Iran: Ahmadinejad's Chief Aide "Not Too Many People in the Prisons"

Yesterday we ran a special feature on President Ahmadinejad's bold revision of Iran's internal situation: "I'm in Favour of Protestors". But he's not the only one making fanciful declarations: during the trip to New York, his close friend, brother-in-law, and Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai was also making some eyebrow-raising statements. The key extract from the interview with The New Yorker:

LAURA SECOR: I want to turn to domestic affairs in Iran. Last night on “Charlie Rose,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said that the opposition in Iran is functioning freely, and that those who have been imprisoned are only those who vandalized property, people who broke windows or set cars on fire. Do you hold that to be true?

Mahmoud’s Iran Wonderland: Ahmadinejad “I’m in Favour of Protestors”

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Absolutely, it’s true. There are actually not too many people in the prisons. There were hundreds and thousands of people who came on the streets voicing their opinions. If we had to capture all of them, the prisons would not even have space. The few that are in prison are the ones who vandalized and created violence and took away the safety of the people.


LAURA SECOR: And yet international groups have documented thirty-eight journalists in prison in Iran and eighteen more on temporary furlough. Their charges have nothing to do with vandalism. Why are these people in prison?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Vandalism is not only about committing an offense by yourself. These people have practically provoked others to commit acts of vandalism. We have thousands of journalists working in different fields and they are still active and they have never finished their jobs. But they have created a climate in which violence prevailed.

LAURA SECOR: This is a political crime you are speaking of, not an act of setting a car on fire. You’re saying that these people, because of their words—

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: There are laws in every country. And people must obey the law to have a healthy society. Nobody has been arrested for their words. But there have been people who have made massive propaganda campaigns to provoke people and to create a state of agitation in the country. So they tried to do it in order to provoke people to violence. Of course, different crimes have different punishments. And this is not the responsibility of the government, but of the judiciary, which is an independent power. [Ed. note: the Iranian judiciary answers to and is appointed by the Supreme Leader.] I’m trying to just express my opinion. There are some people who are involved in organized activities. They have organized certain groups and actually they have tried to bring cars and different things from different cities and concentrate them in Tehran. And there are also people who are related to these groups and they try to do their job through the mass media. But this is quite different from those people who are just journalists. The ones in the prisons are part of those organized groups. And naturally I cannot say they are not criminals. The position of the government is to help these people during the legal proceedings. The judiciary is independent, but the government has the good will to help these people.

LAURA SECOR: I’m wondering why your government has such good will if these people are a threat to the state as you say.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: They are no threat. These people seek to change the state and they have made tremendous efforts to do it, but they are not in a position to carry it off. They are not a threat. They are not on that scale. They are in prison because they broke the law.

LAURA SECOR: So if they broke the law, why should your government press for leniency for them?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: These people have families. And some of them are regretting their actions, and we cannot see any danger from their side. So if it is about reducing their sentence it is a good position.

LAURA SECOR: You also have more than a hundred reformist politicians, people who were active in the campaigns, who are in prison, and some of whom were placed on trial last summer. Are you claiming that these people, too, including former vice-president Mohammad Ali Abtahi, including former interior minister Mostafa Tajzadeh, are these people also involved in setting cars on fire or inciting others to acts of violence?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Those who prepare a conducive ground for riots, and who try to create a situation of anarchy, are offenders. Anybody can belong to the opposition groups. But there are people who are going to organize and concentrate on regime change, and they do everything toward these goals. Show me any country in the world that does not consider these activities to be crimes. Could they be encouraged in the United States or any country in Europe? No. But they are free to express their opinions freely, or to express their opposition or discontent against the government. It is strictly forbidden by law to organize activities that create a situation of anarchy.

LAURA SECOR: I’m confused by your response. For instance, Mostafa Tajzadeh was the campaign manager for Mir Hossein Mousavi, a candidate who was approved to run in the presidential election. And he was arrested before there was any disturbance in the streets.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: That’s not true. Thousands of people were involved in the election campaigns. There are many friends of Mr. Tajzadeh who have not been arrested.

LAURA SECOR: But people were arrested in the party headquarters the day of the election—this was before there was any disturbance in the streets.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Many of them were arrested but they were not sent to prison. Some of them have not been arrested at all. Some of them were detained temporarily and freed immediately. They were not charged. So the difference is that this group of people tried to organize certain activities in the society. They created anarchy and violence. Mr. Tajzadeh has other friends that were active in the party headquarters and they still continue in their activities.

LAURA SECOR: But the party has been closed down. Why were the two main reformist parties banned in a state that has free opposition?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Political parties have a responsibility to create a healthy political situation in the country. If any party tries to move in a direction that is against the national interest, it will not be allowed to continue its activities. There are certain regulations for creating a party. The founders of the party must be committed to obeying the law. If they violate the law, their party will be shut down. But those people are able to create other parties in the future. The problem is that the leaders of these parties have faced problems. Maybe they can renew their activities and reopen their parties.

LAURA SECOR: One of the things that was confusing to me in the charges against some of the prisoners was that I saw that some people were charged, as a crime, with speaking with foreign reporters, and yet you and I are able to speak without a problem. What is the difference between their situation and yours? Why it is possible for some people, who are officials, to speak with foreign reporters, while others, who are not, don’t have that right?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: No, no. That’s not true. It is a mistake. It’s not true. We don’t have such a situation. They could be in contact with foreign reporters in the past. Maybe something made you believe that such a thing has happened to them. Maybe the people who have been arrested now and they are in prisons have had some interviews with reporters, but that is not the real crime they’ve been charged with. People who are against the government say that these people have been charged of having interviews with foreign journalists. If we consider that a crime, there are many people who should go to prison. This is not considered a crime, and it is not against the law now, and it’s not going to be in the future. Our president talks to the foreign mass media and journalists. If it is against the law, the president shouldn’t do it. If it is not against the law, nobody should be detained or arrested.

LAURA SECOR: To finish with the domestic and human-rights questions, do you believe that in the time since the elections last June there has been any incident that was mishandled? Is there anything to regret, from the government’s side, or do you believe the government has handled the situation perfectly?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Nothing was mishandled. The West has a double-standard approach toward human rights. They try to use it like a political tool. For example, during the elections, they have massive propaganda against Iran at that time. The same thing is always happening here in the United States and in Europe. But they only cover the news on this side. If something happen in Iran, they write about it for many months and talk about on television, radio, newspapers. When we were here during the General Assembly, before that there was another meeting in Pittsburgh, and there were some demonstrations. Police treated the people violently. The same thing happened in Europe. Nobody talked about the human-rights situation at that time, and they never talk about that. If something like that happens in Iran, they talk about it for many years, and we have to answer the questions about human-rights violations. So they always follow double standard. The governments and the political systems in the West don’t believe actually in human rights. I would like to refer to a historical fact, if you are allowed to publish this. When Saddam Hussein militarily attacked Iran, the rest of the countries all supported him. And at that time, there were mass executions in Iraq. In order to continue to support Saddam Hussein, they issued a lot of reports about human-rights abuse in Iran. And they put Iran in the black list of human-rights violators. But at the same time they took Iraq off the black list. Later on they found out who Saddam Hussein was. But nobody asked any questions about why they have supported Saddam Hussein. But when they decided to topple Saddam Hussein, Saddam then was transformed into a criminal. No matter who is a criminal or a human-rights defender, the point is that we should see what the West wants and what are their goals.

LAURA SECOR: So in your view, how do we resolve inconsistencies regarding human rights? Is it preferable to say that we have no international regime of human rights, no international standards of human rights, or is it better to make an effort to apply them equally everywhere?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Yes, there should be some legal regimes to defend human rights. We believe the West is not defending human rights. Look at the situation in our region, in the Middle East. Many countries are not democratic, and nobody is talking against them in the West. In Iran, in the past thirty-one years we had about thirty elections. Now compare the rights enjoyed by Iranian women with the rights in other countries. Why aren’t we talking about the women’s situation in those countries? Why there is no interest on the part of the Western mass media to talk about this? We do not say they shouldn’t talk about human rights. We believe they should talk more about it. But they should say the right things. And we believe they should not use it as a political tool.

LAURA SECOR: So do you believe that if you heard more aggressive criticism of human-rights violations in other countries in your region, that you would find it more acceptable to receive criticism of human-rights violations in Iran?

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: I don’t say I’m against criticism on human rights. But it doesn’t exist here. Why do they take the position that they are defenders of human rights and we should respond to their requirements? One per cent of the U.S. population are in prison. In Iran, it’s .2 per cent, and most of them are drug traffickers. Nobody is talking about prisoners in the United States. Should there be an international determination against human-rights abuses in United States prisons? Is there any interest on the part of international organizations to do this? I don’t think so. If someone is executed in any part of the world—of course we don’t try to see any person sentenced to the death penalty. But if someone is executed in our country according to the law, they make a huge cry that there has been human-rights abuse. Do you know how many people were killed during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? It would be the number of people killed in executions in one hundred years’ time. The number of people killed in Iran and the numbers of all the world together cannot compare with the specter of crimes committed by the United States.

LAURA SECOR: Iran has the second-highest rate of execution in the world.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: No.

LAURA SECOR: After China.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: Most of the executions are of major drug traffickers who are involved in big drug business. Do you want to take all of them in the United States? We’ll send them to the United States if you want. We can coördinate. Send the drug traffickers to the Western countries. They are threatening people’s lives, threatening the lives of our young people with drugs. And we are sending our soldiers to the border with Afghanistan to stop this, and they are getting killed. When we arrest those traffickers, should we give them some prize for their actions? You should see the reasons for these executions. Certainly without any doubt nobody is ever executed for expressing political views. But the Branch Davidian cult, what happened to them in the United States? Nobody is paying for such a story. They have no mercy, the West has no mercy on these things. They have no respect for human rights. I’m talking about the government, not the people. The people are equal. There is no difference between the people in the West and the East.

LAURA SECOR: The main critics of Iranian human-rights policy have not been Western governments but international organizations and nongovernmental organizations that study human rights.

ESFANDIAR RAHIM MASHAEI: They are under pressure. For example, let’s talk about the N.P.T. Why is there no talk about disarmament? They always talk about proliferation. You know the meaning of proliferation? What we have now, that’s all right, but let’s not increase the number of arms. They are the biggest liars of the world, since the creation of Adam until now, and they are living in the United States. They are unique. And unfair. The policymakers in the United States. You cannot find people to be compared with them in history

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/05/esfandiar-rahim-mashaei.html#ixzz0n8ZrKu77

Middle East Inside Line: Preliminary Proximity Talks, "Strategic Advantage" of Israel's Nukes, Fatah-Hamas Tension

Warming Up the Proximity Talks: US Middle East envoy George Mitchell met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday for the second time in two days. There has been no comment so far.

Mitchell is to go to Ramallah on Friday, meeting the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The official announcement of the beginning of indirect talks is awaiting approval by the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee. It is expected by Saturday.

Middle East Inside line: Israel’s Nuclear Problem; Syrian Tensions with US & Israel

Israel's "Strategic Advantage": The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, has asked member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and open  its nuclear facilities to IAEA oversight.


An Israeli official on Thursday responded by defendeing the country's "opaque" policy on its nuclear program as a "strategic advantage". He added that Israel would not sign the NPT until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace deal is in place, as the treaty in itself is "not successful" in preventing countries such as Saddam Husein's Iraq or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Fatah-Hamas Tension: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday accused the rival Hamas movement of smuggling weapons into the West Bank. In an interview with the London-based A-Sharq al-Awsat, he said:

On the one hand, the organization is punishing those who launch rockets in Gaza, while at the same time it hoards weapons in the West Bank.

Britain's Election LiveBlog: An Interim Assessment "Hung Parliament"

0146 GMT. An Interim Assessment. At the risk of breaking too soon, we are going to shut down for a few hours with the following projection:

1. CONSERVATIVES DO NOT WIN AN OVERALL MAJORITY: While there have been individual Tory successes in grabbing seats beyond their 1st 116 targets --- the magic number for a majority --- they have failed on too many occasions within the initial 116.

Britain’s Election on The Morning After: “Who Here Has a Mandate?”
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Britain’s Elections

The most important pattern appears to be regional: the Tories are doing well in Wales but having mixed fortunes in the Midlands and near London. And, with rogue exceptions, they are not making inroads on Lib Dem seats.

2. LIB DEMS MAKE NO ADVANCE: All the excitement over a three-party system, raised by the performance of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the candidates' debates, seems to have drained away. The reasons will have to be discerned later --- my own suspicion is that the Fear Factor of a "hung Parliament" drove voters away in the final days (even though, ironically, we are likely to get that hung Parliament) --- but the Liberal Democrats, with a few exceptions, will hold what they have but gain little more.

3. LABOUR FACES A POLITICAL CHOICE: GO FOR THE COALITION? Labour appears to have held enough seats in the face of the Conservative onslaught to claim, as the British Constitution allows, the first attempt at a coalition. But can they do so with a weakened Gordon Brown and a prospective Liberal Democrat partner that appears less than politically strong in the face of tonight's results?


0155 GMT: Birmingham Edgbaston, which was supposed to declared almost 2 1/2 hours ago, is in a recount.

The Conservatives take Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire (target #42) by a scant 389 votes over Labour.

0145 GMT: The Liberal Democrats have taken Eastbourne (target #6) from the Conservatives, but the Tories have taken Harrogate (target #153) from the Lib Dems.

0140 GMT: Another blow to the Conservatives in Scotland. They have failed to take Perth (target #30).

And the Tories have not taken Eastleigh, held by the Liberal Democrats' Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne. The seat was #11 on the target list.

0130 GMT: The Conservatives have taken Tamworth (target #52) and Chester (target #15) from Labour.

The Tories, however, have not taken Telford (target #141). And I failed to note earlier that Angus in Scotland, held by the Scottish National Party, was target #39.

0125 GMT: The Conservatives have taken Nuneaton (target #85) from Labour with a majority of more than 2000. And the Tories have taken Basildon South (target #31) from Labour with an edge of almost 6000 on a swing of 7.5%.

However, the Tories have failed to take Bolton Northeast (target #94) in northwestern England, with a swing of only just over 1%.


0119 GMT: Vale of Glamorgan in Wales (Conservative target #32) declares.

Conservatives take the seat from Labour.

In an even bigger result, the Conservatives have overturned a 7000+ Lib Dem majority in Montgomeryshire in Wales. The seat was only #210 on the Tory list. Personal factors may have played a part: it was held by Lembit Opik, a politician known as much for unorthodox views and celebrity associations as for policies.

0115 GMT: The Conservatives have taken Aberconwy in Wales (target #5) from Labour.

0113 GMT: The prospect of the British National Party, noted for its views on race and ethnicity, taking its first seat in Parliament has receded. The BNP leader, Nick Griffin, is sayiing that he would be pleased to finish second in Barking.

0112 GMT: More holds for Labour (Glasgow Central, Airdrie, Cumbernauld, Livingston, Dunfermline, and Inverclyde in Scotland, Barnsley Central in Yorkshire, Hull West on Humberside, Bishop Auckland), Scottish Nationalist (Dundee East), and Conservative (Dorset West, Norfolk South, Hertford, Worcestershire Mid).

0107 GMT: Labour have taken back Glasgow East from the Scottish National Party. The seat had been a Labour stronghold but was lost in a by-election soon after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister.

0105 GMT: There is a recount at Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire (Conservative target #42).

0102 GMT: Exeter (Conservative target #176) declares. The seat is currently held by a Labour Minister, Ben Bradshaw.

Labour hold with a majority of almost 3000.

0100 GMT: Holds for Labour (Llanelli in Wales; Coatbridge), Conservative (Canterbury, Staffordshire South), and Scottish Nationalist Party (Angus).

0056 GMT: Labour have taken back Blaenau Gwent in Wales from an Independent.

Conservatives have held Newbury (Lib Dem target #20) with a 7.0% swing.

0053 GMT: Conservativres hold Sevenoaks near London and Christchurch on the south coast; Labour hold Wrexham in Wales and Gedling in the East Midlands.

The Gedling result is another blow to the Tories' hope of a majority. It was target #91.

0047 GMT: Conservatives hold Guildford, Labour hold Glenrothes in Scotland.

The Guildford result is significant, as it was the #3 turnout for the Lib Dems. The Tories turned a narrow majority into a sizable one with a 6.5% swing.

0043 GMT: Declaration from Tooting in London. This is Conservative target #112 (close to their borderline for an absolute majority).

Conservatives 19,514, Labour 22,038. Labour hold.

Sadiq Khan, a Transport Minister, gained 1% while the Tories gained 8% and the Lib Dems lost 5%. That feels to me like tactical voting to keep the Conservatives out, and it's also notable that the turnout of 69% was up 10% over 2005.

0039 GMT: Labour have held Islwyn in Wales.

0036 GMT: Brown still speaking, as the Conservatives take Battersea from Labour.

That's an essential gain for the Tories, as it was their #4 target. Labour had less than 1% edge in 2005; the Conservatives easily overturned that and won by 12%.

0034 GMT: Well, Gordon Brown held his seat.

More significantly, Labour did hold City of Durham with a sustained majority of 3000.

0030 GMT: Declaration from City of Durham. Labour had a majority of 3000; this is Lib Dem target #23.

Labour 20,496 (and here BBC cuts away to Gordon Brown's count in Kirkcaldy in Scotland!)....

0029 GMT: The Lib Dems have held East Fife in Scotland.

0027 GMT: The Turned-Away Voters. In Hackney in London, two Labour candidates, Diane Abbott and Meg Hillier, have submitted an official complaint about people refused entry into polling stations. More than 50 people allegedly were denied the vote after waiting for 45 minutes.

0023 GMT: Labour have held Sedgefield (Tony Blair's old constituency) in northeast England and Ynys Mon in Wales.

0021 GMT: Labour have held East Kilbride, Motherwell, and Hamilton West in Scotland and Vale of Clwyd in Wales.

0016 GMT: An Independent candidate has taken North Down in Northern Ireland. Lady Hermon refused to stand as a Conservative-allied candidate for the Unionists and increased her majority from 5000 to nearly 15,000.

0014 GMT: Conservatives hold Putney in southwest London. Which is no surprise whatsoever.

0010 GMT: The Torbay count is imminent. It's #54 on the Conservative list and is held by the Liberal Democrats with a majority of almost 3000.

Labour 3231, Lib Dem 23,126, Conservative 19,048. Lib Dems hold and that's a setback for the Conservatives. Indeed, they increased their majority with a 1.1% swing.

0009 GMT. Democratic Unionists hold Upper Bann in Northern Ireland. Labour hold Easington.

0007 GMT. Grasping. The normally excellent David Dimbleby tries to make news out of a single result (Kingswood): "We now be looking at an overall Conservative majority."

0003 GMT: First Conservative Gain. The Tories have taken Kingswood in Gloucestershire with a 9.4% swing from Labour.

The seat was relatively low on the Conservative target list at #131 (the Tories need to take 116 seats to claim a majority).

Funny, how the first major tremor of the night snuck past the media --- everyone was expecting it to come in Birmingham Edgbaston.

2359 GMT: The First Shift of the Night. Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, have gained Arfon from Labour.

2355 GMT: The Liberal Democrats have held Thornbury and Yate in southwest England. Labour have held Durham North and Darlington in northeast England.

2343 GMT. Turned-Away Voters. This is getting close to the label "scandal" for the media. David Dimbleby and Nick Robinson of the BBC have just taken apart Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, and --- with few results coming in --- anchorwoman Fiona Bruce is pounding away about the footage of "extraordinary scenes".

2341 GMT: Results. Sinn Fein have held West Tyrone in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionists (Ian Paisley Jr., the son of the famous Northern Ireland Unionist leader) has held North Antrim.

2338 GMT. BBC "Party Boat" Update. The writer  Armando Ianucci, forced to endure the gaze of Andrew Neil for a couple of minutes and to say something funny, reports back, "That was some form of living hell."

2335 GMT: Turned-Away Voters. Problems now reported in Hackney and Islington South in London, a Liverpool constituency, and other areas.

2330 GMT: Sky is reporting the first gain of the night, with Liberal Democrats taking Edinburgh South from Labour. BBC has not even mentioned this. We're checking.

(Sky have no numbers posted on their website so I have no clue why they are calling this.)

2320 GMT: The result in Birmingham Edgbaston, the first significant marginal expected to declare, is likely to be after 0000 GMT because of high voter turnout.

2308 GMT: The Election Commission has promised a thorough review of the problems with turned-away voters.

2300 GMT: The Iran Parallel? An EA reader writes, "The voting system was a total shambles, Iran-style shambles. Exact same thing happened in Tehran on 12 June."

2258 GMT: Turned-Away Voters. BBC is now reporting that in a marginal seat in Chester (Labour majority 793), more than 600 voters were turned away because electoral lists had allegedly not been updated.

The returning officer in Birmingham has issued a statement, "People have had 15 hours to vote, everyone knows that polling stations close at 10pm, it is clearly marked on polling cards. There have been a couple of polling stations where we’ve had to lock the doors but we have endeavoured to get as many people in as possible and process them."

2255 GMT: Significantly, neither the Conservative politicians on TV or the press release from Conservative Central Office talks of a majority. Instead, it's slogans like "it's a historic result --- the most seats gained by Conservatives in any election since 1931 --- more than Mrs Thatcher in 1979".

2245 GMT: The Turned-Away Voters. This could be a major issue, with David Dimbleby hammering away, "A rum job...pretty chaotic". Reports coming in of stations running out of ballot papers and further confirmation that some stations stayed open while others closed.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, is reportedly personally apologising to voters in his Sheffield constituency. Harriet Harman, Labour's Deputy Leader, has said some results "may be challenged".

2240 GMT: Sunderland Central comes in. Despite the efforts of the BBC to big this up --- "a 12.8% percent swing and it goes to the Tories" --- Labour is returned with a margin of more than 6700.

Labour drops 5%, Tories up 5%. But no big deal, even if the Swingometer shook a bit.

BBC analysts are talking a lot of tosh about this --- "One part of Sunderland is different from another part of Sunderland", blah, blah.

The significance is that, because there was a glimmer the Conservatives could take Sunderland Central, Labour probably put in a greater effort than in Sunderland South and Sunderland West and turned out more of its vote. Not much beyond this.

2235 GMT: So a 2nd declaration has come in, this one from Sunderland West: Labour 52.5%, Conservative 21.8%, Lib Dem 17.1%, British National Party 5.1%, UK Independence Party 3.4%.

That's a 11.6% swing from Labour to Conservative, which sounds massively impressive until you realise: when you had almost 60 percent of the vote in the previous election, there's a lot way to swing.

2230 GMT. Tea Break!

2215 GMT. Useless Academic Projection of the Night (1). "Professor Vernon Bogdanor, from Oxford University, tells the BBC that if the swing of 8.4% in Houghton and Sunderland South is repeated across the country we will not have a hung parliament - we will have an outright Conservative victory."

2210 GMT: David Dimbleby, the BBC's iconic anchorman, on the turning away of people as polls closed: "It's a disgrace, isn't it? It's really a disgrace. It's Third World politics and there ought to be an enquiry into it. It's an absolute disgrace."

2208 GMT: Revised Exit Poll. The BBC number-crunchers, doing deeper analysis on the exit polls, have slightly altered the projection: Conservatives 305, Labour 255, Lib Dem 61, Others 29.

2205 GMT: The BBC is reporting that Lewisham in outer London kept open the polls for an extra 30 minutes --- in contrast to Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester --- to accommodate queues of voters.

2200 GMT: Interrogating with Nothing. Jeremy Paxman, the BBC's "tough guy" anchorman, is hammering Labour's baby-faced Douglas Alexander with no more than the iconic exit poll. It's on the lines of "You really suck, shouldn't you concede right now?"

As Paxman asks his questions, 0.001538% percent of the results have come in.

2151 GMT. The First Result. Sunderland South, a safe Labour seat, is now declaring: British National Party 1961, Liberal Democrats 5292, UK Independence Party 1022, Conservative 8147, Labour 19,137, Independent Candidate 2462.

Labour holds easily with 50% of the vote. That's a 12% drop in the Labour vote. Tories up 5, Lib Dems down 1, Independents up 7.

Not much to read into this, as it appears a lot of the swing is due to the independent candidate who ran on local issues.

2150 GMT: Big Turnout? First reports, given delays in counts and reports of those turned away at 2100 GMT (BBC is adding Manchester to Sheffield and Birmingham), indicates a large voter turnout today.

2145 GMT: BBC Bluster. Jeremy Vine, seizing an opportunity to show off the BBC's new Swingometer, is talking absolute pants (that's an academic term).

2138 GMT: Just to Complicate Matters. News is coming in that "hundreds" of people have been unable to vote in Sheffield constituencies, as they were still standing in queues when the polls closed at 2100 GMT. Police have been called in to disperse them, and the prospect of a legal challenge --- if there is a close result in any of the affected constituencies --- may emerge.

(EA's Mike Dunn has just reported that police have also been called to a polling station in Birmingham.)

2130 GMT: Bring on the Lib-Lab Coalition. Labour's Peter Mandelson has now followed Harriet Harman in saying that "the sitting government" has the first go at forming a coalition if there is no overall majority. And he also has indicated, in a gesture to the Liberal Democrats, that electoral reform is "essential".

2123 GMT: I don't want to be too dismissive but the vaunted exit poll is based on 17,607 interviews in 130 polling stations. That's polling stations, not constituencies. And there are 650 constituencies, which means 520 didn't even get a sniff of a pollster.

Start from scratch.

2118 GMT: I think ITV, given the lighting on their "reaction set", intend to conduct a seance.

2114 GMT: My 1st Good Lord of the Evening. Good Lord, how many words will have to die in interminable sentences about the possible meaning/lack of meaning/wannabe-meaning of the exit poll?

CNN, bless 'em, have either figured out that this blather is useless or is so far behind that they are talking about this afternoon's plane crash that injured the former leader of the UK Independence Party (1915 GMT).

2109 GMT: The Sunderland Fun Run. There is a curious and cute tradition here of constituencies racing to be the first to return a result. Sunderland South, the hot favourite, has been practicing all year. Cars with ballot boxes are given exemptions to go through red lights, and the BBC has curious and cute shots of young campaign workers doing a Jesse Owens (or, as this is Britain, Linford Christie) to get the boxes to the returning officer.

The goal: a return by 2143 GMT.

2105 GMT: Political Shift. First interesting political twist of the evening. Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman: "There is a general feeling we need to change the voting system."

That's a pretty blatant invite to the Liberal Democrats to talk coalition, meeting their call for a revision of Britain's "first past the post" voting.

2101 GMT: Intermission. Now we get 90 minutes of speculation before the first result is declared. Everyone is putting caveats as why exit polls may not wind up being accurate but....

The surprise is that the Liberal Democrats come out so low, losing three seats since 2005. But that in turn turns out to be bad news for the Tories: there is not much lower that the Lib Dems can go in an actual result, so the Conservatives have to hope the Labour vote is inflated in the exit poll to have any shot at a majority.

2100 GMT: The Exit Poll. BBC predicts hung parliament with a Conservative majority. Tories 307, Labour 255, Lib Dems 59, Others 29.

2058 GMT: Here We Go. I don't know about you, but I'm kind of excited. Everybody is showing off their gadgets and counting down....

2054 GMT: I know the BBC means well but sometimes it does try too hard: "The BBC's Jeremy Vine will be coming over all technological using some new-fangled graphics and a revamped swingometer to show you how things are shaping up through the night. He'll even be walking down a virtual Downing Street - paved with marginal seats."

2047 GMT: Fifteen minutes from the exit poll. It will be the only exit poll tonight, as all major broadcasters have agreed to use a single survey.

2045 GMT: The Delayed Vote. The postponement of the ballot in the Thirsk and Malton constituency, caused by the death of the UK Independence Party candidate, will make little difference to the outcome. It's a solid Conservative seat, with the Tories taking almost 52 percent of the vote in 2005.

2035 GMT: A quick shout-out to the good folks at the University of Birmingham student newspaper, Redbrick, who are running a "Polling Night Live".

(Fun Fact: the University of Birmingham Clock Tower, "Old Joe", is taller than Big Ben.)

2015 GMT: Best Marking Time Story. Waiting for the results, the BBC considers, "What Can You NOT Do in a Polling Station?"

Well, you can bring your dog: "Dogs may not yet be entitled to vote but they are allowed to come and watch as long as they don't disrupt the vote....In cases where a voter has two or more dogs and will struggle to control them while casting their ballot, polling station staff may hold the dogs' leads."

You may be able to wear political clothing: "We wouldn't want people coming in with overt political clothing," says [an election organiser] "[But] there's a candidate standing in Westminster as a pirate. And if he comes in to vote in a pirate costume as is likely, we won't turn him away. The same goes for any supporters coming to vote as pirates."

You can vote if you're drunk: "Polling station staff cannot refuse a voter simply because they are drunk or under the influence of drugs."

You can't vote with the loud accompaniment of Jay-Z: "We don't want people blasting music around the place as it would be disruptive," says the election organiser.

2000 GMT: One Hour to Go. In contrast to the US, with an extended lead-in, the networks here only go on-air five minutes before polls close (the exception is Sky News, which is trying to get a jump by starting now but finding precious little to say).

A quick update on those targets (1920 GMT) and their significance: if a net loss of 24 or more seats means Labour (currently 349 seats) loses its majority. However, for the Conservatives (210) to take power outright, they have to win a net 116 seats.

1920 GMT: How to Read an Election. One basic way of following tonight's shift in power, and specifically whether the Conservatives can take a majority in the House of Commons, is to track the "target seats", those requiring the small shift in vote to move to another party.

UK Polling Report has a handy list of the top 200 Conservative and top 100 Liberal Democrat targets (there is no Labour list, as UKPR is projecting no Labour gains and 111 Labour losses tonight).

Channel 4 has a timecheck for some of the most hotly contested seats --- the first key marginal, in Birmingham Edgbaston (home of the University of Birmingham) is expected to declare about 2330 GMT.

1915 GMT: Prelude. Election Day is eerie in Britain up to the close of voting. There's a formal ban on any polling until the first exit polls are released at 2102 GMT, two minutes after the ballot boxes are sealed. The candidates, after the round-the-clock campaigning this week, do no more today than pose for a photo opportunity as they cast their votes (always accompanied by smiling spouses). The mighty BBC pretends that nothing much is happening.

All of this means that there has been more chatter about Greek politics, with the unrest over the austerity measures, than British politics today. Yet the strangeness has been doubled because of the news that has broken through:

The former leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, was injured when the biplane in which he was a passenger crashed in Northamptonshire. The plane was circling with a trailing campaign banner when it nose-dived, apparently because the banner became entangled in the tail.

The British National Party, best known for controversial views on race and ethnicity, has apparently been crippled by acrimony. After the permanent website was taken down by a disgruntled member who criticised the leadership (pages are now unavailable), party head Nick Griffin has posted a message on a "temporary website".

1900 GMT (Two Hours to Close of Polls): A bit of nostalgia for EA tonight. We formally launched in November 2008 with an Election LiveBlog, this one of the events that led to a President-elect Obama.

1400 GMT: From our base in the centre of Britain, we'll be bringing readers updates on the most interesting election in Britain in decades.

For starters, we've posted a Basic Guide, explaining the process and the prospects for the three major parties: the ruling Labour Government of Gordon Brown, the Conservatives led by David Cameron, and the Liberal Democrats headed by Nick Clegg. There is also a glance at other parties, such as the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists, the Green Party, the UK Independence Party, and the British National Party, and some tips for those new to the system and for veterans looking  for clues as to whether Britain will have a clear decision on the next Government by tomorrow.

As polls close at 2100 GMT (10 p.m. local time), we'll roll out the sharpest LiveBlog both on the twists and turns of the vote as it comes in and on the high and low points of a British media caught between serious observation and 3-D Swingometer showmanship.

Our reading at this point? The most likely outcome is a "hung Parliament", leading to days and even weeks of maneouvring for a coalition Government or a minority Government depending on bloc-building for every piece of legislation. The one "wild card" that could alter this outcome is a "Fear Factor", pushing voters who are wary of a hung Parliament away from the Liberal Democrats, the long-standing "third party" who are now on equal footing in this campaign. Even then, those last-minute switchers would have to move towards the Conservatives rather than Labour in significant numbers.

So put on the kettle for a cup of tea --- it's going to be a long night.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Britain's Elections

How It Works: 44 million registered voters are casting ballots for candidates in 649 of the 650 constituencies in the House of Commons (one constituency, Thirsk, has delayed its vote today after the death of a candidate).

Britain's second chamber in Parliament in the House of Lords, is an all-appointed body, so executive power rests on the vote for members of the Commons. The simple part: Britain has a "first past the post" system rather than proportional representation. So if members of one party win 326 or more seats, that party selects Britain's next Prime Minister.

Britain’s Election: The EA LiveBlog

In the 2005 General Election, Labour maintained power, albeit with a reduced majority, when it claimed 356 of 646 seats (so a margin of 66 over all other parties combined). Labour's leader at that time, however, was Tony Blair. He stepped down in 2007, replaced by long-time Chancellor of the Exchequer (and rival) Gordon Brown.


The other top party in Britain since the 1920s is the Conservative Party, now led by David Cameron. Given the recent difficulties of the Labour Party, and in particular Brown, the Tories should have walked to victory. However, Cameron has failed to impress many, and the party has not really established the distinctiveness of its polices.

Then the twist in 2010: Britain's "third party", the Liberal Democrats, suddenly burst onto the scene as an equal, rather than the supporting actor of the last 80+ years. The party's leader, Nick Clegg, was far more effective than Brown and Cameron in Britain's first-ever debate amongst candidates, and he has managed at least parity in the following two encounters. The Lib Dems also had their best post-1945 performance in the 2005 election, winning 62 seats, and they have a solid platform through their prominence in local government.

The outcome is that, for the first time since 1974, Britain faces the prospect that no party will win the 326 seats needed for a majority. The Conservatives have led in almost all opinion polls; however,  in all they have failed to reach the 40% level which is a general benchmark for control of the Commons. The most optimistic number-crunching in the run-up to the vote has the Tories at around 310-320 seats.

That outcome could shift today as voters shy away from the prospect of a coalition when they cast their ballots. However, if they switch from Lib Dem to Labour, that still will not produce a majority result; the Conservatives have to capture the last-minute deciders.

The prospect of a coalition adds to the important recognition that there are far more than three parties in this contest. Since Britain is not just England, any overview should take into account the Scottish Nationalist Party, which leads a minority government in Scotland (but was excluded from the candidates' debates over its firm objections and threat of court action), the Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru, and the contending parties in Northern Ireland.

Then there are the Green Party; the UK Independence Party founded on getting Britain out of the European Union; the British Nationalist Party noted for its controversial views on race and ethnicity; Respect, launched in opposition to Britain's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War; smaller regional parties; and independent candidates.

Altogether parties beyond Conservative-Labour-Lib Dem won 30 seats in 2005.

Parties and Policies: The BBC has a handy portal offering an overview of positions and the manifestos of almost all parties involved in the 2010 election.

Watching the Numbers: A handy seat calculator can help you measure the likely outcomes as the percentages come in tonight. If you're impatient, you can judge the possibilities based on latest polls and on past elections.

And there is Britain's Nobel Prize-winning contribution to poll-gazing, the Swingometer, which will give an idea of how much of a shift in vote will be needed for the Conservatives to take power or, less likely, for Labour to retain it.

(The problem with the Swingometer is that even Britain's finest minds can't figure out how to make it 3-D. So while it can give you a measure of how the Conservatives can win in a straight fight with Labour --- the magic number is a 7% shift in votes --- it can't sort out the Lib Dem intervention.)

The Constituencies: For those of you now really getting into this, you can have a look at each of the 650 battlegrounds for the House of Commons.

For example, the home constitutency of EA is Birmingham Hall Green, which has the distinction of being a four-way marginal --- Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, and Respect.

The Latest from Iran (6 May): Rattling the Cage

1500 GMT: Posturing. Michael Theodoulou of The National posts a concise article summarising the possible Brazilian mediation effort on Iran's nuclear programme and Tehran's naval exercises in the Persian Gulf.

1400 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Another statement from Hashemi Rafsanjani to decode. Meeting with a group of journalists and young political activists, he said:

Promoting awareness in people is the main and fundamental element of any progressive movement....Today all the people in any corner of the country have become more aware, cautious and knowledgable. Don’t doubt it, the growth of awareness among the different classes of the people will reform the society....

Wrong management of the resources and wealth of the country will cause under-development for future generations....Giving space for criticism and review at all levels should not be abandoned in the country....Be sure that honest efforts for the high principles of the revolution won’t be in vain and will have effective outcomes.

NEW Mahmoud’s Iran Wonderland: Ahmadinejad Says “I’m in Favour of Protestors”
NEW Iran Snap Analysis: Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Roadtrip
Iran Follow-Up: Ahmadinejad “Bin Laden Lives in Washington DC!”
A Female Detainee in Iran: “Stripped by the Basiji”
The Latest from Iran (5 May): “Protest is Not Provocation”

0915 GMT: The Reformist Front. Speaking with the family of student activist Milan Asadi, detained since 1 December, Mehdi Karroubi claimed that the pressure on Iranian people had arisen because of the lack of independence of Iran's judiciary.


Former President Mohammad Khatami has written an open letter to Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, the "hard-line" leader of Tehran Friday Prayers, suggesting that he should not sacrifice his salvation for the well-being of others.

Reformist member of Parliament Mohammad Reza Tabesh has complained to Speaker of Parlaiment Ali Larijani over attacks on reformists' offices in several cities, alleging that Iranian authorities have not guaranteed security.

0910 GMT: Watch Your Back, Mahmoud. While President Ahmadinejad has been away, conservative member of Parliament Ali Motahari has been making big noises about the need for major reforms in the Iranian system (see yesterday's updates).

Motahari has now restated his case in Khabar Online, calling on First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi --- who, far from coincidentally, has been pressed by MPs over corruption allegations --- to answer the claims of Government mismanagement of the post-election crisis.

0855 GMT: Brazil Denies Role in Uranium Talks. It may be just for public show --- a mediator doesn't necessarily want to be known as a mediator --- but Brazilian officials have popped Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Brasilia is acting as a broker for a possible deal on Iran's uranium enrichment:

A Brazilian foreign ministry spokesman told AFP [Agence France Presse] that no such plan had been proposed during a visit to Tehran last month by Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim.

"We were informed that an official Iranian government website mentioned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supported a Brazilian 'program'. But there was no presentation of a formal program during the foreign minister's visit," the spokesman said.

Even more interesting, however, is the confusion demonstrated by the denial from Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai that Brazil was acting as a go-between. Since the original report of Brazil's involvement came from the President's office, one has the sense that Ahmadinejad's advisors aren't quite sure what they are supposed to be saying.

0840 GMT: Fantastic Interviews. Proof that, if you put the President and his advisors under pressure, you get answers that verge on fantasy.

In a separate entry, we've posted Ahmadinejad's declaration to The Boston Globe, "I'm in Favour of Protestors". Then there is the commentfrom Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, in conversation with Laura Secor of The New Yorker that "there are actually not too many people in the prisons" before he proceeds to tie himself up in illogical knots.

0630 GMT: We've started the morning by dealing in a separate feature with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's US Nuclear Roadshow: "Will it get him enough political space to bolster Iran’s position abroad and his authority at home?"

Now to the important matters:

Head of Judiciary is Not Happy

If the regime is feeling secure about its suppression of post-election opposition, Sadegh Larijani, the head of Iran's judiciary, sure isn't showing it.

Speaking to clergy in Hamadan, Larijani declared that some of the confidants of Ayatollah Khomeini have acted even worse than the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, the political wing of the "terrorist" Mojahedin-e-Khalq.

Larijani added that the “seditious movement” has not ended, and it has caused confusion amongst the “pious”.

The Resurgence of the Labour Movement

Iran Labor Report has a powerful analysis/polemic of the state of the labour movement --- past, present, and future. The article concludes:

Fortunately, some in the labor movement have belatedly come to change their anti-Green approach somewhat, and this is welcome. Clearly, only with Green-labor unity can we stand up to the tyranny of the regime and free the country of its despotic rule. The popular struggle in Iran isn’t going away. The street demonstrations may have dwindled – for now – but a luta continua. Which side are you on?

Shutting Away Ayatollah Beheshti

Rah-e-Sabz claims that the organisers of the Tehran Book Fair removed the booth devoted to the works of the late Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti.

Beheshti is one of the heroes of the Islamic Revolution. leading the new Iranian judicial system until he was killed in the mass 7 Tir assassination by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq in June 1981. However, his son, Alireza Beheshti, was Mir Hossein Mousavi's chief advisor during and after the Presidential election, possibly putting the Beheshti name beyond the acceptable for the regime.

Another UK Deportation Case

The deportation of Bita Ghaedi from Britain was postponed by British and European courts on Tuesday, but another case reaches a critical point today.

Nadia Arzane and Bashir Foris, a married couple in their early 20s, are scheduled for forced removal on a Thursday afternoon flight from London Gatwick. Arzane is a Christian human rights activist who participated in protests in Iran in July; her father was allegedly detained and tortured for two months by Iranian authorities.