promised the US President George Bush that Britain would join military action a year before it happened.


Is/was his party behind him?


David Cameron


No. Many Tory MPs are worried that “mission creep” will suck Britain into an Iraq-style quagmire and want clear goals. They want hard proof that the Assad regime was behind last week’s attack. In June, more than 80 Tories demanded a Commons vote before the UK sent arms to the anti-Assad rebels, helping to deter Mr Cameron from such a course.


Tony Blair


No. Some 139 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war in March 2003, the largest ever rebellion against a Labour Government. Mr Blair won the crucial Commons vote by 412 votes to 149, was forced to rely on the support of most Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war but Nick Clegg is arguing that Syria is very different and is backing Mr Cameron.


Is/was public opinion behind him?


David Cameron


It is not yet clear whether the British people will support limited action over chemical weapons. But after Iraq and Afghanistan, they are likely to be cautious about any intervention. A YouGov survey at the weekend found that three-quarters (74 per cent) oppose sending British troops to fight alongside anti-Assad forces and two-thirds (66 per cent) are oppose giving them full-scale military supplies.


Tony Blair


Before the 2003 invasion,  opinion polls showed that a majority of people supported military action, some by a 2-1 margin.  But the bloody aftermath and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction turned opinion round. A YouGov survey marking the war’s 10th anniversary this year found that 55 per cent thought the military action was wrong and 30 per cent right.


Are/were we America’s poodle?


David Cameron


The PM’s aides  insist not, arguing that there is a growing international coalition for action to be taken against President Assad. Mr Cameron has been at the forefront of demands to help the Syrian rebels. So has France, which strongly opposed the Iraq war. British officials point to the Arab League’s belief that the Assad regime was responsible for last week’s attack.


Tony Blair


The former PM always denied the charge but never escaped its shadow. His close personal relationship with George Bush fuelled such suspicions, as did his desire to slay the ghosts of Old Labour’s anti-Americanism. He could have pursued a “European solution” to Iraq but decided to “be there” if the US acted, even turning down a last-minute offer by the US President to let the UK opt out.




Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						Syria: we must act now against Assad, says Cameron					
				

					


		

			
By Tim Ross and Peter Dominiczak


10:00PM BST 27 Aug 2013








The Prime Minister said he understood the growing concerns among MPs, former generals and the public over the prospect of Britain becoming embroiled in another costly war in the Middle East.






However, he insisted that the world could not “stand idly by” when confronted with a breach of a 100-year-old global agreement that the use of chemical warfare was “morally indefensible and completely wrong”, in a statement recorded by a television crew at Downing Street.






Mr Cameron insisted that any military action would be “legal, proportionate and specific” to preventing further gas attacks causing death and suffering.






Last week’s gas attacks on Damascus killed hundreds and wounded thousands more.






The Prime Minister made his case for military intervention against a backdrop of widespread public scepticism about the use of British military force in yet another foreign conflict, in the wake of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.


On Tuesday night, though, there appeared to be growing political consensus that British involvement may be necessary.






Mr Cameron said: “What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and I don’t believe we can let that stand.”


William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, said that Britain’s national security would be at risk if we failed to respond.


Writing in Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph he warns: “We must proceed in a careful and thoughtful way. But we cannot permit our own security to be undermined by the creeping normalisation of the use of weapons that the world has spent decades trying to control and eradicate.”


2808 Syria blitz


Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, gave his full backing to Mr Cameron, saying: “The murder of innocent men, women and children through the use of chemical weapons is a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law. If we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed.”


Senior Tories are also privately hopeful that Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, will ultimately back a motion for military action.


The Prime Minister issued an impassioned plea for support from his colleagues after announcing that Parliament would be recalled on Thursday to debate how Britain should respond to the crisis. MPs will be given a vote on the use of military action and the Government will respect the result, sources said.


The planned intervention is understood to involve a weekend offensive.


However, Downing Street indicated that Mr Cameron would retain the right to act swiftly and without the need to consult Parliament if circumstances required an urgent decision to approve the use of military force sooner.


 


A grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube by Moadamiyet al-Sham media centre allegedly shows a Syrian man pointing to a bullet hole in one of the vehicles used by the United Nations (UN) arms experts during their inspection visit to the Moadamiyet al-Sham suburb of Damascus on August 26 (AFP/Getty Images)


The Prime Minister made his first public statement on the proposed UK response to the atrocities in Syria on another day of developments in the crisis:


• The Syrian regime warned that it would “defend” itself in ways that would “surprise” the world if the West used force.


• The White House prepared to release a final declassified version of the intelligence report it says will justify military strikes by giving overwhelming evidence that Assad’s forces were responsible for the chemical attack.


• Russia sent a plane into Syria to evacuate its citizens as Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister, accused the West of behaving towards the Islamic world “like a monkey with a grenade”.


• The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, told The Telegraph that MPs should not “rush to judgment” over military action, warning it could have “unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world”.


• Some of Britain’s most senior military figures, including Gen Sir David Richards, a former chief of the defence staff, and Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, warned against taking action.


• MPs expressed concern that intervening in Syria could result in a repeat of Britain’s involvement in Iraq.


Those developments came as preparations for a UK and US-led attack intensified, with British and American military and intelligence chiefs preparing plans for a possible 48-hour barrage of cruise missiles as early as Friday or Saturday.


Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary, declared that American “assets” had been moved into position and that his forces were “ready to go” on President Obama’s order.


Downing Street said the Armed Forces were making “contingency plans” that would on Wednesday be presented to the National Security Council meeting of senior Cabinet ministers, intelligence chiefs and military commanders.


However, the Prime Minister is facing calls to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice on how military strikes against the Assad regime would be justified under international law, in the absence of a United Nations resolution.


Conservative MPs were preparing to defy Mr Cameron’s orders to return to Westminster to vote for military action in the Commons on Thursday, while Labour warned it would be prepared to whip its MPs to oppose the strikes.


Mr Miliband, who was called into No 10 to be personally briefed on the evolving security crisis by Mr Cameron, suggested on Thursday night that he remained unconvinced of the case for military force.


He said Labour would consider supporting international action only if it was legal and specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons.


On Tuesday the Prime Minister held a fresh round of talks with world leaders in an effort to secure the backing of Turkey, Denmark, Holland and Italy. Mr Clegg spoke to the US vice president, Joe Biden as Britain and America agreed to continue to “consult closely”.


British sources said Washington was “planning” for possible missile strikes as early as Friday or Saturday.




A grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube by Moadamiyet al-Sham media centre allegedly shows the United Nations (UN) arms experts convoy leaving Damascus’ Moadamiyet al-Sham suburb following an inspection visit on August 26 (AFP/Getty Images)


However, unless an emergency arises, no action will be taken before MPs have voted. Although Thursday’s vote is not binding, Mr Cameron “is clear that the Government will respect Parliament’s view”, the source said.


Walid al-Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, used a televised press conference to deny that government forces had carried out the poison gas attack last Wednesday and accused America and Britain of preparing to go to war on the basis of “lies”. “We have the means to defend ourselves and we will surprise everyone,” he said. “We will defend ourselves using all means available.”


Notes of caution against British intervention were also sounded by senior military leaders.


Gen Sir David Richards, a former chief of the defence staff, said: “The scale of involvement to make a decisive difference in Syria would be so huge that it is something that we, at the moment, cannot sensibly contemplate.”


Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said he was anxious about the prospects of missile strikes. “We have recent experience of that in relation to the declaration of war against Saddam Hussein. Look at the way that turned out,” he said.


The Prime Minister will chair a meeting of the National Security Council in Downing Street on Wednesday. The body, which includes the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the heads of the intelligence services and military chiefs, will agree on a final recommendation on how to respond to the chemical attack.


The plan will then be presented to Cabinet on Thursday morning before MPs gather in the Commons for the vote.






Related articles


			
					

		

		
	

	

	
	

		

		

			
							
			
							

					
						Fracking: The great debate					
				

					


		

			



Written By Tom Bawden 




Friday 23 August 2013






It’s either the answer to our energy supply problem, according to David Cameron.

Or a toxic threat to the environment, if you believe Caroline Lucas.  So which

of them is  right? Tom Bawden, Environment Editor, weighs the evidence












The statements below were made by David Cameron, a fracking enthusiast, and the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, who was arrested last week for protesting against potential fracking at Balcombe, West Sussex. The process releases oil and gas from shale rock by blasting a mixture of sand, water and chemicals into it at high speed.






Will fracking lead to cheaper gas prices?


David Cameron: Fracking has the real potential to drive prices down … gas and electric bills can go down when our home-grown energy supply goes up.


Caroline Lucas: Prices are set to keep rising.


 Tom Bawden: The Prime Minister’s claim looks disingenuous at best. Even an executive of Cuadrilla, Britain’s most prominent fracking company, was caught on tape admitting that a domestic shale gas revolution would be extremely unlikely to reduce prices, and if it did, it would only be by a “very small” percentage.


Mr Cameron cites the example of the US, where a shale gas revolution has driven down prices to barely a quarter of UK levels. But there is a major, game-changing difference between the UK and the US. The US is essentially an isolated market, meaning that an increase in supply will push down prices because gas producers have limited scope to export to a higher bidder.


The UK is plugged into an integrated European market through a series of giant gas interconnectors, while fledgling liquefying techniques are making long-distance export more common. As a result, even a massive increase in UK gas production would be unlikely to dent the prevailing European price. And as Ms Lucas points out, the global gas price could well go up in the coming decades, on the back of growing demand from Asia.


Will it be good for the economy?


David Cameron: Fracking will create jobs in Britain.


Caroline Lucas: [George] Osborne’s gas strategy looks like nothing short of a disaster for the economy.


Tom Bawden: Mr Cameron cites a study estimating that the shale gas industry could create 74,000 jobs, while other studies have made predictions as high as 150,000. The truth is, it’s virtually impossible to known until we have a clearer idea how much of the 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas estimated to lie underneath Britain can be  commercially extracted in the face of local opposition.


The answer to this question is unlikely to be known with any degree of certainty for at least a decade. Nonetheless, the chances are that it will generate at least thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of revenues in the coming decades. Whether this will provide  a net benefit or a net deficit to the economy is far less clear.


Ms Lucas reckons the economy would do much better if Britain redoubled its efforts on renewable energy, making the country a global leader in the area and freeing us from a dependence on potentially rising gas prices.


She might have a point. The British economy would be £20bn a year better off by 2030 if it favoured offshore wind over gas-fired generation as the driver of an essential overhaul of the country’s energy infrastructure over the next two decades, according to a recent report by the think tank  Cambridge Econometrics.  Will fracking lead to water pollution?


Cameron and Lucas do not share the same views on fracking


Cameron and Lucas do not share the same views on fracking (Getty; AP) David Cameron: Nothing is going to happen in this country unless it is environmentally safe.


Caroline Lucas: Residents close to drilling sites in Lancashire and Sussex have rightly expressed fears about the risk of pollution to drinking water.


Tom Bawden: The Prime Minister’s apparent assurance that fracking will be environmentally safe is technically wrong, on the basis that no method of natural resource extraction can ever be guaranteed not to cause some kind of spillage or pollution.


By contrast, Ms Lucas is right to raise the dangers that fracking could pollute drinking water – a point memorably brought home in the documentary Gasland, where a Colorado resident claims his water has such high levels of methane that it has become flammable – and ignites his tap to make the point.


Water pollution is a particularly grey area, partly because there are always natural pollutants, including methane, in the water, making it extremely difficult to definitely prove a connection. For example, regulators concluded the Gasland burning tap was caused by “biogenic” gas that has been detected in local groundwater for years, and had nothing to do with fracking.


Nonetheless, plenty of studies suggest a link between fracking and deteriorating water quality. One, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the impact of drilling in the Marcellus Shale in the states of New York and Pennsylvania, found that four-fifths of nearby wells contained methane and that concentrations of gas were higher than in those further away. Fracking-induced fractures usually remain separated from ground- water aquifers by thousands of feet of rock, meaning that poorly sealed well casings are seen as the most likely cause of any water pollution.


Can fracking cause earthquakes?


David Cameron: There is no question of having earthquakes.


Caroline Lucas: In focusing entirely on the potential seismic effects of fracking, this report tells us nothing about the wider environmental impact.


Tom Bawden: It appears that Mr Cameron is unaware of the report Ms Lucas mentions – commissioned by Cuadrilla after reports of tremors in the Blackpool area – which concluded that it was “highly probable” that Britain’s first fracking activity was the cause. However, as she hints, earth tremors are a relatively insignificant concern – small, often likened to a lorry going past the front door, and pose a far slighter risk than, say, air, noise and water pollution and water shortages (the process uses huge quantities of water) and the industrialisation of the countryside.






Related articles