None of the inquiries that found Blair didn't lie on Iraq were independent - they were all full of political appointees ; John Rentoul and Tony Blair try to pass off political fixes as independent inquires

John Rentoul, Tony Blair’s biographer and mini-me, and politics editor for the Independent,  added another disingenuous denial that Blair and his associates were dishonest about Iraq last September. This time he echoed Blair’s claim that “every independent analysis” has found he did not lie about Iraq (1). Rentoul helps out by specifying what these supposedly independent analyses are

‘Foreign Affairs select committee inquiry, 2003.

Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, 2003.

Hutton inquiry, 2004.

Butler inquiry, 2004.

General election, 2005.’ (2)

Yet not one of these supposedly “independent” inquiries was actually independent at all – they were all headed by appointees of Blair or had a majority of members appointed by Blair’s government.

The heads of the Hutton and Butler inquiries were appointed by Blair, who also decided what powers they would have, what their remit would be (i.e what they could as about) and what evidence they could and could not see. Not surprising then, since the accused got to appoint the judges, decide the charges and limit what evidence they could see, that the accused was found not guilty on all charges. If all trials were conducted that way, no one would ever be found guilty of anything no matter how much evidence there was of their guilt.

(The Chilcot Inquiry is similarly made up entirely of people who supported the war or who owe their positions in the House of Lords to Blair or Brown)

Parliamentary Select Committees like the Foreign Affairs and intelligence and Security Committees have MPs as members, in proportion to the number of MPs of that party in parliament. As Labour had a big majority after the 2000 General Election, that would mean that in 2003 the majority of MPs on those committees would be Labour – and so not inclined to criticise their own party leader too much. On top of that, in 2003 Select Committee members were still appointed by party leaders – so all the Labour members of those committees were appointed by Blair, so would not be rebels on Iraq. Most other MPs on those committees would be Conservatives – and the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the war. So the idea that these were independent inquiries is utterly ridiculous.

Citing the 2005 General election is particularly ludicrous, as an election is not an inquiry into anything ; and as no British general election in the last century has been decided by any foreign policy issue. Many people who voted Labour in 2005 were completely against the Iraq war and thought Blair had lied about it, but voted Labour as they thought Labour were less bad than the Conservatives on domestic policies.

It seems that the Independent newspaper’s politics editor doesn’t know the difference between independent inquiries and political fixes – at least certainly not where his hero Tony Blair is concerned.

(1) = John Rentoul ‘Eagle Eye’ blog 5 Sep 2012 ‘Monbiot: the big coward’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/05/monbiot-the-big-coward/

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2012 ‘Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu

Citigroup aren’t fit to give advice on banking never mind energy policy

One of the main critics of government investment in renewable energy in Scotland – the Citigroup investment bank – failed to predict the financial crisis, was one of the four banks most involved in and hardest hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis – and invests heavily in tar sands, oil and coal (1). Given it’s inability to know what it should invest in itself in it’s own area of expertise – banking – why should anyone accept Citigroup as experts in an entirely separate area – energy policy?

The New York Times website reports that Citigroup required not one but three government bail-outs in the US, totalling $45 billion. The US Securities and Exchanges commission also charged Citigroup with telling investors it had invested only $13 billion in subprime mortgages, when the real figure was $50 billion (2).

This makes me less inclined to take their advice on anything. These are bankers who can’t run a bank and lie to investors, offering advice (with likely ulterior motives) on energy policy – something they have no expertise in.

Their other ulterior motive is likely to be their own heavy investment in coal, oil and tar sands compared to a relatively tiny stake in renewable. The Rainforest Action Network found that in 2010 Citigroup invested $34 billion in the former and less than 2% of that amount in renewables , including heavy investments in tar sand projects in Canada (3).

It could well be that some of the investment banks who are writing reports praising the Scottish government’s renewable energy targets also have ulterior motives (perhaps having invested in renewable themselves) and wanting to promote them as a result.

There are other more reputable groups criticising the Scottish government’s renewable energy target of 100% by 2020 as being unrealistic and likely to increase fuel poverty – like the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - but I still wouldn’t trust a company with a record like Citigroup’s to advise me on picking my nose never mind on energy policy.

(1) = CNN 15 Oct 2007 ‘Citi profits tumble as execs scramble’, http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/15/news/companies/citigroup_earnings/index.htm , ‘Citigroup is among a handful of banks that have been hard hit by this summer's subprime mortgage crisis. Three other banks - JPMorgan Chase (Charts, Fortune 500), Washington Mutual (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500) - are scheduled to report quarterly results this week.’

(2) = NYT.com Business 19 Oct 2011 > Companies > Citigroup Inc, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/citigroup_inc/index.html

(3) = Dirty Oil Sands blog 11 Mar 2011 ‘Citi needs an intervention’ By Brant Olson | Rainforest Action Network, http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/article/citi_needs_an_intervention

(4) = Institution of Mechanical Engineers ‘Scottish Energy 2020? A target too far?’,http://www.imeche.org/Scottish-Energy-2020?WT.mc_id=HP_110661