The missing figures

Monday, February 26, 2007

How can there be such a great discrepancy between the estimates of organisers of demonstrations and those of the police? Last weekend it happened again: the police put out a figure of 4-5,000, which they graciously upped to 10,000 by the end of the march. The organisers estimated 80-100,000.

You might say, you pay your money and take your choice. Except much of the coverage simply took the police figure ( and often the early figure) and didn't print the organisers' estimate. When that happens it begins to look like deliberate skewing of the figures to minimise the impact of the anti war movement. After all, if you really thought only 5,000 people turned out to oppose Trident and call for troops out of Iraq, then you would conclude the movement had declined so dramatically that it wasn't worth doing anything.

Whereas, back in the real world, most people on the march thought it was the largest for some time. Stop the War, CND and BMI gave out something like 5000 placards between them. Probably there were several thousand more placards from a variety of points of view on the march. Look at the pictures. The large majority of marchers were not carrying placards, hence the march was many times bigger than the 10,000 supposedly on it. Add to that a 20,000 capacity for Trafalgar Square (and it was full for 2 and a half hours with many people leaving or never getting to the square), the large number of coaches, the people still stuck in Hyde Park two hours after the front of the march left.

You figure it out. Even the police have admitted today that their estimate is now 20,000, which makes you wonder how they do it and why it takes so long. With all these revisions upwards, perhaps in a few days they'll agree with our figure.

2/26/2007 07:50:00 PM | Permalink

Not because it's safe, but because it's dangerous

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Lord Hurd (originally plain Douglas Hurd, old Etonian and one time Tory cabinet minister) wants an inquiry into what went wrong when we decided to go to war in Iraq. Doesn't he know? It really isn't very difficult. Two million people in Britain got it at the time, when they marched through London demanding don't attack Iraq. They joined more than 100,000 others in Scotland and elsewhere.

Add to that 3 million in Spain, 2 million in Italy, 1 million in New York and millions more round the world. That's plenty of people who saw the war would make things worse, more unstable, more prone to terrorism.

The people who didn't get it sat in Westminster, the majority of MPs of both main parties who accepted lies, spin, false information and nods and winks about the 'intelligence' on weapons of mass destruction. The only inquiry should be into why the people we elect and pay handsomely to represent our interests were so wilfully incapable of doing so.

They're still at it. Last month, the futile debate on Iraq in parliament wasn't even graced with Tony Blair's presence and the front bench prevented any vote being taken. The LibDem policy for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq this year was met with derision. One newspaper sketch writer described their view as 'unpopular' by which he meant 'unpopular in the House of Commons' which isn't quite the same thing.

Now Tony Blair has announced substantial troop withdrawal. Now the MPs line up to support him, repeating a lie which matches some of the great lies that took us to war. They say the troops are going because Basra is safe. Mark Urban on the BBC's Newsnight gave the game away on that: two of the three most attacked bases in Iraq are, according to the Ministry of Defence, British bases in the centre of Basra.

So we're not going because its safe, but because it's dangerous.

The danger is, of course, not Tony Blair's fault, as he told us at length on the morning's Today programme (it is almost flattering that all his arguments are aimed at countering those of the anti war movement, until you remember that he faces so very little opposition in parliament).

So whose fault is it exactly? Perhaps Lord Hurd and his friends in parliament will find an answer. Or perhaps the same people who brought us disaster in Iraq will vote for the sequel disaster in Iran?

The demonstration this Saturday will probably be the last while Blair is in office, the last before a vote on the Trident nuclear submarine replacement, and the last before a possible attack on Iran.

Remember, the Italians marched in Vicenza last Saturday to stop the extension of a US base, and this week the government fell over its policy of sending troops to Afghanistan. So marches do make a difference.

2/22/2007 08:24:00 PM | Permalink