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".