Why we are so quiet,-They're all very dull.

Twiga apologises for the gap between this post and the last. One reason is that politics and reactions to them almost everywhere have been predominantly dull. Here in the UK is no exception and the blame must go right to the top. Until the end of the Gordon Brown era comedian Rory Bremner did a great line in takeoffs of our dear leaders and aspirant leaders. He did a superb Tony Blair and Gordon Brown although he struggled with Her Majesty's (loyal?) opposition under David Cameron. He just didn't find enough to work on there. The lights were clearly out. Then came the May 2010 General Election. Brown didn't have a majority,hing on for a weekend and after a weekend's hesitation understood the figures didn't add up in any direction ,- just as the economic ones hadn't for several years -and then did the walk of shame. Cameron rode into Downing Street, accompanied by something less than mass hysteria, having signed up ashen faced Nick Clegg as his LibDem coalition partner . Some weeks later, defying the assumption that David Miliband would square up to them across the dispatch box, New Labour was replaced by New old Labour when his union backed fratricidal younger brother Ed, previously a bag carrier to Brown and allegedly the tea maker for his boss and more senior colleague Ed Balls. None of these three "leaders" is charismatic. In fact all three are definately not so to the extent that they are verydifficult to parody. They themselves do a better job at that than anyone else could. Hence Bremner's self awarded P45.

Against the background of the electorate having basically said "We don't much care for any of you, however good or bad and whatever the past" ,and having therefore voted for a coalition which gave nobody a clear majority, there was a great opportunity for the new trio to figure out that they needed to do something other than shout at each other at the weekly Prime Minister's Questions so as to begin restoring people's in politics and politicians. This needed to go beyond rounding up and booting out fiddlers of expenses and other such miscreants. It needed to encompass new, calmer, more professional, consultative even , ways of doing business. People wanted ,-and still do,- to see cooperation rather than perpetual confrontation. It would have been interesting, a revolution of the sensible even..... and not dull.

Meanwhile dear old limp wristed BBC drones on like an old fashioned maiden aunt, feeding us on a diet of , yes, dullness. Grimy crime, celebrity this and that, everlasting moans about "the cuts", the state of the NHS but it not being the NHS' fault, the state of everything else but it not being anybody's fault other than the government's or anyone with a viewpoint of anything less than a light reddish tinge. As we say, all rather dull. Never mind, it's nearly December and time to crack open the credit cards and get back into a bit of happy debt building. Just like old times. That will cheer everybody up and make them forget what dreary souls vie for the nation's attention with yawn inducing ,almost preaching, monotony. It's not looking good for Rory Bremner this side of the General Election though.

Britain's new Press Charter . Bad for Britain. Bad for everyone, -especially politicians.

Britain has been a beacon of  press freedom for a long time. Constrained only by laws covering libel  and real national security, the papers have been able to publish almost anything about anything or anyone. Comment ranging from high praise (not normally a media thing) to severe criticism has been allowed and encouraged. So has pertinent or even impertinent enquiry.

No more.

Earlier in the year a grubby agreement was hammered out, - strangely at night and in the office of the Leader of the Opposition,- at a meeting of consenting adults representing the three main political parties and a pressure group led by the acting profession. All this used indignation rightly felt about phone hacking to amplify the outrage so as to justify legislation potentially covering anything said parties did not like or want to see in print. Politicians saw it was a wonderful opportunity to obstruct and prevent searching enquiries into duck houses, incorrect interpretation of entitlements to expenses ,inappropriate behaviour and other activities which might undermine their standing in the world of real people. Celebrities saw it as a means of ensuring that they only received the right sort of the publicity they crave to keep the money rolling in. Reports from Sunset Boulevard might become risky or expensive to run. As contrary views might have derailed the night's work non consenting adults,- notably the press,- were not invited or asked to make any submission . They were expected to accept whatever this politically adopted pressure group decided to throw at them,- shut up and stop being nosey. "Don't you know who we are?"

Satisfied with this bonding (for them) and bondage (for the press) evening, the attendees then submitted a draft Royal Charter for press regulation first to a supine Parliament where few, including no Liberals, seriously questioned the measure. They then sent hapless ashen faced Nick scuttling off to stick it under the nose of the monarch and demand/grovel that she sign . Going to the Palace probably gave him a real buzz but is unlikely to have done much for her afternoon. It is not recorded whether tea and Dutchy Originals were offered.  By convention Her Majesty had no option but to exercise the royal ballpoint rather than tell him staight that she didnt think much of politicians hiding behind her rather than doing their own dirty work by passing legislation of their own.

So far so bad , even if the newspapers continue to ignore the Charter and set up their own regulator not paid for from the (empty) public purse. What we have seen is potentially the most repressive move against the freedom of the press in any major western country.

The international by product is that Britain can no longer take less liberal countries and regimes to task when they muzzle the press or make it impossible for investigative journalists to function.

Silence from Britain is the best Commonwealth Kenya's citizens can  now expect when they protest against  the passing of the Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill by their National Assembly. The country's press is lively and vibrant . It has boldly shined torches on corruption, malpractice and greed ,particularly amongst MPs. The Standard newspaper has recently labelled them as MPigs. It has since carried headlines including  "Democracy under Attack",- and so it is just as it is here. Publishers of  anything MPs don't like could be rewarded with heavy corporate and personal fines. No prizes for guessing where those ideas came from.

That's Kenya which despite everything is one of the brighter stars on the African scene. What can Britain, the orginal upholder of good governance and virtue now say to other recalcitrants? Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, even China are now beyond our rebuke or even friendly word in the ear from the Ambassador.  Until now the answer has been "Quite a lot". Now it's "Nothing."

Perhaps even more sobering and damaging both to ourselves and the world, the same goes for anything we might have said about other countries' greedy, self interested and self serving politicians. Previously we could have said quite a lot. Now, nothing without being accused of gross hypocrisy. Haven't we done well? 

US drone attack ill-considered and ill-timed? Unlikely.

On the face of it, the US removal of the Pakistan Taliban's leader via a drone attack looks like a masterpiece of bad timing, coming as it did just as seven week old contacts about possible peace talks between the Pakistan Government and the Taliban were said to be making some tentative progress. Leading government officials and an assortment of Taliban leaders were due to meet in the north tomorrow.

On timing, the Americans, although at times diplomatically clumsy, don't make mistakes that big. This looks in all respects like a carefully considered tactical act based on strategic policy. The betting has to be that it was specifically aimed to derail the talks as the US feared possible aspects of or concessions granted in any eventual agreements. In other words the discussions looked dangerous and not all the players could be trusted not to go for a "Peace in our time" settlement.

The Taliban had already been already talking as if from a position of strength about the outcome depending on the Pakistan Government's willingness to agree to their "conditions". This was the thin edge of the wedge. Any deal would inevitably have involved officially recognising, Taliban influence, in however small a way initially, in a country which , away from its mountainous rural areas substantially rejects its extremist philosophy and fears its murderous activity. It is very likely that the US is simply saying "Enough is enough" and telling the Pakistan Government not to go there. Any deal would have to involve the Taliban dropping both its violence and moderating its stance on human rights, especially those of women or people who did not agree with it.

Apart from these obvious immediate issues of mass brutality and repression of opposition and religious moderates, the even greater and long term fear in the west has to be that any emergence of the Taliban on the Pakistan political stage would take it closer to its eventual aim of controlling the country. The nightmare end scenario then becomes the Taliban eventually taking over Pakistan. The prospect of the Taliban in control of a nuclear power is too frightening to contemplate.

No mistake then, this had in the last few weeks become a "Must do".   

This week...............

- With just 19 months to go our two great political parties are still shouting "Buy us and get x, y or z free or at least cheaper than you would with the other lot". This taps into the national psyche, carefully genetically modified ever since the welfare state was created in 1948, that everyone is really entitled to everything free and anyone trying to make a living, pay for research, be rewarded for effort or anything like that by making a profit must be a bloodsucker on the faces of the poor or hard working families (nobody has expressed a concern about hard working singles) or the disadvantaged or pensioners or whichever group tends to be the hard done by choice of the day. Generally it's pretty much all of us. Commuters, even those who choose to live far away from workplaces, are entitled to subsidised trains says David Cameron ,everybody is entitled to cheaper power although ours are some of the lowest rates in Europe says Ed Miliband. "Government will pay" (for someone has to,-unmentioned) say both and the LibDems. This is just the start. We can expect more goodies before the election. As result, sooner of later many of us will have to pay more taxes. We've probably pretty much run out of evil bankers and wealth creators to squeeze more out of and any left will likely soon follow the man from Virgin in moving their tax domicile to somewhere more welcoming. Why wouldn't they?

- While on economics, Ed with Dad's bit between his teeth, has been saying that yes indeed , a Labour government might do a lot more to keep the cost of living down by controlling prices .This will ensure that nobody can make more than a few quid profit regardless of how much they invest or risk. These are the joys of socialism and its fantasy world which has left the country broke after every Labour government. Prices and/or incomes policies have been tried ever since the French Revolution. Then execution had to be used to deal with the unconvinced. Effective but a bit short term. There was another Labour attempt after World War 2 when UK Plc was short of money and needed some to repay all it had borrowed from the USA to help keep the conflict away from American shores. Then there was Jim Callaghan's dab at it in 1972 accompanied by the Social Contract, a deal with the unions not to be as bloody minded as they might be. Nature took its course . All of these market and gravity defying efforts inevitably fell to earth with a thud. Margaret Thatcher killed off that last one, no doubt with a few choice words. Maybe she asked "Will they ever learn?". Unfortunately the answer is "Probably not".

-Other political flavours of the week include the LibDems swerving all over the road.Nothing new there. Nick was for a moment in "I agree with Dave " mode and said the Guardian shouldn't have published the leaked intelligence documents showing how and what GCHQ and others do, together with others containing information which could seriously threaten the lives of security operatives and their families. His colleague, the ever unpredictable Vince Cable, was , as so often, in "I don't agree with Nick"  mode. He said that the Guardian was right to publish.
In another neck of the woods two 14 year old schoolboys were told to shave off the new beards they had grown in line with their personal interpretation of religious requirements or to go home Nick was back to normal "I don't agree with Dave"setting." Anyone can do what they want at school" . Oh the joys of being in coalition even with colleagues nominally in the your own party.
Footnote: Why does Cable go off on these frolics of his own? Probably because he has always bitterly regretted his decision not to stand against Clegg in the party leadership election. He thought that his age ruled him out. He realised too late that his Commons performances when he was the standin during the interegnum went down very well (he was even intelligently funny about Gordon Brown) and he could have landed the job.  The electorate thought he was good. Age didn't matter .He still wants it.

-Press censorship is on the way,- or would be if all three party leaders and a pressure group, Hacked Off, gets its way. The latter has been hijacked by celeb actors and others who have been inconvenienced by such things as being reported in the back of a car at an awkward moment. Zips are such unreliable things. These are well off people who relish and thrive upon press attention when the news is good but bristle at the common peoples' right to know when it is ,shall we say, less good or convenient.  One can understand anger at some of the media's more intrusive and sometimes downright insulting and untuthful lies and speculation but these are already well covered by laws on libel and slander. Politicians in particular are though keen to be get their hands on the ability to control the press for potentially much more insidious purposes as well as to cover any personal mishaps such as the odd "moment of madness" or  inappropriate use of Westminster premesis or furniture.
Whether or not we like the press and how some elements of it do their job and the slants they put on their outpourings, the dangers of state or political sensorship are enormous. Already Mr Mugabe and others must be delighted to see that the British are "getting " true democracy at last. We have already seen some pretty dodgy elections of various kinds thanks to misused postal votes filled in by "community leaders", husbands and others, block votes and other devices. Further incursions on free speech or choice should not be welcome by anyone. The UK has been seen as a model of press and individual freedom of speech across the world.  It is something its politicians,- and even celebs,- should value.

- Africa's friends and those who contribute to or cheer on its progress wherever they see it will have said "Oh no!" once more this week. This time the miscreant was the news that the Organisation of African Unity at it conference in Addis Ababa has supported a demand that the continent's Presidents should be immune for prosecution while in office. No act of corruption, violence or even genocide would be bad enough to get them into the ICC's dock before the damage had been done. It would also be a good incentive to stay in power by whatever means might be required. President Kenyatta and others resorted to some good old fashioned anti-colonialist rhetoric , specifically accusing the ICC of being anti-African. It is a dismal picture of peddling backwards. Many Africans, tiring of the misguided notion that "the big man" can do whatever he likes, feel betrayed yet again by the leaders, some of whom they elected. Western international investors also say "Oh no!" and look elsewhere. Chinese investors,- mainly the Chinese government in one guise or another,- aren't too bothered and beckon towards their doorways. That's bad news for Africa's citizens whose new roads, railways, shopping malls will come with some unwelcome hooks, especially if western competitors back off. Ask the continent's elephants for a start.

-Talking of elephants, Tanzania's Minister responsible for wildlife is proposing a shoot to kill policy to deal with ivory poachers. At present their greatly increased rate of activity will wipe out the country's elephant herds by 2025. With that, Tanzania's tourism industry, earner of large amounts of foreign currency and provider of thousands of jobs, would also be largely wiped out, leaving the country even more dependent and tied to the Chinese RMb. Kenya employed the same policy very successfully in the 1990s. In response to the Minister there have been howls of protest from human rights groups. The elephants and those who depend on them to feed their families and secure a future will hope that he will put his ear plugs in.   

The Conference Parties are over. Where are we now?

Yes, they are all over bar the Scottish Nationalists who trail behind, as they are likely to do in next years' bid for independence, or Uhuru as they might like to call it to give it a bit of a Commonwealth flavour (if they can stomach that). For any fans of party conferences who feel they have missed out this year, the SNP will meet in Perth for its annual grudgefest on 17-20 October. They will no doubt be delighted to see you,- provided that you are not one of  the evil English.

All the sessions went much as we predicted and bar the odd soundbite (and there were some odd ones) were highly forgetable. We may as well press the mental "delete" button and make space for other thoughts or memories. Almost anything else will do.

Passing over Nick and his gathering, Ed did his noteless stuff in Brighton, just down the track from Westminster, about as near as you can get without staying inside the M25. There was a spontaneous " Man-of-the-people-I'm not just a geek" session or two of hugging or snogging the wife and then a long learned by heart speech about us all being able to do better "than this". For those nodding off in the back rows those were probably the only words they heard before nodding (in agreement) off again until they heard the wake up words next time round (they had about 15 chances in case they missed any). With  clear body swerve to the left (McClusky's dog whistle was obviously working well) Ed came out about embracing socialism ("That's where we're going") and chose the wicked power companies as this year's bogeyman . They are to be felled by a blow of the price control axe once he is installed in Number 10 where all energy costs are met by the taxpayer. How he expects the six big energy suppliers to maintain their enthusiasm for the tens of billions of investment required to meet Britain's power needs and highly expensive greenification over the next 10 to 20 years is not clear. Maybe he will in due course explain to the nation in a candle lit broadcast with the hum of a portable generator prominent in the background. Actually he'd better do it on the radio as TV will probably have blacked out. Anyway, the message was "Follow me over here to the left" . There was barely a mention of defecit or the need to do anything about it. He was pretty much back to his master's voice, - that's Gordon Brown's- vowing to "invest" , by which he means of course to borrow and spend but for no particular purpose or gain.

All this doesn't stop Ed being the next Prime Minister. Cross yourselves, put your hands together, breathe in slowly and heavily, pour a stiff drink or do whatever you do in times of extreme stress now.  Thanks to the electoral maths, the Tories having scored an own goal in blocking the modicum of House of Lords reform demanded by the LibDems and the latter having churlishly responded by blocking parliamentray boundry changes worth 20 seats to the blues and the urban north being an almost Tory-free zone, Ed in number 10 is a definate possibility.  This version of Ed (Miliband unless Mr Balls elbows his way past him at the last moment) may well have to put up with an irritating alliance /coalition with Nick and his gang but that is something either of the main parties may have to accept. Nick himself doesn't much mind with which it is, just so long as he continues to draw his Number 2 salary and benefits. Labour would probably be harder on him though than the Tories have been although many LibDem MPs would feel themselves much more at home under the red bedspread than sort of under the current blue one.

Dave and his team chose to venture further from the M 25 comfort zone,- even beyond the Cotswolds which in a painful phone-in he revealed to be the home of bread making machines and artisan flour. That went down just great in the industrial streets of Bolton and the like.  As for in Scotland, let's just move on. So it was that the Tory festival pitched its camp in Manchester as a demonstration that it knows where it is and that it could manage a few days there without the place being burned down.  There were a few ill advised policy swerves or at least nods towards improving living standards via the socialist mechanism of market distorting government price controls but otherwise the message was essentially " Restoration of  the economy is long haul work in progress,- give us another 5 years in 2015". It echoed a slogan of 20 or more years ago "Life's better under the Conservatives,- Don't let Labour ruin it". It wasn't exactly a new theme.

Perhaps that's the real feeling coming out of all the party conferences. There was a "Back to the future" thread. Nothing really new, no exciting new thinking or visions, managerial rather than inspirational leadership styles, just choose which of the above bores or frightens you least. That makes for a pretty dull choice. The north will mainly say Ed, the south Dave and the largest number of the scattered remainder Nick. UKIP will do well in what are seen as the single issue May 2014 European Parliament elections but are likely to fade by 2015 although they could cost the Tories some crucial marginals. Scotland, ah Scotland. It was once the home of a good number of Conservative seats but that seems long ago. Even one seat is almost a miracle now. Tory mathematicians, or anyone who just understands sums, might think "If they could vote "Yes" to Uhuru and Westminster could be shot of their MPs by 2020 then the whole game changes in our favour". They should not allow this idea to delude them though. Both countries are enriched and strengthened by the union, even if the English do have to pay for/subsidise it. England the Brave.

The Great American Shutdown- A Trans-Atlantic Twiga's view.

Are you mystified as to what is going on in the USA ? The people who lost the Presidential Election appear to be trying to hold to ransome the people who did. In so doing they negate the idea of democracy (for which they originally fought hard) by bringing the state aparatus as close to a standstill as they can. Next up will be the powers to increase national borrowing needed to fund ongoing expenditure. Apart from undermining the country's status as a long term trusted borrower, these measures will risk putting many citizens out of work, stop their pay and social security cheques and thereby threaten their livelihoods and homes. That doesn't seem to make any kind of sense for any political party.

While on this side of the Atlantic we shake our heads ,Twiga's North American fellow long necked quadripede, Andrew Lloyd-Williams, throws some light on the dismal scene of short term politics at its worst.

He comments...

Under the shutdown all government departments are required to furlough all employees unless the department has alternative sources of funding or the employees are "exempt",- ie performing emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or performing other types of exceptional work (See http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf ).

Each department decides which employees are exempt so decisions will vary.Often the choice is a political one-furloughing more employees creates a bigger backlash against whoever is blamed for the shutdown. There are some useful details at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/union-faa-furloughs-airline-safety-inspectors-20427311 and at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/boeing-dreamliner-risks-certification-delay-on-shutdown.html.

It is only a matter of time before the shutdown causes a death. Then Congress will face being called murderers. It is clear already that if a vote were held the hiatus would be over. However the Tea Party extremists seem to have so much sway over the House Speaker, Republican John Boehner, that he won't allow a vote on a clean bill to bring the affair to an end. This has to be about as dumb as it gets. The Republican House members polled fewer votes than the Democrats in the 2012 elections and they only control the House because voting districts have been gerrymandered to create safe seats for Republicans,- and some Democrats as well. This not only results in Republican control of the House with fewer votes, but also means that those members in safe seats can be as stupid as they like without the risk of being voted out. (Not very different from some scenarios in the UK where its significance may be substantial after the 2015 election). This is how the Tea Party came to exist.

 The obstructors though are on a losing wicket. The number of moderate Republicans pushing for an end to the shutdown is growing and it is likely that they will be able to force a vote within a few days. Boehner can't hold out if he sees the Republican party disintegrating. Next up if the situation is unresolved, is the even bigger potential crisis,-the debt limit. If an increase isn't approved by around 17th October the US Government won't be able to pay its bills. The first move will probably be to start holding up things like Social Security cheques and the point would soon be reached where the government would default on bond holders. Then all hell would break loose .Interest rates would go through the roof , the defecit would balloon due to higher interest payments and everything the Republicans have been fighting for,- starting with lower defecits,-would be a pipe dream, a sure way of shooting themsleves in both feet ( Twiga comment,-As a separate and side issue, really shouldn't  they bring in some form of gun control even if just to avoid this possibility?)

There you have it. Watch this potentially self destructive space.

Meanwhile in another neck of the woods there must be joy in BP that a US court (the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans)  has ruled in favour of them not having to pay out on bogus or fraudulent claims for damage relating to the 2010  Gulf of Mexico oil spill. For some reason most people will have thought inexplicable,  the Administrator of the fund sent up to compensate those affected by the spill had previously though otherwise.

The USA at its best is a great country and does great things. Amongst other things it has given more people more opportunities than has any other nation on earth. At times though we have to shake the heads at the top of our long necks in mystification at its capability to do some rather extraordinary things which lead us again to hear the twin reports of a double barreled shotgun facing footwards.

The UK political party's conference season is under way.

Yes, the Party hats are out again, and the bars of some of Britain's resort town hotels can hear the cash registers ringing way into the early hours and the occasional bed spring or two is in for a bit of illicit pounding "for the sake of the Party".

What's happening?

Our MPs have been back from their summer hols for a couple of weeks and enjoying getting back to the cheapo catering and liquid refreshment subsidised by the grateful public. This little session is always a bit of a false dawn though as it's only slipped in to occupy their time between putting the kids back in school and bunking off again for a further month for the party conference season.

This jolly annual romp starts off with the Trade Unions having their ritual rant on behalf of much hyped downtrodden masses against anything other than full time firing-proof full time employment . That is the sort of employment most likely to appeal to union fans. Not for them the evils of flexible working, zero hours contracts and all those sorts of things which have opened the way to new jobs and opportunities which employers can afford to create. Not for them either is any form of economy-strengthening restraint on wages or public sector spending. Why after all should they be interested in a more prosperous society. Happier, less disgruntled people are bad for unions and their quest for power in politics and over peoples' lives. Not good at all. Appropriately enough the scowling brothers and sisters, or comrades as many still call themselves out of reverence for glorious old heroes like Joe (Stalin) and similar pillars of liberal free thinking democracy, gathered in Bournemouth for their snarlfest ,the UK's best known resort for the elderly. It's famous for its sedate tea dances and must be more comfortable than the good old real working class northern resort of Blackpool. No deprivation or discomforts on the south coast for the well heeled leadership and maybe less well heeled delegates. Plenty in Blackpool.Upsetting place. Better not to go there.  Anyway, that's over now. Nobody can remember much about what transpired there but at least it was briefy good for end of season hotel occupancy.


The Green Party, led by Sydney-born Natalie Bennett whom likes to talk about "our" NHS as a glittering success not to be interfered with by the rapacious private sector even if they might do some good to the high cost and inconsistently performing monopololistic monolith. They gathered in Brighton which will have minimised evil emisions-generating travel although at least the 50 mile line to the city from London  is electric. Whatever went on at the gathering we hope that someone was listening. Whatever was said got drowned out in the media by things Syrian.


Next up are the LibDems,currently in Glasgow to show pre independence referendum solidarity with Scotland . Dear old Vince Cable hasn't quite got the message about displays of unity either with the tories who he clearly dislikes or his own leader but he has at least been prevailed upon not to miss significant sessions or votes. Otherwise , including the beareded and sandled ones, they are displaying their wares , wringing their hands (That is what they do )and preparing for a second term of junior membership of a coalition government in 2015. Like Vince, few  of them care much for their existing partners but to his credit their leader, Nick Clegg is doing his best to herd the cats away from the red-is-best cliff edge.  For the Tories being in bed with this outfit is like having your own inbuilt opposition out to hobble you before the people on the benches opposite get their chance. Given even the slimmest of majorities neither of the major parties would touch the LibDems, leaving them instead to resume their preferred role of a mildly irritating protest group best largely ignored. Their agenda appears to be to support things the majors mainly don't, -eg uncontrolled immigration, not kicking out known unpleasant people and that sort of thing. This may not get them to where they want to be,- holders of the balance of power and an essential coalition partner to one or other of the majors.

Once the LibDems have done their talking and socialising and enjoyed some liberal evenings on the way,  New-Old Labour takes its place on stage. They too are heading for the delights of Brighton, just down the line from Westminster. Here Red Ed ,fresh from recent failed duplicity over the Commons' Syrian vote needs to make his mark after a lacklustre, or lack anything much , summer.  His move to curb some of the excesses of union power over the party is far more courageous than he is given credit for. The status quo under which the unions by virtue of a fiction which gives them 50% of the voting power of "Conference" and dominance over the MPs and the constituencies in the leadership elections has to be changed if the party is to have any credibility as being in any way truly democratic. Blair, for all his bluster, did not take the issue on and nor did Brown who almost certainly saw little objectionable in how things were. Ed Miliband should have driven the change immediately after the 2012 election. Leaving it until now has weakened his hand , not least as there is little time to organise alternative funding for the party ahead of the May 2015 election. Already increasingly seen as weak and easily portrayable as being afraid to take the paymaster unions on, if he backs off now he will be condemned as gutless. If he pushes on he may well bancrupt the party unless there is quick agreement on the unpopular idea of state funding for all the political parties. He is truly between a rock (and not a stick of the Brighton stuff though he should be wary of any union official with any of that in their hand) and a hard place.

The grand finale, if not the peak, of the season then follows when the Conservative Party meets in Manchester, thereby demonstrating either its deep affinity with the industrial north west or that it knows where there's brass or that someone has told its leaders that at least they need to be seen far to the north of the M25. David Cameron is, despite the toff image and Labour's oft shouted "out of touch" epithet continuing to limit his popular appeal still ahead of the other two leaders in the "Who makes the best Prime Minister " polls. "None of the above" probably leads the verdicts but he does at least come out as least  unpopular. Clegg is seen as simply rather limp wristed and Miliband as a London geek. For the Tories the 2015 electoral mathematics are problematical. Their coalition non-partners, the Lib Dems  have in a hissy fit  prevented the correction of the constituency sizes which , all things being equal, means that they have to work far harder to secure an overall majority than does Labour. Their new challenge this time around will come from having UKIP out on their right flank and potentially taking away their more right wing and anti-EU voters. The Conference task therefore will be to keep the latter on board while not frightening off those who may see the less robust stances of the LibDems more to their liking. They will probably come away saying that both wings are well catered for but the electorate may be less convinced.

In short this is the kickoff of the 2015 General Election campaign. There is no party or leader with a big or inspiring vision of a glorious or even much better future to set the contest alight. The shades are only of grey and far from exciting. Reading the book of that name will probably give more fun. The least bad or at best the least objectionable candidate and party, whoever that is,  may win,-and even then they may be compelled to do a coalition deal with a setup which this time around has shown itself to be a less than collegiate and helpful partner. The ball is in play . All need to up their game, get out of policy minutiae and jump higher for the prize.

Syria- The world rocks on.

Politics' sudden explosion into life after a quiet summer and even sillier than usual media silly season continues,- and with it the unfortunate high risk of further explosions in Syria, followed by nobody knows what.

There are two threads here. First the philosophical one of what happens if the leaders of the world's leading democracies are constrained in their defence of the democratic ideal by....democracy. This happened in the Commons debate on Britain joining in a punitive military strike on Syria. It may well happen in the Congressional response on Tuesday to Obama's proposal. What if their answer on behalf of the American people is a also a "No" and the President doesn't override it? Or if he does go ahead, he is successfully impeached later, something that would in reality hobble Presidential freedom of action in the future? We would have the position where the dictators and grossly unpleasant governments of world would have nothing to fear from continuing to behave badly and oppressively and in doing so threaten the peace and good governance of others. How then is freedom defended and how and when could there be intervention to say "Enough is enough"? There are occasions when only force can avoid the continuation or extension of tyranny, but given the reluctance of most democratic electorates to go along with military action how do we ever get to use it before the invasion fleet sets sail across the Channel?

That is the big issue ,- and it is a huge one.

Secondly there is the immediate question of Syria. Obama is straining at the leash to punish someone for the chemical attacks and the resultant 1,400 deaths. Cameron was before he accepted being handcuffed by the Commons reflecting remarkably accurately the feelings of the British people of "This isn't one for us" ,heightened by a lack of clarity about what the desired outcome really was/is.

Obama, surprisingly for a relatively pacifist Democrat, is now out on a limb and may see himself as having to loose off a salvo or several just to avoid being seen as weak. This, meaning action for action's sake, is a dangerous postion for him to be in and isn't healthy for anyone else either.

The proposed attack seems to have grown from being one by a few carefully selected cruise missiles to a much bigger one involving a selection of aircraft including even veteran B52s, a weapons delivery system not known for its pinpoint accurancy. The objective appears to be to try to destroy as much of Assad's military capabilty as possible so as to level the playing field and give a host of disparate and desparate rebel groups a better chance of a rather shambolic and certainly brutal victory.  Nobody has any idea of who may eventually come out on top and how or what might follow. Any notions of "moderate" or "liberal" rebels riding in and setting up a Westminster style debating chamber in which the negotiate and settle their differences are pure fantasy. As in Iraq, nasty as the Assad dynasty may have been to some ,regime change of itself is likely to see more dead Syrians than if the status quo had continued. Also as in Iraq, let's not forget that the Ba'ath regime has been secular and that minorities, including Christians, have been protected and lived in peace. That's not going to be the case in any post Assad scenario.

At this stage there is absolutley no clarity about anything if or when the Assad regime is toppled. Nobody, including Obama and Cameron, has declared what the desired future state is or how it might be achieved. All that is on offer is the killing of more Syrians to avenge the loss and manner of death of the 1,400 killed in the chemical attack. It may well be impossible to prove who actually did deploy the chemicals. Although there is a reasonable presumption that government forces were to blame, it isn't proven whether these were mainstream of renegade on a frolic of their own or alternatively whether a rebel group used a conventional attack (which certainly did happen at the time) as a cover for releasing gas in a limited area. Against that background we are not even sure who we are punishing . The only certainty is that, whoever was responsible, we are making life easier for the rebel groups in general.

Are there any definate or near definate outcomes we can see from a) Obama's punitive strike and b) its aftermath? Well yes, there are....

a) From the strike:

- A lot of Syrians will be killed. Most likely that will include non combatants, women and children. Does that help anyone?
- If manned aircraft are deployed, Syria's Russian-supplied defence systems may ensure that they don't all return to base. This isn't a turkey shoot like Libya.
-A once working infrastructure will be further degraded, its eventual reconstruction leaving an economic drag on growth which reduce the funds available for creating a long term more prosperous and more stable society.

b) From the aftermath/regime change.

- The current Middle Eastern ( and sometimes our own) view of democracy is that winner takes all. hence in Egypt, Morsi felt he could run off with the Islamacist ball despite the slimmest of majorities. A military coup followed. Back to square minus a few. Didn't we do well in suppporting/encouraging the Arab Spring?
-The results of winner takes all will include the losers being hit hard/killed . This is one incentive for Assad and his supporters to keep peddling. If they lose they can't look forward to living to a ripe old age in homes for the elderly.
-Assuming Assad loses, that will be the end of the secular state.
-Minorities stuck in the middle will be crushed.  Goodbye Christians.

That, in a nutshell or two, is where the world is now and where it will head if Obama presses the "GO" button this week. Beyond these few things , nobody knows where "action" will lead, who will react and how and where that in turn will lead. There is no defined end point or even a vision of one. It's all very interesting but very dangerous. It seems along time since a fortnight ago when the biggest risk of  the day was Cameron changing his trunks on a Cornish beach.

Fog around Syria.

The pre-weekend confusion has given way to a weekend of pundits and politicians going around in ever decreasing circles trying to find angles, horrors and all the things that make good stories. Despite a lot of hype, few are being successful.

Many are tediously looking for "What this means for Cameron", or "What this means for Miliband" rather than what the rather confused scene now means to the Syrians, global politics and what happens next. Domestic political advantage is sought above all else. Did Miliband land a killer blow (almost by mistake) by his duplicity or has he made himself a pressure plate landmine? Probably neither. Politics move on fast and all this, like Syria itself if we are not careful, will soon be buried in sand, only of course to be tediously dragged up again for the next General Election's "Yah Boo,- Yes you did" ,"No I didn't" sessions.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic, Obama, seemingly poised and ready to press the start button, turned the safety key by backing off and refering the "Go, no go" question to a highly unpredictable Congress who, unlike the British Parliament recalled early, do not return from their hols until next week. Surely the possibility of the US missiles being joined by one or two from France wasn't that bad a deterrent?  Maybe he did think Cameron had adopted a game changing recipe good for democracy or maybe he just wanted more time to see what the UN investigators and anyone else had actually found out about the chain of command which unleashed the chemical attack in Syria. It would be very embarrasssing if it were found to be a renegade army group without Assad's backing, however unlikely that may seem.

A week or so from now Obama will have Congress's verdict. Like Cameron, that does not stop him going ahead with a punitive attack if he decides to do so. At the moment the odds look as if he just might. Certainly Kerry's rhetoric would point that way.

Restoring some kind of sanity to the whole issue is essential. Throwing more weapons about, blowing up more people, buildings and infrastructure only means more recriminations and expensive reconstruction later. Bombing a country backwards in time makes no sense. Long term peace requires prosperity not poverty. It needs fully functioning villages, towns, cities and states. Bombing the place back to where it was years ago is counter productive and socially and politically dangerous. Syria's plea today to the UN for protection against western aggression is understandable even if it is read as purely tactical. It asks the UN a question it is unlikely to want or be able to answer: "Whose side are you on?" With Russia, China. Syria and Iran in one corner and the rest of the world spread around several others a unified response looks impossible. If Assad were to convene a meeting of the warring parties that would be a very smart move and take the wind out of the "Bomb them" sails. On past performance, he is unlikely to see such a move as necessary in a world where political power means winner takes all. It takes a very well entrenched democratic tradition to move on from that notion to the idea that the winner also has a duty to look after all its constituents rather than just the winning faction. After all, we've been in the democracy business for a few hundred years but can't yet claim unfailing and consistent success in this field.

The more one probes into the murky and complex depths of the Syrian crisis, the less clear cut are any of the issues or solutions. Rhetoric, emotional moralising, and militant stances have led us to where we are,- and that is currently a sea of confusion.

More to come..................

Stop Press- Syria Update. Miliband spots the political gap.

Just as this morning we predicted he might, Labour leader Ed Miliband has spotted the possible big political gap to go for and sharply differentiate between the government and opposition's positions on a punitive strike on Syria . The very tempting possibilty of defeating David Cameron's belicose proposals in tomorow's Commons debate has loomed into his field of view. He must see the opportunity as just too good to miss, whatever he believes are the merits of the case. That's raw politics.

 He has had no qualms in doing this cartwheel or handbrake turn from his broadly supportive position position after 10 Downing Street put their hands around his shoulders and went through the evidence and allegedly moral arguments so far with him yesterday. Unless he accepts a bit of a fudge it is unlikely that his demands for more conclusive proof of who was responsible for the chemical attack can be met. There is therefore the real possibility of Labour voting against the government.

If Labour can now bring through the "no" lobby with them other unconvinced , questioning or firmly hostile MPs in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrats and the fringe parties, they could  defeat the Prime Minister's motion. Until at least the 1960s,  democratic and parliamentary convention on an issue as major as this would have meant that the losing PM would respond with words along the lines of :" I will take my case to the country" and it would be game over. Parliament would have been dissolved and a new General Election would have taken place in the mercifully short minimum time of three weeks. The country would have pronounced its verdict and in the meantime no action would have been possible.

Such honourable and genuinely democratic action is now highly unlikely from any party. The convention has lapsed and been ignored more than once. A defeat would though leave the Prime Minister with a very public international and domestic black eye, particularly if, as seems likely, he has already done a Blair and guaranteed Britain's support for action to President Obama. Constitutionally he could still proceed. He is entitled to do that. The price though, especially if things went wrong and/or the punitive mission were not self contained or involved substantial civilian fatalities and damage, could be terminal to both Mr Cameron and his government.

And as we said earlier today, all Mr Cameron had to worry about a week ago was keeping his beach towel in place while he wriggled around publicly changing his swimming trunks. Maybe he will begin to wish he were back there by that rock. The majority of the electorate are back there already. Has nobody told him?

Flashman at the Charge.....

Only a week ago, in man -of -the people mode on a Cornish beach, our dear leader offered an unecessary and risky photo opportunity just yards from his rented accomodation by executing a change of beachwear while wrapped in a beach towel. The end of the long school holidays was coming into sight, there was a tinge of autumn about the early morning air and the real New Year when schools and parliament (behaviourally they have much in common) reassemble was nigh. "Oh God our help in ages past..." would soon be sung throughout the land.

Now, a week later that hymn seems even more appropriate. The local TV news continues its ever rolling stream of murders, rapes, burglaries and the rest as if all were normal. The national and international screens and pages though show dramatic and fast gathering dark clouds. Things have suddenly changed .There is real danger about, even if everyday life in Britain continues almost oblivious of it.  Many may not have noticed but Flashman has replaced beach man. We would have been safer if he hadn't.

The trigger to the American and British leaders' furrowed brows and outrage has been the murder of 400 Syrians in a chemical attack orchestrated seemingly by President Assad. Whether or not he is the guilty party has not yet been ascertained,- and may never be. On the face of it he has the least reason to use such weapons. He would be well aware that the US reaction in particular could see his residences and other places reduced to heaps of rubble. More likely would be their use by one of the assorted rebel factions in an attempt to discredit the regime. This though is the Levantine Middle East where bluff, double and triple bluff can all be part of the tapestry. It is always difficult to ascertain who is really up to what and where the intertwined or conflicting threads lead. British embassies have moved away from diplomacy towards trade and aid (the dreaded DFiD).  As spookery has at the same time moved away from human towards electronic activity, getting a three dimensional feel for what is going on out of sight is more difficult than it used to be. Having multiple layers of ears and eyes in the world's embassies, government offices and oppositions, down through to coffee shops, hosteries, meeting places where people meet ,talk and speculate right down to the very lowest levels of society was a very good recipe for getting real fixes on the realities . It minimised the risk of dangers of disinformation coming from all kinds of disparate groups and interests being wrongly accepted as the truth. Nothing beats being able to differentiate between the good, the bad and the downright ugly.

Death from a chemical attack is particularly unpleasant. For this reason the deployment of chemical weapons has become the boundary between so far "acceptable", even if grisly, deaths of 200,000 + people in Syria and 400 in this event. This red line was created by Obama and despite encouragment from Cameron he may well be regretting it. It will though be difficult to get himself off this uncomfortable hook now. It is understandable emotionally but not logically. A death is a death. Dying by being buried alive when a cruise missile hits the building you are in ,- as will almost certainly happen ,- is at least as awful and grim. We are prepared to do that in the name of morality. It being our missile makes it all different.

The UK's Flashman is seemingly on an adrenaline fuelled roll. He is leading the charge to the UN today seeking a mandate for military action. Most other nations are understandably and prudently silent. France, with its long standing interests and involvement in Syria, is said to be with us but where are they? The American military, once let off the leash is always up for a scrap. It avoids them being cut down in size and influence, so what is there for them not to like about a new "initiative"?

From the point of view of domestic politics, both Obama and Cameron are moving out onto an exposed limb with all this, and Cameron especially so. In the USA Obama may please the opposition Republicans far more than his own party. In the UK Cameron may not please anybody very much. Certainly straw polls show 60+% of the British population as not favouring yet another Middle East intervention. Two dismal ones have been enough. Out of step with many in his own party ,Clegg is likely to coat tail behind Cameron with a few mumbled caveats "Just the one strike" etc to give himself partial rear end coverage later. Ed Miliband is the man with the biggest dilemma,- and opportunity. If he were bold and brave he would come straight out with an "Absolutely No" to any proposal for military intervention. He would say that we have to wean the Middle East,- and other parts of the world,-off the notion that the UK or the west or anyone else will ride to the rescue once any conflict reaches a certain level of nastiness. (Even here we are selective. We have stood by and watched,- and continue to do so,- even worse things in Africa). Foreigners will never be thanked for their interventions, even when they go well. Close to home is France eternally grateful for British assistance in two World Wars? Miliband could establish clear water here between Labour and its rivals. Apart from ruthlesly elbowing his brother though, he has not so far shown himself to be a man of great courage. He may therefore fear the risk of being handed a white feather especially if the "initiative" went well more than he relishes the idea of being the man who said "No" all along if it goes badly. It's likely therefore that he will go along with the coalition in tomorrow's Commons debate and vote but hedge his position with a lot more rear end protection than Clegg does. Such is the stature of our politicians.

The notion of a single or short series of punitive strikes on Syria is absurd and dangerous. Agaqin, it presumes that our moral Tomahawk missiles are different from Syria's immoral chemicals although the results are just as nasty and on past performance just as random. Innocent people who simply want to get on with their lives in normal homes, villages, towns and cities rather than ruined wastelands which will cost years and billions to rebuild are likely to be killed in our display of moral outrage. Our leaders may feel good but will the newly bereived and the maimed or dispossessed who are the supposed beneficiaries?  We will have wiped clean our consciences. They will have paid the price. Does it all make any sense? Punitive missions to teach foreigners a lesson are a throwback to a long gone age.

There is no guarantee that this will be a one off event. What if Syria retaliates? It has substantial and well equipped armed forces. Air defence systems come courtesy of Russia. Unless these are destroyed  any Tornado or other invading aircraft may not to come back. Are we ready for that?  What if Syria fires a missile or several into Israel who then retaliates against Syria and one of its other suppliers, Iran? And then Iran................?  The potential nightmare is obvious and yet Cameron pontificates as if there were no question about it not all being over by the weekend and, allowing strife in Syria just to return to the normal higher, but morally acceptable, attrition rate courtesy of  AK47s, bombs, and routine murders by all sides. None of the contestants is likely to be remotely democratic or even pro-western. Life, strife and illiberalism will continue as before until there is some kind of a negotiated settlement or there is nobody left standing.

Why therefore are we, on this pleasant pre-autumnal afternoon, facing a possibly diabolical September and real New Year? Everyone, including David Cameron, was safer when he was just taking off his swimmers on a Cornish beach. At least then he was almost certainly wearing a hidden safety garment underneath it all then in case it all went wrong. Now he's not. That means we aren't either.

UK under threat- Official. The Met Office says so. But there is right Royal good news too.

Life in Britain this summer is ever on a meterorological knifedge.

Thank goodness for Government warnings, blue, green red, yellow, amber,- more colours on offfer than in an Italian ice cream shop. Their meanings range from " Go outside and flee (Floods like you've never seen before are on the way) ,It is safe to go outside (It will be cloudy, and dull but not rain much ,-ie standard UK) to " On no account go outside" (It will be warm and sunny). Once upon a time weather forecasts were reliably factual, to be interpreted by the individual brains of "ordinary people" (Milibandspeak for "dim plebs"). Most seemed to survive to more or less the going average lifespan for their age group . Could we now though get by without the Gummnt telling us what to do?

Probably inspired by the US 24 hour a day weather channels and their breathlessly excited pronouncements of "Have we got a storm for you", followed by "Wow, that one went away",our weather media has been trying to sex up its act. Gone are the boring old lags who knew their trade professionally and  give or take the odd hurricane,were normally pretty much right. When they were wrong it didn't matter too much because nobody regarded it as much more than a weighted bet anyway. In have come generally much better looking presenters .Although their knowledge of the subject  may be a little sketchy and their role is to point at a map and trot out what a script or their earpiece says, they do look nice.

So far we have survived Summer 2013 and just have August to get through until shock horror forecasts of the direst of winters start coming thick and fast. Only the thick and slow should pay too much attention.

While we have all been glued to the 24 hour channels to see how imminent is our doom, we have had the alternative breathless reporting from outside a hospital,outside a palace and inside a few studios. The subject?  Goings on, -and not,- in the unfolding story of the royal pregnancy, royal birth, royal naming, royal breakfast,lunch, tea , room. Some news channel crews had been camped outside this hospital for three weeks. There are some terrible jobs in this world. The moment that the Duchess went into the hospital triggered the most entertaining marathon of pass the parcel commentating between the lead correspondents standing outside the hospital ("Nothing happening here Bill "), the colleague standing outside "Palace" ("Nothing happening here Bill") back to the anchor ("Nothing happening here but we haven't got anything else covered so back to you outside the hospital"). For sheer vacuousness it was a 48 hour  classic.

To get away from Hospital, Palace and Studio one had to switch to Al Jazeera, the channel which now far outperforms our domestic offerings for real global news coverage. Way back in the 1970s the Reuter teletype news drops in lobbies around the world started displacing dear old Auntie. Those have now given way to the Doha and even a Russia based 24 hour TV alternatives. BBC World still dominates much of the non American English speaking world's radio news listening but its long established left of centre stance has always clouded its objectivity.Unfortunately most of non coastal America has little interest in much beyond its borders even if it knows there is anything out there.

The good thing is that the British come out of the week without having to worry about at least the next 80 or so years of royal succession and we won't have to further discuss the merits of a Queen during most of our lifetimes. Pity really. This one has done very well despite having seemingly been in a quick-frozen time warp since the day of her accession in 1952. In fact, aided by the always entertaining Duke, she seems to do better by the day. Her workload is incredible for an 87 year old even if it is achieved with a substantial backup team covering almost all aspects of her life. Whether people like the idea of a monarchy or not they have to admit that her and the Duke's work ethic and devotion to duty regardless of discomfort (Remember the boat procession up the Thames during last year's Jubilee procession?) is an outstanding role model for anyone of any age anywhere in the world.

We have more to look forward to this summer. Our post Olympic sporting prowess has continued on a roll. Often capable of losing anything right up the the last (legal) kick, ball, or yard, we have beaten the Ozzies on the rugby pitch and look as if we could do the same in cricket. Thanks to the Scottish lad becoming British we have won Wimbledon and thanks to the Kenyan one also becoming British we have also triumped in the Tour de France. We will be able to go into the autumn and winter with sporting heads held high..... Then there is the England football team and remainder of the European Cup qualifiers. Oh dear.  

UK Transport policies in the slow lane? No.

Regrettably not.

Almost all transport plans and developments are not in any lane. 

They are stuck in the car park.

A few lesser ones , mainly on the railways are under way, but many haven't even got to the decision making stage or, beyond that , starting the planning process. They are firmly in the car park and not even at the exit.

Why?

Scene: The Prime Minster's office:

Sir Howard Davies (Leader of the Airports Commission, due to make its recommendations on London capacity in 2015 despite a list of options being published this year):

"We've got the submissions from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Sir. We've also got our own work on alternatives like White Waltham , Haddenham and a few others ".(Why is Roskill 1973- recommmended Wing/Cublington never mentioned?). "We could put the whole lot together and make our recommendations this year if you like".

PM: "What is there about Not Before The 2015 General Election that you don't understand ? Once that's out of the way we can do anything we like, -and if we can't Labour will do it anyway. They were on the brink of going ahead at Heathrow but we put a stop to that. Think of that, we would be doing something -the diggers would be in right now. Terrible. Go away and waste some more time like you were told to do".

           "Sorry sir. My mistake, See you,-or someone,- in 2015."

Meanwhile over at HS 2, Britain's planned second domestic high speed railway line, a hybrid bill to enable building to start needs to start its journey through parliament this autumn if it is to be passed in the lifetime of this government.If it isn't completed by May 2015 it will have to start again. At the moment there is no sign of the required urgency. In the meantime the very well planned and orchestrated opposition lobby centred in the Chilterns ,through which all but 3.1 of  its 12.4 mile passage will be in expensive tunnels or cuttings, is steadily ploughing ahead and building opposition into a sort of dinner party fashion amongst public figures despite its objectives being primarily parochial even when wrapped in a respectable cover of national interest . The need for more track and line capacity is immediate and there are no real options . 

Processes for transport projects are glacial and most are opposed and fought all the way. Even minor schemes face up to six years of planning processes, hearings, appeals and judicial reviews .Talk of building infrastructure and capacity for future generations cuts little ice in the Treasury or amongst opponents.

Very little other than filling in about £10 bn worth of potholes on the roads is immediately shovel ready . Even there money is squandered by botch filling rather than proper lasting repairs. Africa learned pothole repairing techology decades ago. First world UK doesn't yet seem to understand it.

As for major road strategy and development, a major programme of improvements has been announced . Much of it is along the routes Airnthere outlined on 1st July. It would focus more on upgrading single carriageway A roads to near motorway dual carriageway standards than building new motorways but it would do great things for the areas concerned. "Not so fast" retort the "Say No To.." groups. Any improvement anywhere near to a national park, the Lake District, the Norfolk Broads, the South Downs or "area of outstanding natural beauty" is claimed to be "devastating" it even if it just goes around the edges as do all of the projects concerned .The A595 doesn't cut through the lakes . It improves access to them but goes around the  struggling Cumbrian Coast . The A47 from Acle to Yarmouth  is already there , improves access to some of the broads country and especially to run down, drab Yarmouth . It doesn't wreck the Broads . Similarly the A27/259  runs to the north of the South Downs, improves access to them and benefits east-west coastal traffic, access to the Channel tunnel and gives a string of towns an economic boost.  It does nothing to the downs themselves. Unblocking the bottleneck to going to depressed Hastings by dualling its lst 20 miles is claimed to be destroying the Weald and ancient woodlands of Kent and Sussex. It would do nothing of the sort but would boost employment in Hastings. And so it goes on nationwide.  These and other depressed areas need all the help they can get to boost their economies, remove barriers to business and trade and to create large numbers of new jobs.  Many feet are though out to trip them up.

Unfortunately for the UK ,the opposing well heeled "Say no To.." groups, the tortuous planning processes and general inertia and lack of courage in Whitehall and Parliament all conspire to make even the opening of a village bypass a very long process. As result,despite some bold declarations of intent, promising billions to be spent ,not a lot of the big things are actually  happening. Fortunately a few smaller ones are. For  that we can thank pure dogged determination or ,occasionally, stealth. The biggest missing ingredients are political courage and Whitehall's abilty to do anything quickly and simply. It's just not part of the culture.

It's end of term!- and a look ahead.

Yes, Parliament broke up for the summer hols last Friday . Those MPs who weren't already off "working from home", or somebody else's home,departed for the 6 week break before they return to tidy up unfinished business before starting again for real in October. That's just in time for Christmas. The new political season marks the beginning of 18 months countdown to the May 2015 General Election . Things could get a bit fractious. In 2010, despite the coalition with the Lib Dems, David Cameron quickly moved away any ideas of a more mature, cooperative type of parliamentary politics. This was a serious missed opportunity .One result of that is that the approach to the election is more likely to be bitter and destructive trench warfare with ground savagely fought over inch by inch  and much Question Time shouting rather than the period of calm and just getting things done that many of the electorate would prefer (and which would win Cameron votes). The 2015 result is anybody's guess. Polling figures generally point to a Labour win, possibly with a reasonable overall majority but other indications question that. Few see Ed Miliband as a credible Prime Minister and while there is no love for Cameron he emerges as the better of the two from that respect. Clegg doesn't feature as anything but a possible and irritating partner of either party in a new coalition. Neither wants him or the LibDems but may have to put up with them to achieve an overall majority.

Among  many "Too difficult" items left strewn around the table as the boys and girls headed gleefully to the exits were Syria, Egypt (What to do? Answer,-which should appeal,-nothing), HS 2 (Answer,- stop dithering and letting its opponents have a ball ,- go build it), London airport runways (Answer- build 2 more where they need to be-Heathrow). The overall advice to Mr Cameron would be to get a grip on loose ends, state the Government's position clearly and firmly and LEAD. On Syria this is difficult. The sensible advice of "Sit this one out" seems to have been heeded, but now we are told that Mrs C is pushing the the idea of more involvement across the kitchen supper table at Number 10. We wait to see what the summer's sunlounger talk will produce.

Away from our shores BP continues to get a pasting from the lawyers and others in the USA. Encouraged by a naive, if well meaning,open cheque book approach ,it seems that an almost endless queue of claimants is lining up by the day. No doubt some are genuine but.... BP are alarmed that the administration of the scheme, entrusted to "independent" American lawyers feels like it's getting out of hand. Their appeal to a US Court to get some of the alleged deficiencies investigated and sorted has been rejected. Well, what a surprise. Did they, as a foreign company,ever expect to win that one? What if they have to sell some of their assets to pay for all this compensation,- who would buy? Could it just be that they would be snapped up by US rivals at distress sale prices ? If it came to that one could only hope that just desserts were handed out by late and succesful bids from Russia, China or any of those countries who don't have a special relationship with the USA.

The Gulf of Mexico folk aren't the only ones lining up hopefully for compensation for alleged past sins by perfidious Albion. Fair enough we have been and remain pretty perfidious .We have had our moments of deviousness and still do, but that doesn't mean we stand guilty of all accusations at all times since the beginning of time. Just how far back is it reasonable and sensible to go back with recriminations, demands for compensation,or apologies? The British Government has paid up for alleged atrocities against the Mau Mau, probably more to avoid an even longer and more drawn out process  involving much time and large payments to lawyers. Flushed with that success one Kenyan tribe is considering claims for alleged misdeeeds in the 1890s. (The same Mau Mau "veterans" have yet to offer compensation to the large numbers of fellow Kenyans they tortured or killed). Don't we have something on the Romans, Danes, French and others who at various times in history laid waste to or seized much of our property, at the same time as vastly increasing our gene pool?

Many current conflicts could be avoided if all concerned agreed to draw a line under the past, especially the past of more than 5 years ago and agreed simply that "Things happened. Now though is the time to get over it, move on and not be burdened with the baggage of centuries.  The world would be a better place overnight."

That though is unlikely to happen. Many countries, racial groups, tribes , towns and even villages have rivalries, bitterness and hatred going back centuries .There are factions so devoted to settling old scores and perpetuating divisions that little else dominates their lives or gives them more satisfaction. Regrettably and contrary to all that any divine being or entity would surely want, many of these stem from the mainstream religions, their hieracrchies, and the conflict and intolerance between them as they fight for dominance on the one hand or survival on the other.

Another activity which holds back a better future is the constant glorification of past victories. This is a particularly British favourite. We do the ceremonials superbly, truly better than anyone else. The occasional one or two are fine but one fears for the arrival of 2014 . There will then be four years of it being a hundred years since every battle fought in World War 1. Are we going to relive it day by day to ensure that nobody's memory is left out?  If so ,once that's over it's not too long to wait until we can do the same with World War 2. The best way we can show our respect for past combatants of all sides is to use our skills , emotions and energies concentrating positively on the future.It was the future not the present that they were fighting for. That must have been their only source of inspiration or comfort as they faced often appalling conditions, day in and day out . They had no idea if they would see another day. They walked out to fighters, bombers, other aircraft, ships or ground combats knowing that not all of them would return. Parents, children, loved ones lived each day on the edge of an emotional nightmare. In WW 2 urban civilians knew that they and their families could be obliterated at any time. That's how they lived ,-and got on with their lives each day. The future is their memorial,not the past. One rock we should remember though is that they did what needed to be done regardless of danger or discomfort. The recent history of that culture is not so good.

(Unapologetic) Corporate Yuckspeak of the week...

The Post Office will make further improvement in this area and take better account of individual circumstances going forward"

-Paula Vennells, CEO, Post Office talking about changes to Post Office procedures/malfunctions of its computer system after they have been confirmed as a possible cause of eroneous statements of underpayments by sub postmasters which have cost some tens of thousands of pounds and even imprisonment.

Egypt,- Morsi on the brink.

Egyptian President Modammed Morsi and his country stands on the brink of disaster as result of his own intransigence and refusal to accept political realities. For a man of his standing and assumed intelligence this is a situation he should never have got into.

He and his party won the June 2012 Election, beating his opponent, Ahmed Shafik, by 51.7% to 48.3%, a sliver of a victory. Most would understand that this gave him mandate to govern almost as a neutral, holding the balance between the two parties rather than to seek to dominate by visibly pushing the interests and policies of his own Islamic Brotherhood's interests over those of the opposition. Unfortunately he has chosen not to. He has thereby compromised Egypt's fragile nascent democracy and risked anything up to and including civil war amongst its citizens. The degree of intolerance he has thus demonstrated is breathtaking and may well lead to the death of many Egyptians.

What the army now does and how it does it will now be crucial, but Morsi will stand responsible for having brought on their intervention. One can only hope for a sudden change of direction away from obstinate confrontation to one of reconciliation. Doing an about turn at the last minute is better than never doing it at all,- but there is a risk that having brought things to this pass it may already be too late for Mr Morsi,- and Egypt. Particularly by moving away from Egypt' secular based and tolerant politics and promoting his more religion based constitutional reforms, Morsi has sharply polarised rather than united his country. The Middle East needs more healing, not less. Egypt needs stability both for its people and its economy of which international foreign currency bearing tourism is a vital part and employer.

Iran in particular will be looking to see what opportunities for misbehavior and mischief  the Egyptian situation now presents. They are already busy in the destruction of Syria and have to be looking at opportunities to fan Turkey's moves away from Ataturk's outstandingly successful secularism. The last thing they need is encouragement to meddle in Egypt as well.

Go in peace.

Around the world in 80 seconds,- A timesaving snapshot of both UK domestic and global affairs.(Actually there are more than two).

First the non global:

All quiet on the UK home front. Big issues and courage to the fore. As we mentioned last week ,Dave won't say whether or not he would feed GM modified food eg "Gummerburgers" to his family. Now Nick, pale faced and looking his normal unhealthy self, says he has never knowingly done so. Pity. It might have brought some colour to his cheeks, if not his always ever-so-good politics.

Since then Dave been on tne international stomp, first to Afghanistan and then to the democratic state of Khazakstan. One always worries a bit about countries whose armies goose step and wear those massive Soviet/North Korean style hats designed to make small people look bigger and more menacing. Oddly none of them are paragons of democratic virtue. Funny that. In Afghanistan he said it might have been a good idea to talk to the Taliban ten years ago. Spot on,- at last. It's a pity though that his brief awayadays in both countries will not have allowed him time off for a bit of a breather and the opportunity to get just the slightest feel for what these countries and life in them might really be like.Sadly none of Britain's tender-hefted politicians seem to go on holiday or walkabout outside Europe. Maybe they just don't realise that sweeping along in a escorted bullet proof air conditioned limos one doesn't get much of a feel of even minor normal hassles like immigration desks and people in arrivals claiming to be your driver. It's a pity as even in the local Starbucks lookalike they might learn more than they do at the ritual state refreshments over the best clarets or Arabian coffees.

George's,- or is it Jeffrey's,- speech on how Britain is going to spend its borrowed money over the next few years contained little that wasn't reheated old stuff . Only the attempts at rhetoric, some of it excruciating and transparently bad, were new material. No surprises or excitement. Many departments such as Health, Education, and International Aid are largely ring fenced so it's they the (relatively) rich that gets the pleasure and the poor (all the others) that, in the words of the song best known to students and rugby players, gets the pain . Indeed, as that song goes on, it IS the same the whole world over. Labour won't have had any problems anticipating the text which meant that Mr Balls was able to proceed with his brief pre-secripted ritual rant in reply. He did not commend this budget to the house and nor was he likely to. That was George/Jeffrey's traditional job/sign off. Then it was subsidised lunchtime.

Now to the global:

Six thousand miles away, South Africa is facing anxious times. Killings of Afrikaaner farmers, now over 1,500 of them ,continue. They are largely unreported overseas. Nelson Mandela is not looking healthy and many of his family are fighting over all aspects of his legacy,- including the political. Most menacing of the contestants is his second wife Winnie who, apart from trying to rewrite some history, is now claiming that she has never ceased to love him dearly. Her political ambitions have certainly never died and nor have her feelings about the white population. Ominously she is talking again about disappointment about the slow pace of redistribution of wealth . Read the code carefully. ITN News which , from a supine position, interviewed her this week didn't read it all. As we say, some anxious times ahead,- and not just for the white population.

The American presidential visit to South Africa ,complete the very large motorcade and supporting vehicles which the US insists on flying in wherever he goes, went smoothly and largely successfully. Surprisingly Obama has paid little attention to Africa while China has been rapidly increasing its influence throughout the continent so his announcement of a Chinese style gathering of African leaders in America next year has been well received. Some African leaders have been getting nervous about becoming too closely bound to China and to deeply into debt with it. As they will know from Tanzania and Mozambique's experiences from the 1970s they can get into a situation where one debt leads to another and combined these can only be paid off by mortgaging ever increasing percentages of natural resources and future trade to China, leaving little with which to do business with the rest of the world. It's about as comfortable as a garotte and from an economic and political standpoint has a similar effect.

The Middle East rocks on,-literally. The West's darling "Arab Spring" which it naively thought would bring some sort of western style democracy to the Arab world  has in several places moved on to " Arab Autumn"  and in others joined Iraq and Afghanistan in heading for " Arab Winter" . Across the region, tens , thousands and now hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the conflicts which have followed the structural collapse, of like them or not,  formerly largely functioning states. Most of those killed have been civilians whose first priority in and for life is for them and their families to live day to day in peace and security in the safety of their homes and streets. They have never wanted to see mass carnage or the appalling destruction of personal property, houses and state infrastructure. Would the British like to live in a London  or anywhere else reduced to a pile of rubble? Would almost any political ideal , particularly a foreign one ,be worth it? Our leaders still toy with  "Doing Something" and the idea of sending more arms into a Syria already awash with cheap weapons where they can only add to the mayhem, killings and destruction. When the US and UK invaded a physically intact and secular Iraq to remove the admittedly odious Saddam Hussein, the cities, towns and villages of the Middle East and Gulf were functioning and  most people went about their lives in safety. Since then hundreds of thousands have died and a number of the cities, towns and villages converted into not much more than piles of bricks. Normality is suspended and replaced by constant fear of dispossession, injury or death. The secular states have veered towards or  become religion dominated ones. Haven't we done well?

Further afield, the knockabout world of Australian politics has had another knockabout. Three years ago the sheila Julia Gillard knifed Kevin Rudd the bloke. Now he's knifed her. Fair one might say but neither would perhaps be the electorate's favourite as leader. Neither though would be Tony Abbott the leader of the opposition. A truly democratic choice lies before the country in September 14th's General Election.

And back to the non global:

Wimbledon is into its second week. The Common Tim has of course long been replaced by the Common Andy who looks as if he is in with a chance, most of his big name rivals having slipped up in the first week. While he battles on,  the nation's TV screens do overtime and many employees don't. Next week we will be back to normal but never mind, GCSE's , A Levels and University finals are over and the long summer hols with staff continuously reduced by 30-40 % from mid July until early September beckon. For our elected representatives life is tougher. They have to put up with an even longer break until they really get going again. By then the 2015 General Election will only be 18 months away so maybe things will start to be less quiet and we will start to see some action or at least talk, their prefered option, on the real big issues .Whether or not anyone does or does not eat GM food may seem less important. 

Why he's losing it. Of rebels and GM cornflakes.

Is our Prime Minister spinning off the planet, - or too concerned about spinning on it.

First there was the meticulously spun G8 awayaday or two in Northern Ireland. Still backdrops for a photocall, faux tieless smart casual to show he and all present were people of ( some, unspecified) people . Add to that the local high street being spun up with a clever makeover making a closed shop look like a delicatessen for the supposedly prosperous locals. Then , when he had dealt with global businesses seeking the lowest legal tax regimes ,there was all the posing and posturing about Syria with a dose of moral intoning - or should we say In-Toning ?- about the need to send arms parcels to the forces of the Syrian democrats ( who?) . This despite it being quite clear that he hasn't a hope of getting the idea through Parliament .All the stuff of a strong, square jawed leader we are presumably supposed to think.

Now back to the la la world of greenery and the fashionable planet saving movements. All's well there . Drax power station is beginning to consume its land gobbling 40 train loads of Canadian wood chips a day. Time to turn Prime Ministerial muscle and determination to the question of GM foods. What do we get ? A courageous definately maybe. We should look at it. Maybe do something about it. " Would our dear leader valiantly eat GM food and, potential horrors, feed it to his family?"  Back behind the settee, afraid of Mumsnet and chattering dinner parties, Number 10 can't say. Maybe yes, maybe no. It's easier to arm a band of rebels somewhere else than face that lot . That's our man. That's also why he is not heading for glory in 2015 despite having followed the most financially disastrous government of modern times.

Dave (and William) Not of Arabia,- a word of advice.

Syria. Don't go there. Twiga has been amongst many saying that from the start. We are in good company. Clearly President Obama has believed the same. No doubt he refers to us every day.

The stirrings in Whitehall , especially recent ones, have been disturbingly at variance with this advice. It's all too tempting when hubris is beginning to set in. It was both the actuality and symptom of that state of mind when Blair decided to foresake his whole legacy (that's different,- a lot different,- from what he will be leaving in his will) of reforming the Labour Party, establishing a new party in the true centre of British politics and reforming all the state establishments which so badly needed it in favour of a military adventure in Iraq. OK, he was also mesmerised by the attraction of being seen standing shoulder to shoulder with George Bush at his hands-thrust- in-jeans macho best, but he'd probably have gone Saddam hunting even without that. The vision of emerging as a great war hero as Thatcher did from the Falklands was just too irresistable.

Is the same thing now happening in Downing Street and across the road in William Hague's office even if not universally in all points in between? This week Dave has said that he didn't see the conflict just in religious terms but more broadly as between the regime and a number of rebel groups who were really just seeking more democracy and some of whom were nice enough to help with a few purely humanitarian shipments of arms (only to be used by good people,- promise) to add to the multitudes already there. He is worried at standing and being seen to do nothing while "another Bosnia " develops, but while the atrocities in Syria are as bad or worse, and in this instance on both sides , the two situations are very different.

There was a chance of a successful military intervention in Bosnia because there were clearly identifiable sides, one of which could be deemed "good" and the other "bad". Easy, - just line up with the "good" one , pour in  professional, well organised and well equipped top quality military forces, separate the two warring parties and a visible success,- and some sort of democracy even,- was possible.

Syria is very different. Certainly there are some "good" people on the rebel side but the factions are very diverse and many are far from democracy-driven and , given power, would rule no less ferociously or less anti-western than Assad. Even a coalition between the various factions would be unlikely to hold beyond sitting together for a few minutes.That over, once they started slugging it out there is no knowing in whose hands those generously and well meaningly handed out arms would end up and what they would be used to do. Actually sending in the (British) army to separate the warring factions and protect the desparately suffering non combatants who just want to live in peace would probably only see all the factions and Assad's forces turn, temporarily with an identical purpose, to drive them out. Serious numbers of casualties would be inevitable and a lasting solution even further away.

This one has to be solved in and by the Arab world.That means the Levantine states, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and those of the North African coast. Together they have have the added complications of the non-Arab Iran with its own ambitions and the need to find some sort of accomodation with Israel which even the Israelis themselves dont make easy thanks to their penchant of building settlements inside where any eventual viable Palestinain state would be. Outside help with diplomacy and mediation may be needed and appreciated, but only when asked for rather than imposed. While the west continues its eternal meddling and ill judged and largely unsuccessful interventions there is no pressure on the Arab nations to seriously get together and work out their destiny. It's been like that for more than a century. Time for a change and that's where, by standing aside, however ghastly the immediate nightly TV pictures and shrill "we must do something" calls for "action" the west, can push them.

Right now the supply of  humanitarian food and medical supplies to the benighted non combatants who just want the fighting to stop is absolutely essential and justified in anybody's terms. Cameron and Hague's mission should be to deliver that. A pound spent on these supplies is much better value than one spent on bullets. The duo should  not be tempted to ride into town in a thunder of hooves as conquering sheriffs, swagger down the deserted main street, hands ready to draw the six shooters (or even Blair-like thrust into tops of pale washed jeans) to heroically restore law and order. Even in American history not all of those heroics and the rest ended in a glorious sunset with the baddies lying all over the ground. Life just wasn't and isn't like that. Far from it. Many sheriffs had their badges removed posthumously as they lay riddled with bullets generously supplied from all directions by all the town's factions in a rare moment of unity. That isn't a good way to go Dave and William (The new Wild Bill?).