All week the Tory Party must have been praying for the cavalry ,in whatever form, to come riding over the hill to rescue them from a string of well intentioned but media un-savvy activities. They can never have imagined though that it would be George Galloway, friend of a number of unfriendly dictators past (Saddam) and present (Assad and that man in Iran) who would do the job for them by spectacularly winning the Bradford by-election, thereby taking up a good proportion of the media space which might otherwise have been filled with shock horror stuff about Granny taxes, tax cuts for the rich (reduction of Gordon Brown's 50% top tax rate), pasties hot and cold, kitchen suppers at Number 10 (no pasties there one can be sure,-but some Patsys are very likely) and filling cars and cans with petrol. Indeed the liveried footman is probably at this moment en route to Galloway's house with a case or two of the very best.
In all cases the Tories were guilty of falling into well prepared Labour tank traps which they should have seen a mile off. The Granny tax was easily justifiable but terribly presented, not at all explained and came across as a mugging. The pasties tax was fair on the owners of fish and chip shops and the like who already have to pay VAT on the same product but was easily portrayable as a direct assault on the poorest in society who are forced to live on the cheapest food fairly unattractive outlets can provide.It was a hot(with VAT)or cold(without VAT) potato not worth the candle/aggro. Like the products themselves it would been better just left alone. Greasing up to donors is a common activity by all parties so those suppers shouldn't have hit the headlines and wouldn't if the idea of the venue being kitchens didn't have rich toff overtones. Presumably these events, which are probably hated by the hosts as much as they are loved by the guests, will now move to the Bridge Cafe ,the gloomy haunt of The Apprentice's losing teams. Pasties will definately be on the menu but may have to be eaten cold outside.
The biggest and most unnecessary PR debacle though has been the call to defy Unite's tanker drivers' strike by filling up with petrol now. The idea of filling up while petrol stations could still be restocked was eminently sensible and has largely worked. If intended this way it was very clever and spiked McClusky's Easter strike guns. It has also ensured that to be effective any strike would have to be longer which makes it less attractive to the strikers themselves as they , not McClusky & Co. pay for it via lost wages. The closure of many fuel outlets since the last strike has meant a sharp reduction in the amount of fuel stored in the retailers' tanks, so it made good sense to use vehicle's petrol tanks for storage instead. Putting aside any strangely unsung government cleverness here, any sensible motorist would have filled and then kept his or her tank topped up anyway.
What was not needed and what no party leader responsible for the major strategic decisions and vision for the country should ever get into was the sight of a Prime Minister, or indeed any Minister, belittling the intelligence of his or her subjects by telling them how much and when they should be putting into their tanks and any other handy utensils. The idea of a dim witted nation sitting with its mouths open waiting for a micromanaging "Gummnt" to tell them what to do is appalling .Even if sadly true in some cases the temptation to tell them must be avoided. Weren't the Tories going to take the Nanny out of the State?
Apart from enabling Tweedle Ed and Dum Ed to trot out the "out of touch" tank trap again and find some resonance it looked just, well, out of touch.
Labour know that the past image of the Tories as the nasty party and the present one of it being the preserve of a narrowly based, detatched from reality public school(Eton in particular), Oxbridge wealthy elite is its PR Achilles' heel and could eventually be electorally fatal. To prevent this the Conservative Party must give good air time and prominence to those of its brightest younger MPs who are much more broadly based.
Naturally Labour will keep chipping away and playing the toff theme over and over again above the line and subliminally until enough people to win an election can't get it out of their heads. It's easy to do and they are very good at it. The much less media and people-savvy Tories should have clever enough streetwise communications advisors who keep the tank commanders away from the traps and the infantry away from allied banana skins. In the last fortnight, despite having the party having done some sensible and realistic things ,they have failed utterly to understand let alone do what they needed to do to succesfully communicate with the electorate. As result the "We're all in this together" theme has been seriousy compromised .
Until the Bradford result,the Eds had had a good fortnight. Then came Galloway. There should be much raising of Tory glasses to his name this weekend. He will have made Chequers, North Oxfordshire and Number 10 much happier,-and certainly relieved,-places. Now the Easter hols are upon us there should be time for everyone to forget about the past fortnight's nightmares before school reconvenes for the summer term.
Happy motoring everyone and enjoy a nice pasty for supper at the motorway service station. Don't pay to go into any kitchens though.
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Monday, 26 March 2012
The Party's Over- UK party fundraising and influence trading in the headlines (again.).
For sheer ineptitude the efforts of the new and now very recently resigned Conservative chief fundraiser Peter Crudas take some beating. His performance in offering opportunities to shake the Prime Ministerial paw,-or for more bigger piles of loot possibly if absurdly to have "influence" were up there with, and reminiscent of, the Duchess of York's offerings to sell access to the Duke. Both were hideously cringemaking and made one wonder how on earth why any candidate for signing up would even want to continue the conversation or be able to avoid throwing up. Strangely though there are people in the world to whom even this tacky flypaper does not shout loudly "Don't come anywhere near,-flee now!".
Party funding and the influence it may give or be portrayed as giving donors has been a vexed question. The Labour Party is probably the most problematical. Over 80% of its income comes from the trade unions who are not exactly a disinterested entity. They also pretty much control the party conference votes through their dominant blocks and certainly chose the current leader, the ever santimonious and hand wringing Ed Miliband. For that alone they expect influence. Unsurprisingly the Unite leader Len McClusky is described as being "very close" to the Labour leader.
Historically the Conservatives have relied more on big businesses and wealthy individuals. Some of the latter give because they genuinely believe in the Conservative philosophy,-if there currently is one,-or to help keep the others out or in the case of the ones targeted by this approach,-mostly driven by simple naive vanity. Seemingly they revel in the prospect of being able, however misleadingly and pointlessly, to say they have dined with Dave("Oh, I see him often you know")in an upper room at number 10 or elsewhere. Any self respecting political party or social group would simply say they don't want them, however brightly their Gold Cards shine. Today the Conservative Party in the Commons seem to have failed to fling back into Miliband's lap retorts about supping with union leaders.Are there no good knockabout cut and thrust parliamentary debaters in the chamber?
After this embarrassment, the theatrics and posturing of which may go on for a while, there is no doubt that politicians of all parties and none will be a little more careful to avoid accusations of lying down with dogs and catching fleas. Leaders will also have to select their advisors and "doers" a bit more wisely.
The Lib Dem position is a little unclear. Buying supper with Nick would appear to be at best a low cost austerity driven option but realistically probably isn't considered worth even small change by serious social climbers or influence seekers. Their Party's position is probably more the reverse,-how to pay people to come and chat to them over a bottle of no air miles English organic eco-red or Elderflower cordial.
The solution of course is to ban all donations and fund political parties out of the public purse. The problem though is that Joe Public's purse is firmly closed when anyone called double glazing salesman or politican comes to call. That makes it very unlikely to fly.
There is another bigger and possibly nastier beast in the influence game and one that has been used and abused in Britain for centuries. It is of course the honours system from the award of peerages downwards. While it has a good side in recognising and rewarding the often unsung truly deserving, too often it has been used to reward party donors and the undeserving and self promoting for good behaviour ("services to the nation"), to encourge people not to rock boats or stand in the way of things or to otherwise use the less positive side of real influence. It is time we said "Enough, away with all this. The whole titles and letters thing gets in the way of social cohesion rather than enhances. It is divisive and as such corrosive". The days of King Arthur, barons and the like should be long over and a puritanical line of zero tolerance is needed to all forms of political patronage and external funding. It can sail too close to corruption and become just that. The alternative is to continue a long, slow slide towards the Zimbabwe model. Anyone really want that? Sorry, silly question maybe.
Party funding and the influence it may give or be portrayed as giving donors has been a vexed question. The Labour Party is probably the most problematical. Over 80% of its income comes from the trade unions who are not exactly a disinterested entity. They also pretty much control the party conference votes through their dominant blocks and certainly chose the current leader, the ever santimonious and hand wringing Ed Miliband. For that alone they expect influence. Unsurprisingly the Unite leader Len McClusky is described as being "very close" to the Labour leader.
Historically the Conservatives have relied more on big businesses and wealthy individuals. Some of the latter give because they genuinely believe in the Conservative philosophy,-if there currently is one,-or to help keep the others out or in the case of the ones targeted by this approach,-mostly driven by simple naive vanity. Seemingly they revel in the prospect of being able, however misleadingly and pointlessly, to say they have dined with Dave("Oh, I see him often you know")in an upper room at number 10 or elsewhere. Any self respecting political party or social group would simply say they don't want them, however brightly their Gold Cards shine. Today the Conservative Party in the Commons seem to have failed to fling back into Miliband's lap retorts about supping with union leaders.Are there no good knockabout cut and thrust parliamentary debaters in the chamber?
After this embarrassment, the theatrics and posturing of which may go on for a while, there is no doubt that politicians of all parties and none will be a little more careful to avoid accusations of lying down with dogs and catching fleas. Leaders will also have to select their advisors and "doers" a bit more wisely.
The Lib Dem position is a little unclear. Buying supper with Nick would appear to be at best a low cost austerity driven option but realistically probably isn't considered worth even small change by serious social climbers or influence seekers. Their Party's position is probably more the reverse,-how to pay people to come and chat to them over a bottle of no air miles English organic eco-red or Elderflower cordial.
The solution of course is to ban all donations and fund political parties out of the public purse. The problem though is that Joe Public's purse is firmly closed when anyone called double glazing salesman or politican comes to call. That makes it very unlikely to fly.
There is another bigger and possibly nastier beast in the influence game and one that has been used and abused in Britain for centuries. It is of course the honours system from the award of peerages downwards. While it has a good side in recognising and rewarding the often unsung truly deserving, too often it has been used to reward party donors and the undeserving and self promoting for good behaviour ("services to the nation"), to encourge people not to rock boats or stand in the way of things or to otherwise use the less positive side of real influence. It is time we said "Enough, away with all this. The whole titles and letters thing gets in the way of social cohesion rather than enhances. It is divisive and as such corrosive". The days of King Arthur, barons and the like should be long over and a puritanical line of zero tolerance is needed to all forms of political patronage and external funding. It can sail too close to corruption and become just that. The alternative is to continue a long, slow slide towards the Zimbabwe model. Anyone really want that? Sorry, silly question maybe.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
The 2012 Budget Debate: 20th March .Ed confirms the end of New Labour.
On the sunny evening of May 2nd 1997 Tony Blair rode into Downing Street on the wave of national optimism. Even many traditional Tory voters, tired and frustrated with the introverted self destruction of their own party thought that maybe this new center ground reincarnation of Labour might be worth a try. For the first time Labour looked inclusive and didn't institutionally hate anybody other than its own. The days of class obsessed Old Labour could be over. British politics might take a turn for the better.
This afternoon, nearly 15 years later,the Labour Leader,-if that is not too strong a word,-rose to reply to George Osborne's budget. Never mind the ins and out and the detail. Ed's first few lines said it all, if not in quite the way he intended. In response to the fact that not only the lower paid but also the better off gained from some of the tax and welfare measures he declared that the notion of "We are all in this together" was dead. With those words indeed it is. All the standard repertoire of "hate the rich" lines came out. It was all so predictable .The relatively recent but constantly repeated (Labour for ever repeat all their key phrases,-presumably they think the electorate isn't too bright) came tumbling forth. "Out of touch" was wheeled out again. It often appears along with dog-whistle mutters about or oblique references to toffs, Etonians and others who may have made money unless they are footballers, celebs,lottery winners,pop stars and the like who have of course earned their money and are irreproachable. The real message from New Old Labour is that unless you are one of the latter or one of Brown's "hard working families"(=not very well off) or of course a Labour politician or activist they don't really like you very much at all. The idea of socialism-free inclusiveness, the big tent and occupying the real centre ground of politics has died. Hopefully also dead then is the idea that this benighted party, to whom business success, and the creation of wealth and jobs for others are an anathema, could ever return to power and have the chance to drag down the economy and any spirit of national endeavour and enterprise even more than they did last time.
In short Ed was in his comfort zone and showing his true colours and political divisiveness. Not an enticing zone for the rest of us.
This afternoon, nearly 15 years later,the Labour Leader,-if that is not too strong a word,-rose to reply to George Osborne's budget. Never mind the ins and out and the detail. Ed's first few lines said it all, if not in quite the way he intended. In response to the fact that not only the lower paid but also the better off gained from some of the tax and welfare measures he declared that the notion of "We are all in this together" was dead. With those words indeed it is. All the standard repertoire of "hate the rich" lines came out. It was all so predictable .The relatively recent but constantly repeated (Labour for ever repeat all their key phrases,-presumably they think the electorate isn't too bright) came tumbling forth. "Out of touch" was wheeled out again. It often appears along with dog-whistle mutters about or oblique references to toffs, Etonians and others who may have made money unless they are footballers, celebs,lottery winners,pop stars and the like who have of course earned their money and are irreproachable. The real message from New Old Labour is that unless you are one of the latter or one of Brown's "hard working families"(=not very well off) or of course a Labour politician or activist they don't really like you very much at all. The idea of socialism-free inclusiveness, the big tent and occupying the real centre ground of politics has died. Hopefully also dead then is the idea that this benighted party, to whom business success, and the creation of wealth and jobs for others are an anathema, could ever return to power and have the chance to drag down the economy and any spirit of national endeavour and enterprise even more than they did last time.
In short Ed was in his comfort zone and showing his true colours and political divisiveness. Not an enticing zone for the rest of us.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Twiga is back.......
After six weeks in the mountains,savannahs,coasts,cities and dorps of Africa one returns expecting that a lot has moved on and changed in the world. Oh well, we all have disappointments.
Let's take a quick sweep of what's afoot around the globe..........
UK: Back just in time to see the sandal wearers spring conference in Gateshead. Twiga had wondered why our old Labour,- that's Old Labour,- friends had been a bit quiet in their opposition role lately while simultaneously moving ahead of the Tories in the polls. The answer is of course simple. The Lib Dems have been doing the opposition bit for them so why should they open their mouths and spoil it? Still the untrained puppy in the house of government,the Lib Dems continue their incontinence on the carpet and to out-Labour Labour in their enthusiasm for "fairness" (something Dave keeps talking about too though he probably isn't too sure what it really means). They interpret the concept as being to do with the rich paying their "fair share" of taxes . Fine but as the top 10% of earners pay around 60% of the nation's taxes in any case aren't we there already? Might they not reasonably think that a Hong Kong type flat rate tax system would be much fairer, really fair even. There the more people earn the more they pay and the ratio of tax to income remains constant rather than being disproportionately or unfairly tilted against hard work and high achievement? With a flat rate way these people would still pay the bulk of the nation's taxes and subsidise the rest but in a way that incentivises them. That sounds very fair and simple so why not? Is punitive taxation just for the sake of being seen to be hard on the better off fair? It's difficult to see how it could be. UK Plc, led by Lib Dem and Labour politicians and with the aquiescence of Tory leadership trying hard not to be the nasty party ,seems to be heading dangerously back into the destructive and objectionable class war jungle. It's not healthy and it's not good for anyone.
USA: Talking of people doing other people's work for them, the Republicans publicly internecine process of choosing a Presidential candidate for this year's fast approaching elections is certainly working well for Obama and the Democrats. As more and more extreme conservative views, especially about women's rights to make their own decisions on contraception, abortion and pre-testing for foetal birth defects get trotted out by the day, more and more must be thinking this is going too far and will be left with only one voting option,-Obama. No wonder the President is looking rather relaxed at the moment.
SOUTH AFRICA: Any visitor to the opposition-run Cape at the moment will come away marvelling at how well the transition to New South Africa has gone. The infrastructure is largely well maintained, service everywhere is good, the tourism industry is high quality and increasingly manned by bright young black and coloured people while new roads are appearing at a rate unthinkable in Britain. That's how it looks.
Not far below the surface though things are not quite so rosy. There is still a huge unemployment problem,-increasingly not only for previously disadvantgaed blacks but also now for young whites to whom state employment is pretty much barred while quotas remove opportunities in the private sector. Population growth continues to run ahead of GDP growth. Murders of (well over 1,000 so far)and very unpleasant pressures on white farmers to quit strike a sour note and threaten long term large scale food production. Militant unions discourage overseas investment which sees largely non unionised, high work ethic Asia as a much better bet. The "real" ANC, the province of Winnie Mandela and the youth league in particular, is very different from the wise, statesmanlike, healing and unifying Nelson Mandela version. It itches to drive a populist racial agenda for Zimbabwe type land "redistribution", seizure of power from the provinces, intervention in business and life in general and would drive investment and any real prospects for future prosperity ever further away. The best bulwark against this will be the rapidly growing affluent black middle classes but they are a long way from having a numerical majority.
Problems therefore lie ahead and it is a race against time for enough black South Africans to have an interest in stability and prosperity to counterbalance the easily whipped up anger of those who do not see themselves as any better off than they were under apartheid. The race and haves/have not genie is much easier to take out of the bottle than to put back in and Winnie & Co are knowingly playing with fire.
Africa, for the image as well as economics of the continent, badly needs South Africa to be a success even if they don't love it too much. The issue isn't just for the one country alone.
RUSSIA: No surprises from the elections there and Putin's footwork in returning to power. Although all the evidence says the elections were skewed, the other evidence says that this was unnecessary as he would have won fairly easily anyway. The national love of a strong man remains despite past brutalities and present misdeeds. The country has a long way to go before the majority chooses a western style of debate and democracy. In the meantime Russia will continue to support other regimes with an intolerance of opposition and a liking for repression of opposing voices,- eg Syria.
THE EU AND THE EURO: The two stagger on in their mutually suffocating embrace. Reality is that the Euro was always a dodgy German/French creation aimed at securing control of the economics and thereby the politics of the EU. One size visibly doesn't fit all 27 countries of widely varying cultures and economic models spread over a large geographical area. Supporting an artifical creation to try to make it work despite the facts of life is imposing huge and expensive strains on the future of the EU itself. The solution would seem to be a Euro and a non Euro zone within the EU and for the overall objective to move away from political union (=Franco/German domination) for which nobody has ever voted, back towards a much simpler and less centrally controlled free trade area. Apart from anything else this would reduce the huge unproductive overheads of the vast Brussells burocracy. Massive savings would flow from simplification of processes, reduction of runaway salaries and allowances, abandonment of the alternative Strasbourg setup, the reduction of working languages to two or three and a host of other common sense but "politically sensitive" moves. Trying to please everyone is almost impossible and incredibly and impractically expensive. No business would saddle itself with or survive such expensive and productivity deadening overheads.
AFGHANISTAN: Over 400 British deaths now notched up and inevitably more to come. For what? We have already said this is an unwinnable directionless war with fictitous objectives (keeping terror off British and American streets wasn't it?). The problem now is that leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are terrified of a withdrawal resulting in the overthrow of the hugely corrupt and duplicious Afghan government. This would prove what most people instinctively know,-ie that the whole intervention has been a waste of lives, time and money,- and the nations' TV screen will be full of military Mum's saying "My son died for nothing other than keeping the politicians' faces. Therein could lie electoral disaster for some although in the UK the blame would have to be spread across all parties and leaders. That would mean Blair, Brown and Cameron and many members of their cabinets and shadow cabinets.
The fact is that collapse of the current Afghan government is likely whenever withdrawal takes place. Its leaders will be lucky to escape with their lives. A period of Taleban rule is highly likely before the Afghans themselves decide whether or not they will put up with that long term. The various tribes, clans and groupings don't really like being governed or told what to do by anyone and only a very loose form of central government, and certainly not control, is acceptable. Any vision of Westminster type parliament or a US style Congress is laughable. Some kind of national council or forum will emerge although not in a form which we would describe as necessarily numerically democratic or even majority rule. The only thing that unifies the country is a hatred of occupation by any form of foreigners. The British learned that in the 19th century, the Russians in the 20th and the British and Americans are relearning it in the 21st. If only more of our leaders had listened during their school history lessons. One would have thought that at least Fettes in Edinburgh (Blair) and Eton (Cameron) would have dinned it into their pupils better. Maybe history was programmed into the immediately after lunch slot?
SOMALIA: Pirate activity appears to be down, possibly as result of more ships carrying their own armed security people. Sensibly nobody is saying much about who is doing what but it is reasonable to assume that, EU naval vessels apart, shoot to kill and "Don't ask, don't tell" are more prevalent than before. The Kenyan army has been pressing Al Shabaab and there is an objective to drive the terrorists out of Kismayu. Al Shabaab have declared war on Kenya and Saturday's bomb in a Nairobi bus station can be seen as a declaration of intent. Kenya's tourism business in particular holds its breath. Meanwhile Mogadishu, uneasy though it is, has begun to resume some appearance of normality.The rapidy expanding Turkish Airlines has begun a twice weekly scheduled service from Ankara to the city. There is no pleasing everyone though. Al Shabaab have accused the Turks of bringing in goods to compete with local traders and out of date foodstuffs to poison the population.
That is a quick update of some things picked up in a scan around the world's horizons. There's much more happening out there and at home of course and we will revert to some of them as they come into post holiday focus. The world is never boring.
Let's take a quick sweep of what's afoot around the globe..........
UK: Back just in time to see the sandal wearers spring conference in Gateshead. Twiga had wondered why our old Labour,- that's Old Labour,- friends had been a bit quiet in their opposition role lately while simultaneously moving ahead of the Tories in the polls. The answer is of course simple. The Lib Dems have been doing the opposition bit for them so why should they open their mouths and spoil it? Still the untrained puppy in the house of government,the Lib Dems continue their incontinence on the carpet and to out-Labour Labour in their enthusiasm for "fairness" (something Dave keeps talking about too though he probably isn't too sure what it really means). They interpret the concept as being to do with the rich paying their "fair share" of taxes . Fine but as the top 10% of earners pay around 60% of the nation's taxes in any case aren't we there already? Might they not reasonably think that a Hong Kong type flat rate tax system would be much fairer, really fair even. There the more people earn the more they pay and the ratio of tax to income remains constant rather than being disproportionately or unfairly tilted against hard work and high achievement? With a flat rate way these people would still pay the bulk of the nation's taxes and subsidise the rest but in a way that incentivises them. That sounds very fair and simple so why not? Is punitive taxation just for the sake of being seen to be hard on the better off fair? It's difficult to see how it could be. UK Plc, led by Lib Dem and Labour politicians and with the aquiescence of Tory leadership trying hard not to be the nasty party ,seems to be heading dangerously back into the destructive and objectionable class war jungle. It's not healthy and it's not good for anyone.
USA: Talking of people doing other people's work for them, the Republicans publicly internecine process of choosing a Presidential candidate for this year's fast approaching elections is certainly working well for Obama and the Democrats. As more and more extreme conservative views, especially about women's rights to make their own decisions on contraception, abortion and pre-testing for foetal birth defects get trotted out by the day, more and more must be thinking this is going too far and will be left with only one voting option,-Obama. No wonder the President is looking rather relaxed at the moment.
SOUTH AFRICA: Any visitor to the opposition-run Cape at the moment will come away marvelling at how well the transition to New South Africa has gone. The infrastructure is largely well maintained, service everywhere is good, the tourism industry is high quality and increasingly manned by bright young black and coloured people while new roads are appearing at a rate unthinkable in Britain. That's how it looks.
Not far below the surface though things are not quite so rosy. There is still a huge unemployment problem,-increasingly not only for previously disadvantgaed blacks but also now for young whites to whom state employment is pretty much barred while quotas remove opportunities in the private sector. Population growth continues to run ahead of GDP growth. Murders of (well over 1,000 so far)and very unpleasant pressures on white farmers to quit strike a sour note and threaten long term large scale food production. Militant unions discourage overseas investment which sees largely non unionised, high work ethic Asia as a much better bet. The "real" ANC, the province of Winnie Mandela and the youth league in particular, is very different from the wise, statesmanlike, healing and unifying Nelson Mandela version. It itches to drive a populist racial agenda for Zimbabwe type land "redistribution", seizure of power from the provinces, intervention in business and life in general and would drive investment and any real prospects for future prosperity ever further away. The best bulwark against this will be the rapidly growing affluent black middle classes but they are a long way from having a numerical majority.
Problems therefore lie ahead and it is a race against time for enough black South Africans to have an interest in stability and prosperity to counterbalance the easily whipped up anger of those who do not see themselves as any better off than they were under apartheid. The race and haves/have not genie is much easier to take out of the bottle than to put back in and Winnie & Co are knowingly playing with fire.
Africa, for the image as well as economics of the continent, badly needs South Africa to be a success even if they don't love it too much. The issue isn't just for the one country alone.
RUSSIA: No surprises from the elections there and Putin's footwork in returning to power. Although all the evidence says the elections were skewed, the other evidence says that this was unnecessary as he would have won fairly easily anyway. The national love of a strong man remains despite past brutalities and present misdeeds. The country has a long way to go before the majority chooses a western style of debate and democracy. In the meantime Russia will continue to support other regimes with an intolerance of opposition and a liking for repression of opposing voices,- eg Syria.
THE EU AND THE EURO: The two stagger on in their mutually suffocating embrace. Reality is that the Euro was always a dodgy German/French creation aimed at securing control of the economics and thereby the politics of the EU. One size visibly doesn't fit all 27 countries of widely varying cultures and economic models spread over a large geographical area. Supporting an artifical creation to try to make it work despite the facts of life is imposing huge and expensive strains on the future of the EU itself. The solution would seem to be a Euro and a non Euro zone within the EU and for the overall objective to move away from political union (=Franco/German domination) for which nobody has ever voted, back towards a much simpler and less centrally controlled free trade area. Apart from anything else this would reduce the huge unproductive overheads of the vast Brussells burocracy. Massive savings would flow from simplification of processes, reduction of runaway salaries and allowances, abandonment of the alternative Strasbourg setup, the reduction of working languages to two or three and a host of other common sense but "politically sensitive" moves. Trying to please everyone is almost impossible and incredibly and impractically expensive. No business would saddle itself with or survive such expensive and productivity deadening overheads.
AFGHANISTAN: Over 400 British deaths now notched up and inevitably more to come. For what? We have already said this is an unwinnable directionless war with fictitous objectives (keeping terror off British and American streets wasn't it?). The problem now is that leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are terrified of a withdrawal resulting in the overthrow of the hugely corrupt and duplicious Afghan government. This would prove what most people instinctively know,-ie that the whole intervention has been a waste of lives, time and money,- and the nations' TV screen will be full of military Mum's saying "My son died for nothing other than keeping the politicians' faces. Therein could lie electoral disaster for some although in the UK the blame would have to be spread across all parties and leaders. That would mean Blair, Brown and Cameron and many members of their cabinets and shadow cabinets.
The fact is that collapse of the current Afghan government is likely whenever withdrawal takes place. Its leaders will be lucky to escape with their lives. A period of Taleban rule is highly likely before the Afghans themselves decide whether or not they will put up with that long term. The various tribes, clans and groupings don't really like being governed or told what to do by anyone and only a very loose form of central government, and certainly not control, is acceptable. Any vision of Westminster type parliament or a US style Congress is laughable. Some kind of national council or forum will emerge although not in a form which we would describe as necessarily numerically democratic or even majority rule. The only thing that unifies the country is a hatred of occupation by any form of foreigners. The British learned that in the 19th century, the Russians in the 20th and the British and Americans are relearning it in the 21st. If only more of our leaders had listened during their school history lessons. One would have thought that at least Fettes in Edinburgh (Blair) and Eton (Cameron) would have dinned it into their pupils better. Maybe history was programmed into the immediately after lunch slot?
SOMALIA: Pirate activity appears to be down, possibly as result of more ships carrying their own armed security people. Sensibly nobody is saying much about who is doing what but it is reasonable to assume that, EU naval vessels apart, shoot to kill and "Don't ask, don't tell" are more prevalent than before. The Kenyan army has been pressing Al Shabaab and there is an objective to drive the terrorists out of Kismayu. Al Shabaab have declared war on Kenya and Saturday's bomb in a Nairobi bus station can be seen as a declaration of intent. Kenya's tourism business in particular holds its breath. Meanwhile Mogadishu, uneasy though it is, has begun to resume some appearance of normality.The rapidy expanding Turkish Airlines has begun a twice weekly scheduled service from Ankara to the city. There is no pleasing everyone though. Al Shabaab have accused the Turks of bringing in goods to compete with local traders and out of date foodstuffs to poison the population.
That is a quick update of some things picked up in a scan around the world's horizons. There's much more happening out there and at home of course and we will revert to some of them as they come into post holiday focus. The world is never boring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)