On the issue of the objective – the goal is not just to prevent Gaddafi from bombing the protestors from above. If the reports of foreign mercenaries being hired to kill civilians and rebels are true (the confirmation of which, relates to the second point of the need to confirm such claims) then this is outrageous and unconscionable behaviour which must be stopped. I note Clarke didn’t touch on the issue of mercenaries but the interview was from three days ago and the facts still remain admittedly hazy.

I don’t generally like slippery slope arguments as a rule but with regards to this, if the argument is a) that Gaddafi will scale up ground forces to make up for an inability to use his crappy air force, then I see no reason why Gaddafi would not already be deploying his forces in a maximum capacity, in combination with his fighter jets – he already has every incentive to go all out b) that America and its allies would be sucked into making an ever greater commitment – this is a possibility but one that I think can be avoided if it’s stated from the very outset that assistance will be limited to air support for the rebels and nothing else.

Finally, as I said, there are perfectly valid reasons for not supporting any military assistance in Libya. The challenge of international legitimacy is pretty major – with the difficulty of obtaining a resolution from the Security Council being the primary obstacle. But given the Arab League support a no-fly zone and that there are (some) rebels calling for a no fly-zone, I’m still inclined to think it is a better option than not.

My point in the above piece is that if he’s going to accuse Bligh of being *intentionally* mean, he should at least have the decency to propose an alternative welfare methodology where his explanation goes beyond ‘Whatever that is’.

Just as means testing is an entirely acceptable plan to one side, it is ‘mean spirited’ and ‘disgusting’ to the other. The economic benefits of giving more to ‘those who need it’ (leaving aside the moral pitfalls of attempting to determine THAT) versus the benefits of distributing benefits equally on a contributive basis has been argued for longer than I have been around, so there will be no resolution to this issue I feel.

I would be interested in your opinion about the flood levy on an economic basis, as once again the acceptability of the progressive element of the tax will depend on which side of politics you hitch your wagon to.