Monday, January 26, 2009

Something stinks whether the law has been broken or not

Is it any wonder that people are cynical about politics and politicians? So often we hear interviews with the 'man in the street' who says he won't vote, can't be bothered, they're all the same, just 'in it for themselves'. Then as a counter we have government ministers shaking their head sadly and telling us that people should have more respect for politics and politicians.

Then we get the likes of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, standing up in the House of Lords and admitting that he took up to £120,000 to use his influence to change the law on tax breaks for retailers. He stood up today making his apology 'if he has brought the House into disrepute' with the usual rider that he didn't think any laws had been broken.



IF he has brought the House into disrepute? Is there any doubt about it? Whether he and the other three Labour peers, Lord Moonie, Lord Snape and Lord Truscott actually broke the law of the land, they surely besmirched the concept of public service. These men were ennobled to act as second chamber lawmakers as part of the checks and balances within the parliamentary system. They were not ennobled to line their own pockets by selling their influence...and the topic was discussed by admission whether they actually took the money or not. They considered it. Whether or not the law has actually been broken these people are in a position of trust- and honour (Yes sorry to be old fashioned) to behave in a way which upholds the spirit of their role not just the dotted i technicalities. And surely in the case of these people who would pocket thousands of pounds for selling their influence that sense of honour has surely been dragged through the mud. And I'm sorry to see Labour peers involved in this from whom I somehow expected better.

We are supposed to have registers of outside interests, yet the British system is rotten to the core with people simultaneously holding positions of power in government yet able to use that power for private gain. There needs to be a complete overhaul of this by an independent body. Would I trust politicians to police such a review themselves? Not on my secret list of expenses I wouldn't!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

BBC Gaza stance unjustified

I believe the BBC's decision not to broadcast a humanitarian aid appeal for the stricken people of Gaza to be totally unjustified. I have read the explanation by Mark Thomson, DG of the BBC, where he makes two justifications for the refusal - the first being that there is no guarantee of aid getting through and thus the public may be squandering money. Well surely the answer to that is to insist that the problems of delivery are explained in the appeal and to let the public make up its own mind. So that is a pretty trite one, I believe, and easily overcome.

The more significant issue is the BBC's insistence that it could compromise impartiality. How? Surely the news pictures of Gaza are evidence in themselves that terrible devastation has been wrought on an already impoverished area and that hundreds have been killed and injured. I really cannot understand this stance unless the Israeli government (and possibly the US?) has been applying pressure and claiming that such an appeal is a political move.



To air an appeal which simply states the facts of human need is not taking sides in a war. I would hope that if Tel Aviv was shelled causing wholesale destruction, and the Israelis needed help, we would not shirk from a humanitarian appeal for them too.

The British government is certainly not the problem as it has been trying to get the BBC to change its mind, and indeed all its rivals who, at first, took the same stance have decided to broadcast it. I am guessing that the BBC will, eventually, concede that it has lost the so-called moral high ground on this and give in.

The sooner the better. The more TV exposure such an appeal has, the more effective it will be - and these people are in desperate straits. They need help now.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Britain's impoverished military laid bare

An interesting article by Bronwen Maddox in today's 'Times' backs up a situation I have often commented on in this blog - that militarily we are broke. A kippers and curtains nation trying to pretend we are not punching above our weight. Bronwen says:-

The delay over Britain’s new carriers – and the fudging of the reason for it – is exactly why Britain’s stock is falling so low in Washington. There is real doubt in President Obama’s team – as there was in George W. Bush’s Administration – that Britain has any significant help left to give.

Good luck, Gordon Brown, in trying to portray yourself as the economic wise man who can offer avuncular advice to the novice. It won’t make up for Britain’s reluctance to offer many more troops in Afghanistan – and the US suspicion that even if Brown wanted to, he couldn’t.

To Washington eyes never has Britain seemed more like toytown than in the heady first 48 hours of the Obama White House. But even if the attention that Obama’s military advisers pay to British affairs is slight, it takes only a second to register the hard numbers.

They can see at a glance the cuts in military spending, the shrinking of the Army and the national debt. It doesn’t take much to work out that this means cutbacks, and mysterious delays in expensive new kit. It is significant that Robert Gates has stayed on as Defence Secretary from the Bush era. He shares this scepticism about Britain’s future military contribution, officials suggest.



There is more along the same lines to the degree that for all the niceties and politeness, the Americans are not really taking Britain seriously as a major contributor to further suppliers of troops.



Of course what will happen is that the British Government will hastily scrabble together some sort of financial package - undoubtedly at the cost to something more worthwhile - to ensure that we 'keep our end up'. Good Lord we can't have these American chappies suggesting that we're not up to the task! Let's keep supplying troops somehow even if they don't have protective body armour, if they have crap boots, if the planes are not coated with anti inflammatory spray. Let's put lives at risk!! Anything rather than admit that we can't hack it any more.

It is a policy which is utterly ridiculous. As I have said many times before, Britain should concentrate its attention on being a full participant in Europe and that includes supporting a European Defence Force which can take on military actions which involve the defence of Europe and to which Britian will supply a reasonable number of troops.

We should back off these ridiculous international commitments, many of which our electorate, if consulted, would not support anyway, and cut our cloth according to our means. It is insane for our politicians to continue making military promises we are not in a position to honour - and furthermore it is criminal to do so by cheeseparing on armour and equipment which increases the dangers for soldiers already doing a highly dangerous job.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

There might be change in DC but here its business as usual

Having heard Barack Obama talk about a new code of ethics for the Washington political set up, I was tempted to hope this was one American bandwagon our own politicians might jump onto.

We've had this disgraceful attempt by our MPs to evade accountability under the Freedom of Information Act and, as has sadly become so regular since assuming the leadership, Gordon Brown behaving like a big girl's blouse. At first he seemed to side with those demanding exemption and has now pitifully done an about turn. The man doesn't seem to lead. He sticks his finger in the air and follows the prevailing wind. When it comes to finance the man is in his element - on anything else he seems pitifully out of his depth. Why should these people be treated differently to everyone else? It is quite clear, given the panic, that some people have a lot to hide.




Then we have Peter Hain, though not deemed guilty of a criminal offence, severely reprimanded by the Commons standards watchdog committee for a late declaration of £103,000! And it is said that he only avoided a prosecution because police could not find out 'who was responsible for logging and declaring the donations' Doh!! What? Isn't it a simple case of looking at the structure of Hain's campaign team and demanding who was responsible? I can't see the police walking away that easily frustrated from a private company...or from you and me.



And even Uncle Boring over at the Ministry of Injustice has been carpeted for failing to declare £3000 - despite being reminded two years ago.




It's about time the Government got its house in order. I don't think it's corrupt but it's become arrogant and sloppy. Maybe the government should spend more time kicking ass over politicians practising what they preach instead of some of these pettifogging bits of offences they seem so obsessed with - 3000 in eleven years. Maybe a code of commons ethics with teeth should be much higher on their agenda.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Maybe the honeymoon has to end but today was marvellous

I switched on the CNN channel this afternoon because, for obvious reasons, it had a much longer coverage of Barack Obama's inauguration than did the British TV channels and I wanted to soak up the kind of atmosphere that seemed to heighten as the day progressed. There were interviews with Americans from different walks of life and the mood was unmistakeably one of excited anticipation - not just of the day but of a sea change in American politics. Only time will tell, of course, if they are right.




I have watched American Presidential inaugurations before mainly because 'they were on' and just kind of watched the goings on while vacuuming or making phone calls. Never before have I sat down and watched the thing non-stop for four solid hours. I even made a salutary ritual of it by pouring myself a glass of single malt and raising it to my lips as the clock struck noon in Washington and Obama was now President ....and Bush and his hideous administration were a memory.

And that is a part of it for me and, I suspect, many other Europeans. Not only is it a historic inauguration because Obama is an African American - which makes it an election of historic significance - but also because rarely can an outgoing administration have been so detested throughout the rest of the non American world.
Gone are the architects of Iraq, the Neros who fiddled while Katrina wreaked its havoc on New Orleans, the shysters who ignored Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the Military Industrial complex and got rich directorships in companies like Carlyle and Halliburton, the guys who thought climate change was someone else's problem and that the rules of the World Trade Organisation on protectionism applied to everyone else not the USA.

Now the world has an American President who is singing from a different hymn sheet and I only hope his hopes and fine words can be matched by action. That can only be judged after the magic 100 days but his inauguration speech was a fine and biting one. It was almost European in its delivery - I say almost because there was the reference to God and faith which is a mandatory element in American politics and would be the kiss of death in England - but otherwise there was a clear, strong unambiguous statement of intent to do a lot of things very differently. I heard talk of a deliberate reconciliation with the Muslim world based on mutual respect, of an Administration that intends to exhaust diplomacy before military options are considered. An acknowledgment that the rest of the world - and its perception of America - actually matters!!! Dear Lord above, what is going on? Did my ears deceive me? No they didn't. That's what he said and I believe he means it. If he carries all this through, America will earn more respect than for decades.

Obama certainly has a personality but its not the same kind of personality as Bush - or for that matter many other American politicians. He's not a folksy, good 'ol boy. He's not always ready with a wink and a smile on cue. He doesn't have that 'well I'm just one of you guys' appeal which seems to captivate so many American hearts.

He is almost a political loner. He doesn't try to ingratiate himself. He doesn't need to. He's a man who seems to believe he has the ability to lead and has the confidence to do it. He has, at the moment, my unqualified admiration and my warmest best wishes for the task ahead. He will need every good wish and every prayer going to accomplish it.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The return of a political heavyweight

I am pleased to see Kenneth Clarke back in front line politics. For one thing he is a Tory with a set of principles and some intellect. People understand what he says and where he stands. I reckon there will be some interesting political jousting between Peter Mandelson and Clarke for both are men with considerable experience and ability. I think politics can ill afford to lose people of quality, there are already too many people who have been promoted above their level of competence.



I also think his appointment could be an explosive ingredient which blows the Tory electoral ship off course. It is of course well known that Clarke is a Europhile in contrast with the Tory party line and just about every other member of the shadow cabinet. Although he says he is 'content' to accept the line on Europe, is he content to accept everything else? Clarke has always been a free spirit and if elements of Tory economic strategy seem to be diverging from the things Clarke believes to be right - and that's far from impossible - will Clarke remain silent then?.

This appointment could be a major mistake for the Tory election prospects and sow the seeds of rift and division which Labour can exploit before the next election. One can but hope, anyway!

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Saluting a great feat

Current affairs blogs, like the news in all its forms, tend to be dominated by the negative - criticism of countries, politicians etc so its nice, just occasionally, to be able to say 'what a wonderful achievement'.

And the skill shown by Captain Chesley Sullenberger in landing an Airbus in the Hudson River so skilfully that no one was killed and the aircraft ditched without breaking up was truly amazing. The 57 year old pilot, although a military pilot of many years experience, had hardly any time in which to make a momentous decision when a flock of birds took out both engines. He had to decide in seconds whether he could make it back to La Guardia and land safely, to do as he was advised and land at the small Teterboro airfield or to ditch the plane in the river.




That he chose the last, avoided the George Washington bridge, found a stretch of the Hudson free of bridges , boats and the like and put the plane down so carefully that it avoided breaking up showed astonishing reactions, cool nerve and skill.

Captain Sullenberger deserves all the accolades coming his way.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Miliband showing his muscles

I was listening to the boy wonder Miliband, who has breezily announced that the British government has long thought the terminology 'war on terror' was a bad idea. Wow!! I wonder if this burst of British freedom of thought is linked in anyway to the fact that Bush is leaving his post and thus his British acolytes no longer feel the need to stand in line.



It must be very liberating for Miliband to feel free to express such radical opinions knowing that the new President has slightly more liberal sentiments than his predecessor.

Is this really a new dawn for British independent thought or will it all wither on the vine if Obama finds the realities of power compel a different approach from his promises? I suspect that this brave new attitude will last just as long as it is consistent with American aims, and when it does not...the naughty boys and girls will retire to their seats and shut up once more.

Dyslexia remark stupid but.......

Graham Stringer has made himself look a complete nit-wit with his comment that there is no such thing as dyslexia, although it's not the first time such comments have been made. Professor Julian Elliott from Durham University made the same allegation three years ago and said that dyslexia was a contrived condition with no scientific or medical basis and that the reasons for its elevation as a more prevalent condition in society was because it was an 'emotional construct' designed to protect children who read badly and who, it is felt, need to feel better about themselves.




Although experts point to certain neurological traits in sufferers from dyslexia, it is true that there are no clear and accepted neurological symptoms on which every medical expert can agree.

Although Graham Stringer has clearly put himself up to be shot down, I do feel there may be something in both his and Professor Elliott's suggestion that too many kids are being defined as dyslexic simply because of poor teaching methods. No child learns to read with quite the same facility as another and my concern would be that educationalists are finding 'dyslexia' to be an easy label and including too many children in too wide a web. The worry for me here is that too many children are effectively being labeled as suffering from a disability and packed off to some special needs facility when what they really need is more individual help and a more understanding home environment.

I am certainly not joining Mr Stringer in suggesting that 'word blindness' does not exist but I am suggesting that 'dyslexia' might have joined those words it's fashionable to toss out to explain a slowness in grasping a particular skill, which probably takes something away from the 1 or 2% of children, classed as dyslexic, whose inability is total and who do need special help.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Browns giveaway scheme just chasing losses?

I hate to say it, but I don't believe Gordon Brown's financial incentive scheme to train people, who have been out of work longer than 6 months, is going to work. Sure the companies will take the money and go through the motions of fulfilling their obligations but, I believe, companies are basically exploitative and will already be employing accountants to work out how long they need to keep people on to fulfill basic obligations before letting them go.




I still remember the Development Areas programme under Harold Wilson. Great idea, nominating areas of high unemployment as Development Areas and pouring in loads of taxpayers money to ensure factories got moved to the north- east and Scotland. The companies bought the deal then as soon as it was legally and economically convenient, closed the factories and left everyone as badly off as before.

I don't believe you can artificially correct unemployment, not by trusting the good nature of private enterprise anyway. If there are no real jobs to do these trainees will be out of the door as soon as the government money dries up. And then what? Training has a limited shelf life. You might know how to weld the underside of a vehicle or spray paint an SUV - but if the recession is a long one and you have had no chance to use those skills then employers wont look at you twice.

Far better, I believe, if government money is used in government directed schemes - road building or housing, for example where the work is guaranteed for a considerable period of time. Unless you suspend the whole principle of capitalist based economics, attempts to artificially keep people employed are doomed to failure, in my opinion. I wish Brown's initiative well but I fear for the success of it.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

A minor notoriety who inspired a great song

It was announced this week that William Zantzinger had died at the age of 69. This rather unpleasant man would not have been remembered at all but for the fact that a crime he committed in 1963 resulted in a Bob Dylan song called 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' which was included on Dylan's 'Times they are a Changin'' album released in 1964 which contained a whole host of gems.

Zantzinger (right) is pictured with his wife and lawyer outside the Baltimore courtroom



The report of Zantzinger's crime and what he did later in his life - extorting rents from black people who lived in shanties he no longer owned - is contained here.

Zantzinger was, apparently, angry at the treatment he received in Dylan's song saying it was unfair and loaded but he sounds like one hell of an unpleasant guy to me, so my sympathy for any distortion or 'poetic licence' is considerably muted.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

The Great White Tribe that rule us

Prince Harry has been carpeted for following in the footsteps of his revered grandfather in being completely oblivious to the effects of racist terminology,- dismally depressing particularly when used by a member of the Great White Tribe which sits at the head of our multi-cultural, multi-racial state.

He is supposed to have called an army colleague a 'Paki' as a jest, for which he has apologised. Well personally I'm not going to get too worked up about that. He is a silly lad from a silly family which has no concept of the sensitivities of ordinary people who work for a living.



What disturbed me more was the explanation put out by St.James Palace for that and for another term he used - 'Raghead' The Palace propaganda machine put out the following statement.

'In using the term 'raghead', the Prince had no intention of insulting a friend. He was using it to refer to a member of the Taleban or Iraqi insurgent'

Oh well that's all right then. As long as they're the enemy it doesn't matter, presumably, if the Prince refers to them as 'sand niggers', 'coons', 'wogs' or any other term that might take his fancy. Do this exotic tribe from Buck House have any concept of the real world?

Monday, January 05, 2009

Brown nose award

It was announced today that departing President George Bush is to reward his most slavish foreign acolytes with the US Medal of Freedom, the highest honour, apparently, America can bestow on those foreign servants who have faithfully done its bidding.

AS well as that example of Socialist excellence, Anthony Lynton Blair, the medal goes to John Howard the former Prime Minister of Australia and Alvaro Uribe, President of Colombia. Just the sort of political company Blair deserves - this man of the people whose departure has been such a source of sadness to the entire Labour Party.

Well I can't show you the actual medal just the container in which it comes:-

Inching ever closer to a police state?

'The Times' reported yesterday that the Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan which allows police to hack into our computers without a warrant. This has, apparently been sponsored by Brussels, and is considered to be an important new step in the fight against internet crime.

But, I seriously ask, does there come a point at which the excuses given by government for giving police ever greater snooping powers, have to be weighed against the effects on us as a society?

Tony Blair reacted very angrily in the Commons, some years ago, when the accusation 'leading a police state' was thrown at him by an opposition MP. But just consider the number of CCTV cameras in our streets, the rights of police to intercept our e mails, the ability from Jan26th this year for police to raid your home to see if you possess 'dangerous pictures' and now an endorsement of their right to hack into your home PC.



I'm sure the Home Office could quote loads of statistics on how this will assist in the fight against crime. But what protection does the average citizen get against abuse of this privilege. It is not sufficient for self-satisfied guardians of law and order to say 'If you've done nothing wrong, you don't need to worry'. Apart from this being the wrong premise to adopt from the start, what constitutes 'wrong' as evidenced by the Dangerous Pictures Act , is ever changing and seemingly on a political whim.

I wish 'Liberty' had more teeth. I wish our MPs had more guts in opposing this kind of thing without clear and workable safeguards in place. For those who think I am scaremongering, just look at how we reviled the Soviet Union some years back for the sinister policy of spying on all its citizens and how we said 'Thank God we live in a democracy. That could never happen here!'