Can we stop arming Bahrain’s tyrants please?

A former foreign minister makes a valid point, as another Arab tyranny wobbles.

It's getting ugly in Bahrain – the BBC is reporting three dead and hundreds injured, as the emir's security forces disperse thousands of anti-government protesters in Pearl Square in the centre of the capital, Manama.

It's also getting worryingly sectarian. As the BBC notes in its online report:

Since independence from the UK in 1971, tensions between the Sunni elite and the less affluent Shia have frequently caused civil unrest. Shia groups say they are marginalised, subject to unfair laws and repressed.

Along with Iran and Iraq, Bahrain is one of three Shia-majority countries in the Middle East. There are rumours of Saudi support for Bahraini security forces; the Sunni elite have long been paranoid about a so-called Shia crescent emerging in the region. As the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof tweeted earlier:

Witnesses say #Bahrain police cursed Shia as they attacked peaceful demonstrators. I haven't found 1 Sunni victim.

So what can we do, here in the UK? I have a suggestion. How about we stop arming the Bahraini security forces? Is that such a radical or crazy suggestion, in the midst of all this bloodshed? The Labour MP and former Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane has just sent out a press release stating that:

According to the Department of Business's report on weapons exports, minister in the third quarter of 2010 agrees to export licences to Bahrain for the equipment listed below:

Q3 2010 Pivot Report
OIEL issued for CS hand grenades, demolition charges, demolition devices, exploding simulation devices, fire simulation equipment for small arms ammunition, illuminators, military devices for initiating explosives, signal flares, signal hand grenades, smoke ammunition, smoke canisters, smoke generators, smoke hand grenades, stun grenades, tear gas/irritant ammunition, tear gas/riot control agents, thunderflashes, training anti-aircraft ammunition, training hand grenades; (Source House of Commons Library)

MacShane says:

William Hague is shockingly complacent about the exports of British weapons used to kill, wound and repress innocent people protesting for their rights in Bahrain. At the very least all these exports should be suspended.

He makes a valid point. I'm not sure what the government's counter-argument would be!

If I wanted to be mean, though, I might remind Denis that the New Labour government – and Foreign Office – he was part of had no qualms about supplying weapons and training to some of the world's most repressive governments, including regimes in the Arab world. Plus ça change . . .

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496