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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.