Thursday, March 27, 2008

Sarkozy mirrors my own hopes

As I may have indicated before on this blog, I am an unashamed Francophile. I have never shared the sentiments of some of my fellow citizens, based partly on distorted war time accounts and the views of some of our red-top 'little England' newspapers, that the French are cowardly, deceitful, hostile and most of all, anti-British. I have spent many a delightful holiday across the Channel and found nothing but kindness and friendship wherever I have gone. Of course the French are different, as the Germans are different, and the Americans for that matter, not merely in their customs and style but in their attitudes to the world.

There have been times in our mutual history when Britain and France have been at loggerheads, most recently we fell out over Iraq, but that situation is largely behind us now and its time to look to the future. Sometimes we have even been at each others throats, but we are now at a point in our history which reflects the mood of France's President Nicolas Sarkozy in his hope that Britain and France can move from 'a position of cordiality to a state of friendship'.



There will be some reactionary elements on both sides of the Channel who view this idea with suspicion but it really is time that any lingering coolness disappeared. Sarkozy is genuine but, of course, he has an agenda but it is an agenda with which I agree. Unfortunately he might have to convince Gordon Brown. Sarkozy is prepared to put France back in to NATO, from which it was withdrawn by President de Gaulle over 40 years ago. This is a giant step for Sarkozy, and a risky one, because there are many in France who see NATO as an American puppet organisation with which they want no truck.

He wants, in return, a guarantee of senior positions for French officers - understandable as France, along with Britain, is the biggest military power in Europe. He also wants - and here I concur enthusiastically and Gordon Brown does not - a British committment to a European Defence Force, outside NATO, which is completely independent of American involvement. Sarkozy is concerned -as am I - that too close a military tie to US interests actually handicaps the ability of the European Union states to act as peacemakers and handicaps their development as a self sufficient union of states capable of a political and military voice in the world.

The current American administration has been very hostile to a European Defence Force over which America had no overseeing role, though that may change after the November election. Gordon Brown, though, like his predecessor, is very strongly pro the Atlantic alliance and will not do anything to jeopardise Britain's relationship with the United States.




It's understandable, given the strength of US/British relations but I think it's wrong to be so deferential . Brown may be wise to wait until next year to see what wind is blowing from the White House, and, having heard McCain last night, I believe even if the Republicans win there might be a fresh air blowing through US foreign policy with regard to the US stepping back a little from this stranglehold it currently exerts on its allies. But then Brown should move, regardless of American attitudes, and, along with Sarkozy and Merkel of Germany, push hard for an American acceptance of an EDF.

But, on the main thrust of Sarkozy's message, I think the British PM should grasp it with both hands. Let's try and put stupid Anglo-French squabbling behind us and move into a future where all the states of the EU are genuine friends not merely neighbours of convenience.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Brown shows his naivety

This week, far from reinforcing his authority, our stumbling Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, stuttered through yet another crisis which he should have foreseen and which has resulted in a humiliating climb down.



The issue, of course, was animal-human embryo research where experiments to combine animal and human embryo tissue, creating what are known as cytoplasmic hybrids. These hybrids will be used specifically to look at the development of aberrant cells and to, hopefully, provide a major advance in the treatment of such diseases as Parkinson's disease and muscular dystrophy. There is no suggestion that such laboratory embryo cells would ever be transplanted into a womb and thus risk producing 'monsters'. The development which has allowed scientists to do this could be one of the greatest breaks for over 100 years in the treatment of serious disease.

Predictably the research, and the proposal to allow it, has fallen foul of the Roman Catholic Church who have spread alarmist views about the ethical consequences of such research and, in fact, have spread untruths about it. This should surprise no one, other than devout Catholics, for all through its history the Church has had a vested interest in spreading disinformation and preserving the ignorance of its acolytes.

But no matter, Gordon Brown should have used a lot more political savvy than he did when the issue of allowing the development of this research came to Parliament. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties allowed a free vote for their MPs, well aware of the moral dilemma pressure from the RC church would create among their Catholic MPs. Brown should have shown the same degree of comprehension. Insttead he insisted that the Labour Party would be subject to a three line whip. If we are going to appoint Roman Catholics to government, then it must be fairly obvious that there are going to be times when ingrained dogma flies in the face of logic, and this was just such an occasion. It should have been obvious to Brown that senior members of his government, like Ruth Kelly - a member of Opus Dei - would be terribly compromised by having to make the choice between her Church and her Party, and there were rumours that she, and other Catholics, would resign rather than vote for such a measure.



Brown has, of course, had to climb down with further damage to his reputation as a man in control of his government. He needs some good luck, and some sound decision making, over the next 12 months if the Labour Party is not to crash to humiliating defeat at the next General Election. Can't you just hear Tony Blair saying, "Don't blame me. I told you he wasn't up to the job!"

Sunday, March 23, 2008

American triumph...or tragedy?

This week I watched a 35 minute speech by an American politician that was so good, it could have been given by one of Europe's best. In fact it was one of the finest political speeches I have heard in my life. And that's not to say that American politicians are incapable of giving good speeches - the history books are littered with them. But this man had his back to the wall. Despite having accrued a large number of electoral votes already, this man sensed that he was in trouble because of stories circulating about the influence of his former pastor. And he had to deal with it.

Now most American politicians when they have their backs to the wall fall back on devices they know will grab a particularly sensitive area of the American psyche, a crude hand on heart 'God bless America' patriotism accompanied by a lachrymose, heart-rending appeal to the emotions which would do credit to Gwynneth Paltrow.

But not this man. He knew he had to resolve doubts which had been placed in the minds of the electorate about his own attitudes and about the links to others. And he did it. He did it wonderfully with a mature, rational and very calm speech which ought to have elevated him 20% points in the opinion polls. Unfortunately it did not.

He talked, calmly and sensibly, about the issue of race in America - not in a melodramatic fashion, but he told his audience about the chance men like him had been given because of the sacrifices and the experiences of men and women of previous generations. He did not applaud the anti American comments made by his former pastor but he didn't disown the man either. Instead he talked about the strengths and weaknesses of the United States, of his Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and not least of himself. He said that the angry 'God damn America' comments which Pastor Wright had reportedly made were fashioned in a climate, and a bygone age when black men and women were oppressed and suffering. He said he thought the Pastor was wrong, and that American society had developed and was capable of developing further. He went on to list Pastor Wright's service record, of the work he had done in the community, and how the Pastor had helped young black people, like the speaker himself, towards understanding his faith. He went on to talk of a unifying coalition which his candidacy had stimulated and how he believed he could go on from there to a position where that sense of unity could be directed from the top.

He talked about his own background and his awareness of, despite being a black man, his privilege and his education which gave him the awareness of history and social change and how it fed his desire to do more.

The speech was as honest and laudable a political statement as has been my privilege to hear.

The speaker was, of course, Barack Obama and I am beginning to believe that if there is any justice in the world, come November 2008, this man will be President-elect of the United States.

But sadly I don't believe there is any justice in the world. I believe there are forces in the United States determined to wreck Obama's band wagon and already the wheels are becoming dangerously loose. Hilary Clinton had a lead in Pennsylvania before the disclosures about Pastor Wright and now it is massive. Even in North Carolina where Obama once held a huge lead, that lead is now down to 1 point. I fear that the American public will only read what they want to read, hear what they want to hear, and any careful crafted media campaign which suggests any anti-American feeling by anyone linked to Obama will make sure that his candidacy goes down the tubes. By the time it comes to the National Democratic Convention, he will maybe have too many delegates to be beaten in a straight vote but maybe he will have lost the momentum and the Super Delegates will be called upon to choose the nominee, which could well be Hillary Clinton.

Either way, in national polls, John McCain has taken a lead over both of them and, as I said in earlier posts, I suspect that when push comes to shove, American voters will elect an elderly conservative white man, same as they usually do, and the opportunity for a really revolutionary, radical change in American attitudes to the outside world will have been sadly and tragically lost.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Bush celebrates 5 years of war in Iraq - and he's proud of that?

George Bush has chosen to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq by making some of his most grandiose claims about his successes. The man clearly has no shame which, I guess, if you are President of the United States would not be an emotion which played well among your political disciples. It's like a poker player. You have to somehow stagger to the end game without admitting that you had a losing hand all the time.



But he talks about the 'surge' turning the country round and producing the 'first arab uprising against Osama bin Laden' Does Bush have any inkling how many shades of buffoon that remark makes him look? Before the US and British invaded Iraq and destroyed the military infrastructure of the country there WAS no faction supporting Osama Bin Laden. It took the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis and the destruction of the whole political, military and social fabric of the country to allow a vacuum in which insurgents of Al Queda could thrive. Before that Saddam Hussein kept Al Queda very firmly out of Iraq.

There has certainly been a weakening of the insurgents position in the north of the country and, with 30,000 additional US troops sent to furnish the 'surge' you would expect that.

But the infighting between the Iraqi factions, Shia, Sunni and Kurd has not stopped and the political future of the country looks as uncertain as ever. Allied to that there is still a terrible state of deprivation with thousands of Iraqis still without water and drainage, 5 years on from the invasion.

Apart from the cost in human lives which is inestimable, this invasion, and supporting it, has cost the US $500 BILLION. What has it achieved? Well it killed 100,000 Iraqis, many of them women and children blown to pieces by 'shock and awe;. It removed a local tyrant who had no weaponry of any consequence, let alone the armoury which the American government bull-shitted to the world. Oh and Al Queda? Well the brains behind 911 are still free, Bin Laden is reportedly in Pakistan and other organisers of Al Queda are well out of the rifle sights.

Basically Bush should stand up there, hand on heart, and say 'I am a war criminal. I committed an evil, unforgiveable attack on a nation not in a position to defend itself and which did not threaten the United States. I acted on the advice of the greatest bunch of right wing hawks ever to disgrace the Republican Party. I should be impeached.'

That's his true 5 year legacy. But of course he won't do that. Let's just hope this nasty little man buries himself in some domestic bill or other until he can shuffle off the world's stage. Whoever he leaves that stage to, be it Democrat or Republican, can only bring a greater honour and prestige to the office of President of the United States than he has managed in eight dreadful, nightmare years.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Has British politics hit an all time low?

I was reading , with a sense of some despair, the opinion polls over the weekend which give the Conservative Party a 17 point lead over Labour, the worst situation Labour has found itself in for over twenty years. If only the Conservative Party had done anything to deserve such a lead it might not be so hard to take. But they haven't.

I know it is commonly said that Governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them and surely it cannot ever have been more true of the current state of the polls. Its a damn good job Gordon Brown has two more years before he is compelled to hold an election for as things stand he will need all that time and more.

The Conservative Party is still led by a chinless wonder who appears to drift with the wind. Cameron is 'sound bite man' who seems to be led by the nose by some current fad.



The Conservatives seem to disagree among themselves on elements of party policy - Phillip Hammond, their Treasury spokesman, appearing to have a slightly different agenda to David Cameron and George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor. In times where Britain was led by a strong competent government this opposition would disappear without trace.

But it's not. Gordon Brown has proved, so far, to be an ineffectual leader and a grave disappointment. Last week's defensive budget seemed to bring all those Gordon Brown inspired chickens home to roost and where poor Alistair Darling, given no room to manoeuvre, was left holding the baby. We have borrowed so much during the course of Brown's stewardship of the Exchequer that now it is all coming back to haunt us. This Labour Government seems to be as full of soundbites and 'off the cuff' ideas as Cameron's mob but without any sound strategic plan for our future. They have backed off many of Blair's policy committments (wisely in some cases) and replaced them with nothing.

We seem to have a government floundering from day to day with some pretty lightweight politicians in the top jobs. We need an effective Deputy Leader for a start, someone with charisma and clout, who can rally the troops. Where is Prezza anyway? Anyone would be an improvement on the dreadful Harman. We need desperately to get a grip on the Home Office. Almost every decision emanating from that office appears to have been a bummer of late, especially police pay, and I'm not sure Jacqui Smith is up to the job.





But most of all Gordon Brown, who will never be a charismatic animal like Blair, simply needs to appear competent and in control...and at present he doesn't.




I don't know if it's in him or whether he needs to turn Mr Tough Guy and do a night of the long knives but Labour desperately needs to reassert itself with the electorate. Because at present a fourth successive term is a long way off and the Party is going down with a whimper to one of the worst oppositions in history. God help the UK!!

Thursday, March 13, 2008

An Oath of Allegiance - does it make any difference?

There is much discussion in the United Kingdom about the government's proposal to consider an Oath of Allegiance to Queen and country for children about to leave school, as well as for all new immigrants to the United Kingdom and I have been having some intense debates about it on various internet groups.

It might surprise some who know me, but I'm actually in favour. I'm not a monarchist but I do recognise that the Queen is our head of state and until the political process decrees that the situation changes and we become a Republic - if we ever do - then the office is entitled to respect.



The critics of the idea say three things 1) Its a government gimmick to try and restore popularity 2) Its a hideous American import and we want none of it 3) It's the kind of thing totalitarian regimes do before cowing the people into submission. And of course everyone cites Hitler.

Well let me analyse the elements I agree and disagree with. Yes it might be a government 'bright idea' or 'gimmick' and maybe its a covert way of comforting the 'traditional' Britons who fear we are being taken over by foreign cultural values. But is soothing such a fear necessarily a bad thing?

Second, we do tend to distrust this passionate degree of overt patriotism often shown in the United States and I wouldn't want to see flags hung from every home and all the trimmings but I don't see why the UK cannot extract what is good about the American 'bonding' process and use it to advantage.

As for the third fear, well I think that's simply scare-mongering. Lots of democratic countries have oaths of allegiance without falling into the grip of totalitarian dictatorships. It is simply an affirmation that you respect your nation state, in the symbolic figure of its head, the Queen in our case, and that you take on board the responsibilities of being a citizen.

And that's why I support the idea. My fear is not of totalitarian take-over but that Britain is drifting without a clear vision of its place in the world - but, at the same time, is a welcome mat for all the world's cultures who come and make their homes here. Now I am fine with that but I do believe we have not given a clear direction of what responsibilities people accept when they become citizens of the United Kingdom and my fear is that we will become a fragmented set of isolated communities all living in their own self imposed purdah with none but the most essential communication with other faiths and cultures. That is where I see the danger to our future as a nation and maybe some kind of bonding symbol might be a first step.

It's a good idea to begin in the schools and I think its a wise suggestion to wait until children are on the verge of adulthood and know what they are 'signing up' to. In that way it doesn't penalise on racial or cultural grounds. Every child about to leave school be they indigenous anglo saxon English, black, brown, new European ,,whatever..simply takes a simple oath which perhaps makes them understand that a citizen of any country has certain obligations to it....and surely that can't be a bad thing?

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

How do 2000 children go missing - and nobody does a damn thing!

It has been revealed today that over 2000 children are missing from school registers - permanently - and nobody knows where they are. They don't know WHERE they are but there is a justified fear of what has caused the absence. For most of these children are asian girls and it is strongly suspected that many have been taken out of school and sent abroad to be forcibly married.

Now this makes me hopping mad. Not that it happens, for sadly, I am all too aware of the cultural tradition in many asian communities of forcing their daughters to marry someone of the parents choice in this way. No I am hopping mad because I'm wondering why the UK educationalists, social services and police appear to have done absolutely nothing about it.



We have heard tales today from a young British asian girl who was taken out of school in this way, married off to an older man in Pakistan who then beat and raped her - though I'm sure he wouldn't have considered it rape as she was by then his 'property'. She said she was sure someone would save her once it was realised she was absent from school - but nobody did a damn thing.

Isn't this the country which has over the last few years instituted a policy of aggressive anti-truanting? Where police are sent to houses to discover where little Johnny has skived off to. Where moms are arrested and put in prison because their child persistently stays away from school? This was brought in amid a fanfare of trumpets and news reports of mothers being tearfully taken to prison.

I don't seem to recall that asian families in the UK were exempt from this legislation and that parents were allowed to take kids out of school without the same aggressive follow up to explain their absence.

So why have more than 2000, predominantly asian, children been allowed to disappear from British schools without anyone seeming to know why or doing anything to find out? Is this another of our wonderfully enlightened attitudes towards ethnic minorities, 'Lets not upset the applecart by making waves'? I simply cannot understand, given the new legislation and the trumpeted ballyhoo it got, how this situation has been allowed to happen!

A British asian businessman was on TV today talking about how it was a male responsibility to persuade the older generation that it was wrong to treat their daughters in this way - that they were not in the 'old country' and that they needed to revise their habits to conform to accepted British standards of doing things.

Well, heeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy, THAT'S a novel idea. Are we sure it won't offend anybody?

In the meantime, while all this is being gently explained, there ought to be one absolute rule that applies to every family in the land regardless of culture or background. If one child goes missing from school, that absence should be investigated and if no satisfactory explanation of that kid's absence can be obtained , or the child produced, the parents should be arrested and the rest of the kids taken into care. As simple as that!

Monday, March 10, 2008

Has this inquest become a predictable establishment whitewash?

When it was announced that, after all, there would be a formal inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, I raised a cynical eyebrow about the use of such an inquest - not because I believed an inquest was unnecessary, but because I believed the establishment would rally round and ensure that nothing unpalatable was revealed. My judgment has proved sadly accurate.



I posted some time back on this blog about the procession of coroners who all found something better to do than sit on this enquiry. They all valued their careers. Eventually Lord Justice Scott Baker agreed to take the enquiry and it has been conducted with the anticipated inevitability.



Of course, Muhammed Al Fayed is a gift from the Gods to all those who want to rubbish any kind of conspiracy theory for he is a man of somewhat extreme views who was allowed to let rip in the courtroom, his every word exploited as lunacy by the national press, presumably with the complicit pleasure of the Crown's agents.

But, regardless of Al Fayed, there are significant issues which have not been properly resolved and now Lord Scott-Baker has ruled that neither the Queen nor Prince Philip should be asked to answer any questions 'as it would not serve the furtherance of ascertaining the facts of the case'. Well no one expected the Queen or Prince Philip to actually appear in court but a royal statement on some of the issues posed would not seem unreasonable to me. Is Lord Scott-Baker simply saying he wants to trundle this sham to a conclusion as quickly as possible giving the impression that some serious attempts to investigate the case have been made? Because that's what it looks like.

We have learned, during the enquiry, that MI6 did have a presence in Paris on the day the Princess was killed. We have testimony that the Princess was pregnant, apparently known to at least one of her friends and advisors, denied by the Royal doctor. There were questions about whether the hospital in Paris knew one way or the other. They did no such tests they said, which sounds pretty strange to me when you have a dying woman on your hands. I accept it would not be their first priority but I can't believe they would not find out.

We have Diana's own letters where she feared a plot on her life. Now this might have been the ramblings of an emotionally distressed young woman but an inquest really ought to explore these. We have the 'camp confidante' Paul Burrell who minced himself back to New York confessing that he had been a 'naughty boy' and not told the whole truth to the inquest. Ths guy is a key witness yet there seems to be no means of - and no real enthusiasm for - getting him back and wringing the truth out of his fat neck.

We have had tales of the amount of drink Henri-Paul had consumed, which was then disputed. It is clear that, right from the off, the aim, by the British establishment, has been to point the finger at the driver. The involvement of the white Fiat has never been fully explained either. It was witnessed yet never traced, though the vehicle suspected to be the car involved as later identified as belonging to a man later found dead.

All in all this inquest has been a waste of time. It shouldn't have been, but its course has been predictable. The Great and the Good have closed ranks, shut up shop and whatever stink hangs around the circumstances of the Paris crash will lie forever buried, along with the tragic Princess of Wales.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

The white tribes are desperately unhappy

Some readers might perceive this as a racist post. It is not. It is an awareness post and one which recognises that when people are unhappy and distressed with the way their world is changing, it is too simple a solution to sling 'racist' at them if their focus appears to be on the number of immigrants from different cultures who have arrived in this country over the last few years.

People who support, for whatever reason, laissez-faire immigration always point to what they see as emotive terminology, terms like 'flooding the country' as evidence that white Britain is mindlessly racist.

But if 'flooded' is a subjective term then in parts of inner city England, the influx of migrants of various colours and cultures has been at a rate which has appeared to be saturating in some parts of Britain's cities....and in a documentary to be shown on BBC shortly, it is clear that Britain's 'white tribe' is far from happy. These are not skinheads, members of the British National Party or people who have an aggressive dislike of those who don't look like themselves. They are the local butcher, postman, retired head teacher who see the country in which they grew up and the culture and mores they learned as children, changing at almost blinding speed before their eyes..and they are desperately unhappy about it.

It is a sociological fact, proven throughout history, that new tribes are not readily welcomed in any community. They bring new customs, lifestyles, challenges to existing patterns of behaviour...and disruption to conventional 'tribal customs'. The fact that we no longer wear loin cloths and pray to ju-ju's doesnt change any of this. The human comfort with those of his own kind is a very old one and one not easy to change.

No matter what our politicians might say, no matter what statistics they quote about assimilation of immigrants, they only ever do so on a nation wide basis...more lies, damned lies and statistics. In the UK countryside the pattern of life and make up has not changed much in 100 years. In the inner cities it has changed to a remarkable degree.

In London alone, our capital city, one third of the residents are immigrants and half of all children born in the capital are born to foreign mothers.



It is hard enough for an indigenous population to accept such a volume of immigrants even when they make an effort to integrate, but in the case of many Muslims, in particular, no such attempt has been made and indeed, as we have seen, a proportion of British-born Islamic youth has become dangerously alienated.

In some cities, and the Yorkshire city of Bradford was cited in the documentary, nearly all the traditional white working class institutions have disappeared, swamped by services provided for the, predominantly, asian population of the city which is close to becoming the majority..if that has not already become the case. Working mens clubs have closed, once the mainstay of a working class population in every town...and the white population is not happy

The government has, at last, started to put curbs on immigration...but is it too little too late? I don't blame the Labour government solely except that they walk on so many delicate political eggshells that the impression is often gained that they are frightened to take unpalatable action. What's more their statistics are either pitifully inept or blatant lies..and I suspect a mixture of both. Under the EU charter allowing fellow members of the EU to enter Britain and work, the Government claimed that only 13,000 work permits had been given to Eastern European migrant workers over the past four years. Yet examination of Home Office records proved that the actual number exceeded 800,000!!! How could they make an error of that magnitude? Its either very sloppy or deliberately devious. But its clear why problems are building in British cities.

Past governments back to the 50s all have a share in today's problems and, while they had a clear eye on the economic benefits of cheap labour from the Empire, they seemed to think little about the social consequences of an open door policy.

The native English - for it is England rather than the rest of the UK where immigration problems are rife - are a patient lot in general, not given to mass demonstrations. They tend to reserve their protests for the ballot box and then its not always clear what they are saying. But the rise in the number of right wing fascist party candidates, and their success in local elections, tells its own story.

I don't believe that the English are turning nazi on any large scale. I do believe that there is a huge swathe of white native English voters across, particularly, the inner cities of England who are screaming at the government, 'I don't like what is happening to my country, to my city, to my street, to my way of life....and you are doing nothing about it. I feel helpless as this tide of foreign culture rolls all over me.'

The British government, most of whose ministers live in areas untouched by this massive cultural upheaval, would be wise to listen. The consequences, if they don't, could soon be disastrous.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Exciting stuff - but will McCain divide and rule?

The current round of American primaries must be more exciting to the politics watcher everywhere than has been the case for many a year, and of course that is entirely down to the gripping series of contests between the two Democratic contenders - one who could be the first woman President and the other who could be the first black to hold the office. Groundbreaking stuff - and holding political pundits in thrall all over the world.

And of course its about more than just the cosmetics that appeal to the popular press. There are some considerable policy differences between the two Democratic candidates too. Obama has been more forceful in his support of 'green' climate policies and a little more wishy washy about anti terrorism moves than has Clinton. On health care Obama is more cautious, suggesting America start by insuring its children while Clinton wants universal cover from the off - a policy that failed to get off the ground while her husband was in office. Obama is 'softer' on illegal immigrants than is Clinton. On America's limping economy, Clinton says she would cut tax incentives to big companies and put the money into encouraging new jobs while Obama seems a little more vague, talking about more scientific research.





Anyway the race is hotting up. When the primaries began with that sweeping win for Obama in Iowa few thought Hillary would rally in the way that she did. But it was a temporary recovery for Obama seemed to have swept the Democratic primaries with an incredible run of victories which seemed to take him to within sight of the nomination.

But yesterday, although she still trails in the delegate count, Mrs Clinton stopped the rot. She won the key primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island while Mr Obama won Vermont. She still trails in the delegate count but the psychological boost to her flagging candidacy has been immense. They move next onto Pennsylvania where the Clinton support has been traditionally strong.

Its wonderful gripping stuff as these two ground breakers continue to trade blows and swap victories and it looks as if the Democratic contest is going to the wire. Fantastic ..exciting..newsworthy stuff.

But wait. This is just about a nomination. The winner doesn't get the top job. That's all to be decided in November and while all the excitement is happening in the Democratic camp, one elderly rather maverick Republican is quietly making the GOP nomination his own. The 71 year old McCain has seen off all his challengers, Mitt Romney conceding after the last round of primaries and Mike Huckabee throwing in the towel yesterday.

McCain can now quietly sit back and start planning his November election strategy while Obama and Clinton are, metaphorically, cutting each others throats. Some American members of the public, interviewed on the BBC website, in discussing who they might vote for in November offered a warning to the Democratic camp. One said 'Well I know where McCain is positioned on issues. He's clear. I don't know about Obama and Clinton. They are too busy jockeying for position.'

And this has to be the Democratic nightmare. That all the excitement and rush of blood over the first black guy or the the first female President will crumble to dust in November when the stable and settled Republican candidate has had ample time to exploit the differences in the arguments of the Democratic rivals. And that all the historic possibilities will be blown away when McCain, a good orator and a very canny politician, manages to convince the US electorate that the Democrats are divided and inconsistent.




And that all the hype will be forgotten when the results in November show that, once again, the United States is in the hands of an elderly, conservative, white man for at least another four years.