Conservatives are still misrepresenting the facts

Some would call it "lying", but let us be generous. After all, it has not been quite on the same scale as their previous leader but one. The impression they create is misleading, though, possibly dangerously so in some cases.

They were at it at Welsh Questions yesterday.  In his final reply, Secretary of State David TC Davies accused the Welsh government of a ban on new roads. What has in fact happened is that the criteria for new schemes have been tightened. If a proposal passes four tests which take increasing concerns into account, then the scheme can go ahead. As cyclingUK's Duncan Dollimore puts it:

Increasing road capacity, for so long the stated goal of so many schemes, will no longer be a justification in itself for building a new road; minimising carbon emissions, both from construction and use, will be a key focus.

Earlier, "Top Cat" had asserted that the money spent on reducing the default traffic speed limit from 30 mph would have been better spent on the NHS in Wales. He glossed over the probable reduction in the pressure on Accident & Emergency units as a result of reducing the severity of road accidents, a point that must have been made by Welsh Conservatives in September 2018 when they initiated a debate in Senedd on a motion to "introduce legislation so that a 20mph speed limit becomes the standard speed limit in Welsh residential areas". 

The real downright misstatement came from Dame Andrea Leadsom when she claimed that nobody had voted for the 20 mph limit in Wales. A few minutes perusal of the history would have shown her that not only did two Welsh Conservatives go to speak in favour of the proposal at a special conference in Cardiff, but also the party assented to the setting up of a task force to examine the proposal. The Senedd endorsed the task force's recommendation with an overwhelming majority. Both Labour and Plaid Cymru included a default 20 mph limit in their manifestos for the 2021 Welsh general election. If Tories had second thoughts about the reduction, that was surely the time to make a song and dance about it. 

Gaza double-think

At Business Questions yesterday, Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt agreed with Theresa Villiers in a clearly planted question that there was a rush to blame Israel for the hospital tragedy without a sound evidential basis. She went on:

It is also critical that reporters, sometimes stationed in very stressful environments, report facts as facts and that those things that are not facts—things that have not been verified or are lines to take from terrorist organisations—should not be treated as facts. The BBC does focus on these things to a very large degree, but we know that sometimes it does not get things right, as we saw recently with its code of conduct surrounding the Gary Lineker situation. I am sure that it will want to kick the tyres on this and ensure that anyone listening to a BBC outlet is being given the best possible information.

As this blog pointed out yesterday, the BBC was guiltless on the matter and has reported objectively on the al-Ahli explosion. If an early BBC bulletin jumped to the wrong conclusion, this was swiftly corrected. Other news outlets were not so scrupulous. 

Later, Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) asked a question which shows where his sympathies lie:

It is understandable that, after suffering the worst terrorist atrocity in its history and the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust, the state of Israel will now seek to eliminate the threat of Hamas and all the other terrorist organisations. Mr Speaker enabled a statement on Monday and then an urgent question. Rather than a statement, would it not be better for the House to have a debate, in Government time and on a Government motion, so that it can express its support for the state of Israel and we can come to a ready conclusion to send a strong signal? Does the Leader of the House agree that there can be no equivalence between the Hamas terrorists, who kill, maim and torture civilians and try to eliminate as many Jews as they possibly can, and the Israel Defence Forces, which seeks to target terrorists and minimise civilian casualties?

Penny Mordaunt

I think that many Members of this House would want further opportunities to discuss this very important matter, so I suggest to my hon. Friend that he pursues the idea of a debate.

There has been discussion over the last week of proportionality, and the term “collective punishment” has been used on the Floor of the House. It is incredibly important that we recognise that the International Committee of the Red Cross principle of proportionality does not mean an eye for an eye, as some have suggested. That would be perverse. We do not suggest via that very important principle that, if the Israel Defence Forces raided Gaza and beheaded a precise number of infants or burned a precise number of families or raped a precise number of women and girls, that would be okay—of course not. That is not what proportionality means. The principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.

What Israel is trying to do is end Hamas, a terror organisation that is a block to peace. The IDF is a trained military force that is subject to the rules of armed conflict and international law. Its soldiers are trained in these ethical matters. Its targeting doctrine and analysis of it is in the public domain and subject to scrutiny.

That ethical training would presumably have been given to the Israeli soldier, the sole source  of the story of the decapitated babies, told to a TV interviewer, an untruth which went half-way round the world before it was exposed and disowned by the Israeli authorities. 

As to lex talionis, America's PBS reports that since the war began 3,478 Palestinians have been killed (Hamas Ministry of Health figures; it is not clear whether the figure includes casualties in the West Bank enclave) and over 1,400 in Israel. Draw your own conclusions.