The Green Ribbon

Armorgroup bidding for Aegis Iraq contract

Saturday's Washington Post has more news about the competition for the Iraq security contract currently held by Tim Spicer's Aegis.  Apparently, one of the rival bidders is Armorgroup, another British firm which recently beat Aegis to a major contract in Aghanistan.

Aegis faced some questions after it won the first contract, including a special inspector report that found that the firm had not properly vetted some of its Iraqi employees. But some private security contractors now view Aegis as the front-runner to win the new contract because it already is entrenched in running wide-ranging Reconstruction Operations Centers throughout Iraq. Aegis, a private firm, is believed to be smaller than ArmorGroup, which employs about 9,000 people and oversees operations in 38 countries. Kristi M. Clemens, Aegis's executive vice president, declined to comment, except to say, "We stand by our performance on the past contract." (Washington Post)

Meanwhile Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur has been asking more questions about Aegis and other contractors in congressional hearings:

A British constitutional convention

To his credit, Gordon Brown does seem to be more wedded to the constitutional reform agenda that New Labour inherited from John Smith than Tony Blair.

It's long been mooted that a Brown Government would consider a written constitution. Today's Guardian has some more details:

Gordon Brown will try to restore public trust in British politics by proposing an all-party convention that could pave the way for a written constitution.

In an attempt to draw a line under damaging perceptions over sleaze and spin in the Blair era, the chancellor will seek consensus for the historic move to enshrine certain values and rights.

The convention will also look at new powers for parliament and a rebalancing of powers between Whitehall and local government, similar to those laid out in the US constitution of 1787 which has a central place in American law and culture. (Guardian)

Stormont and Holyrood: Brown's taxing problems

Yesterday's happy events at Stormont could have a sting in the tail for Gordon Brown. The business commmunity is already pushing the new Northern Ireland Executive for concessions on corporation tax.

The IBEC-CBI Joint Business Council, the voice of business on the island of Ireland, today (Tuesday 8 May 2007) welcomed the formation of a new devolved Northern Ireland administration. This is a particularly significant development for the Joint Business Council, which over the last 15 years has promoted the cause of business co-operation on this island.

CBI NI President Declan Billington said: “At his recent meeting with the Taoiseach the First Minister Dr Paisley emphasised the need for economic co-operation that is to our mutual benefit and he singled out the need for action on corporation tax. From a business perspective, reform in this area is vital if the North is to achieve rates of economic growth comparable with the South.” (IBEC)

Congresswoman wins new audit of Aegis contract

Janes Defence Weekly reported a while ago that the Iraq security contract held by Tim Spicer's Aegis was up for renewal on 10 April.

Industry sources who spoke to Jane's suggested that only a limited number of major players - UK firms such as ArmorGroup or US companies such as Blackwater or DynCorp - would be equipped to take on such a large contract. The incumbent Aegis Defence Services is also submitting a bid. (Janes)

It all went very quiet after that until last Saturday, when the Washington Post revealed that the existing contract was being extended by six months while rival firms Blackwater and Erinys challenged their exclusion from the procurement process.

The protests come at a time when members of Congress are demanding more scrutiny of private security contractors. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said she has been frustrated in attempts to seek information about Aegis Defense Services, a British firm that holds the current security contract in Iraq. She has requested an audit of the firm by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

"When [the Defense Department] refuses to provide information that should be public, I am -- what's the word? -- incensed," she said.

The special inspector general has agreed to launch an audit, said spokeswoman Denise Burgess (Washington Post)

Who should govern Scotland?

In the wake of yesterday's results, the debate is well underway about who should form the next executive at Holyrood.

Neal Ascherson wants an SNP-Lib Dem alliance:

Like it or not, the Lib-Dems (who more or less held their own in this election) still guard the gate to power. They are thinking hard about their options. For all their pro-Union distrust of the Nats, they recognise that this election confirmed a powerful new impatience for more (if not yet full) independence in Scotland. Their own programme is for a radical expansion of the Scottish parliament's powers. But the stonily Unionist rhetoric of Gordon Brown during this campaign shows what an uphill struggle this will be, a struggle in which the SNP is their only conceivable ally. (Comment is Free)

Paul Linford wants a unionist grand coalition:

Salmond's commitment to staging and winning a win a referendum on Scottish independence by 2010 is a policy so dangerous and so utterly wrong-headed both for Scotland and for Britain as a whole that he must be prevented from ever being in a position to carry it out.

Whatever their differences on other matters, the future of the UK is an issue of such importance that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems should now agree to form a Grand Coalition that reflects the unionist viewpoint of the majority of the Scottish people. (Paul Linford)

SNP win in Scotland - just

The SNP today became the largest party in the Scottish Parliament by the narrowest of margins.

SNP: 47
Lab: 46
Con: 17
Lib Dem: 16
Green: 2
Margo McDonald : 1

129 seats in total, 65 required for overall majority

The SNP would need the support of the Lib Dems and the Greens to gain an overall majority of 1. This would not be enough for Labour, who cannot gain an overall majority without the support of either the Tories or Margo McDonald.

McDonald is a former SNP MP for Govan albeit one who split from the party in very bitter circumstances.

Alex Salmond looks to have edge in the race to be First Minister, although he could well find himself leading a minority government which some would see as a poisoned chalice. There could be some tough bargaining ahead if the Lib Dems stick to the ridiculous position that the largest party have the right to be in Government but not to put their leading policy to the electorate.

Super Thursday election night

Today represents the biggest test of public opinion in Britain since the 2005 General Election.

All eyes will be on Scotland where the race between the SNP and Labour to be the largest party  is looking increasingly tight. politicalbetting.com has a helpful summary of the final polls of the campaign. The two lastest polls tell very different stories

Constituency vote

            Labour    SNP    Lib Dems    Tories

Yougov 31%        37%    14%           13%   

ICM      32%        34%    16%           13%

Constituency vote

            Labour    SNP    Lib Dems    Tories

Yougov  27%       32%    10%            13%   

ICM       29%       30%    16%            13%

in the comments over at pb.com, Stuart Dickson points us to some helpful data on declaration times. The first council declarations are expected around midnight. Declarations from the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections are expected to begin around 1am.

Key figures to remember:

65 - Number of MSPs needed to provide an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament. Neither Labour or the SNP are likely to reach this on their own, but the results will dictate likely coalition options.

31 - Numbers of Assembly Members needed for an overall majority in the Welsh Assembly. In the last Assembly labour ran a minority government with 29 votes. If it loses more seats, it may be forced to return to coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It's also conceivable that there could be a rainbow coalition of Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and the Tories, who between them also had 29 votes in the last Assembly.

 

A Public Inquiry into MI5?

There are currently widespread calls for a public inquiry into the 7/7 bombings in the wake of the Fertiliser Bomb Trial.

One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that public inquiries were effectively abolished by the Inquiries Act 2005. The act's significance was well summed up by Joshua Rozenberg at the time it was passed:

Remember the fine old tradition of the British public inquiry? The fearless chairman, often a judge, who could never be sacked? The terms of reference, laid down in advance, that could never be altered? The publication of evidence, both oral and written, that the Government could never prevent?

All gone - thanks to the Inquiries Act 2005, passed a week ago while your back was turned. Forget about independent inquiries: ministers are now in control. (Telegraph)

Under the new legislation, the Minister involved, presumably in this case John Reid, would have far -reaching powers:

The Minister:

·         decides whether there should be an inquiry

·         sets its terms of reference

·         can amend its terms of reference

·         appoints its members

·         can restrict public access to inquiries

·         can prevent the publication of evidence placed before an inquiry

·         can prevent the publication of the inquiry’s report

·         can suspend or terminate an inquiry

·         can withhold the costs of any part of an inquiry which strays beyond the terms of reference set by the Minister.

Parliament’s role has been reduced to that of the passive recipient of information about inquiries, whereas under the 1921 Act reports of public inquiries were made to Parliament.  Now, not only is there no guarantee that any inquiry will be public, but inquiry reports will go to the Minister. (British-Irish Rights Watch)

Although the Inquiries Act had far-reaching implications, it was designed to deal with one particular case, a case in which, as it happens, MI5 has very serious questions to answer.