Al-Muhajabah's Sundries

bookmark

A conversation with Michael Rose

fear of a black president?

In trying to understand how the polls were so wrong in the New Hampshire primary, some people have considered the Bradley effect. Many of those looking at this only to dismiss it seem to have an incorrect understanding of exactly what the Bradley effect is, for example here.

According to the Pew Research Center, the Bradley effect is defined as:

White candidates in most of these races generally did better on Election Day than they were doing in the polls, while their black opponents tended to end up with about the same level of support as the polls indicated they had.

Using the standard estimate from Pollster.com and the rolling average from Real Clear Politics, I made a chart of how the polls compared to the actual results for Obama and Clinton.

Click for a larger, clearer view

You can judge for yourself whether or not that matches the description. This doesn't mean that it was the Bradley effect, but it clearly does not rule it out either.

Added: The Guardian gets a prize for actually understanding the Bradley effect correctly:

The Bradley effect suggests that white voters disguise their intentions from pollsters when a black candidate is in an election. In the case of New Hampshire the unusually high proportion of "undecided" voters - as much as 20% - may have concealed some of those hostile to Obama.

"I think it's very naive to dismiss the racial factors in this," said Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia.

Later: The president of the Pew Research Center writes in the New York Times that he believes it was the Bradley effect.

the great Tory defence sell-off

Alex at Yorkshire Ranter looks at the utter hypocrisy of the Tories on Armed Forces housing and privatization, a topic he first discussed in 2003.

As he summarizes it, in 1996, the then Conservative Government sold off the entire Service Families Accommodation estate to Nomura Principal Financial Services in its guise as Annington Homes, directed by Guy Hands (2003 profile). The housing estate was sold well below cost. The MoD then rents back the housing that it needs - but is also responsible for maintenance and upkeep even though the owner and manager would typically be responsible for this. If the MoD determines that it no longer needs the housing for some reason, it surrenders it to Annington Homes, which can then sell it on the market. The Government gets 25% of the profits from these sales, but it goes directly to the Treasury, which is not required to give it to the MoD. Labour MP Eric Joyce provides another good summary (Oct 2007). The Guardian also provided an overview in 2001.

not what it seems

On Monday, November 12, Alan West said the following in Parliament in his capacity as a Home Office minister:

As I mentioned, the trend towards an increasing complexity of plots, an increasingly international range of terrorist activity, and an increasing amount of information that must be sifted and analysed means that we must consider whether we have the right protections in place. We have already made use of the full time allowed. Up to early July this year, six people in total have been held for between 27 and 28 days. Of those, three were charged with terrorist-related offences. In each of those cases, the CPS charged at the earliest opportunity once the evidence had emerged and the questioning was complete.

One can therefore say thank goodness that Parliament had legislated for the 28 days when it did. All three alleged terrorists would have had to have been released, with consequent risks to our people. It has always been recognised that these powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances, and so it has proved. It is worth noting that, since the maximum period was extended beyond 14 days, eight other people have been charged after being held beyond that 14th day. We believe that there is a case for going beyond 28 days in future, but again only in exceptional circumstances...

...It is not the Government’s intention to legislate in a rush or in the heat of the moment. Nor is it the Government’s wish to be in the position where a terrorist suspect is held to the limit of existing provisions but released because there is insufficient time in which to build a case, and who then goes on to perpetrate a terrorist act. This is the dilemma that all honourable and noble Members must face. We have been within a hair’s breadth of that happening three times, but for how much longer can we be lucky? If such a case arose, noble Lords, and particularly the general public, would rightly ask us why such an individual had been released, why we had not studied the trend, and why we had not acted to provide greater investigatory powers when we could do so.

Emphasis added.

So on Wednesday, November 14, when West said that he "still need[s] to be fully convinced", shouldn't an interviewer worth her salt have asked him what had caused these doubts in the last two days or why he had been promoting the Government line if he had these doubts?

West is being treated in some quarters like an innocent victim, but before his U-turn on that day, there was his U-turn between Monday and Wednesday and all he did was return to where he had started.

As a bonus, in the picture below, Brown is clearly torturing West (in full view of the entire counter-terrorist team, not to mention photographers and reporters) to make him repent. It was in fact a pre-scheduled meeting held in the open. (photo credit)

Update: Does the Mirror realize this, or is their phrasing just confused?

Former sailor Sir Alan West did a U-turn and said he was not convinced the PM needed to extend the 28-day limit for detentions without charge.

Later: West provides some clarification.

bookmark: Attlee: the unnamed guilty man of India’s slaughter

Attlee: the unnamed guilty man of India’s slaughter - Interesting perspective on British colonial history

everything old is new again

Since Gordon Brown became prime minister there's been a lot of excitement claiming Brown drops 'war on terror' like this is some great step forward.

Except that way back in December 2006, the Observer reported Britain stops talk of 'war on terror':

Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world.

The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. It comes amid increasingly evident disagreements between President George Bush and Tony Blair over policy in the Middle East.

One might also notice that as early as January 2007 the previous (much-maligned) Home Secretary said:

John Reid: First, I have not myself used the expression, “war on terrorism”.

Just because the government is trying to spin you doesn't mean you have to fall for it. Do the media really not know when they've reported a story before?

Later: Even worse, the Guardian reports this same story again:

They say the term "war on terror" will no longer be heard from ministers.

Is anybody paying attention here?

the MoD's rapid response unit springs into action

In an article titled Blair threatens force over Darfur, we find:

The MoD in particular distanced itself from the idea yesterday, and said there were no plans for British forces to get involved.

"There are absolutely no plans for any UK military action at all in Sudan or the Darfur region of Sudan," a senior British defence source said yesterday, adding: "There are no plans on the radar".

But British military officials did not exclude the possibility that the US had contingency plans to strike Sudanese airfields.

With what air force does Blair plan to do this? The RAF is desperately overstretched. Is he even in touch with reality?

Later: He's still at it. Of course, at this point, he'll be gone in four weeks. Or maybe he saw some sense after all.

just when you thought the story of Iraq couldn't get any more bizarre

So the U.S. paid Serbia for information it claimed to have about Saddam Hussein's bunkers. One of the sources is allegedly war criminal Veljko Kadijevic, who may have received immunity for his crimes because of it. Via Blog around the Clock and Neretva River.

Anglomania

Two good analyses from the Yorkshire Ranter:

Deep rumblings in the deep state

Bad British history

Other stuff:

Myths of the Falklands: Number 1, Command

something curious afoot?

Armed Forces face Brown's fury and The big guns are ordered to hold fire. I sense that the politics behind these articles is insane.

As a side note, Stirrup obviously needs to try harder if his anti-leaking orders are themselves leaked.

Also: commentary on this.

Later: On a related note, PM warns army chiefs over lobbying campaign. When you think about the implications of what Blair is saying, he is wholly delusional (Guardian op-ed)

Commentary on Blair's speech: Blood and Treasure, Blairwatch, The Independent, Yorkshire Ranter.