European Presidential Hubris and......

 The EU Commission's  recently appointed President, Jean-Claude Junker has indicated that the UK is unlikely to secure one of the top jobs it seeks when they are carved out/up next weekend. He is it seems upset that there are not enough females in the top positions. Unlike last time around, Britain has not put forward a female candidate. "Unfortunately, and despite MY (the capitals are ours) repeated request, most of the governments insist on sending male candidates."

Just who is the unelected (other than  by a show of hands around a table by EU leaders) chief civil servant of the EU imagine he is to be laying down the law on gender balances or imbalances? It is not beyond imagination that most eligible women are too sensible to want anything to do with these posts. It is certainly insufficient grounds for blocking the candidates from senior or desired roles. He may not like it but his job is to work with whoever the member states nominate and this should be made very clear to him before he and the Commission rush further out of control.

This latest intervention by EU's leading beaurocrat says all one needs to know about why the enormous Brussels machine needs urgent reform before it leaves Earth's orbit and spins into outer space powered by hubris and the endless money which is an overhead on the cost of everything that is made or done in Europe. In its original form as a Common Market, the organisation had a valid purpose in facilitating intra-European trade and adding value. Once France and Germany's underlying agenda of creating a political federation led by themselves broke cover it began its trajectory to becoming an ever increasing constraint and liability on everything Europe did. Europe's wealth lies in its enormous diversity of cultures, geography, and political and economic systems. To crush these under foot ,-something that in a nightmare scenario could end up in the future being done militarily,- is disastrous. Underperformance and poverty lie in a monolothic, one size fits all, superstate ruled autocractically, indeed dictatorially, from a single centre riding arrogantly and roughshod over these differences. The politically misconceived single currency is just one example of what happens when uniformity is imposed.

The arch-federalist Mr Junker is stepping way outside his remit in trying to dictate to member states who, or what sort of person, they should put up for the Commissioner roles. Misguidedly and sitting deep inside the Brussels non reality bubble , he sees these appointments as HIS Vice-Presidents or deputies , not as the EU's. In other words he has (alarmingly quickly) taken to seeing the EU as his property rather than that of the member states, some of whom, notably the UK, he clearly doesn't like and treats with scorn. Only a hand wringing Nick Clegg, oblivious of the real issues and always willing to subjugate national interests to those of the federalists, could come out in favour of Mr Junker's attempts to lay down the law on the kinds of candidates put forward by governments,- and he has done.

Already it appears that David Cameron may be beginning to back away from making a big issue of this one. His nominee, the virtually unknown although maybe very competant Lord Hill, will be said to be happy with any role. Commissioner for Car Parking would be spun from Downing Street as a British triumph. That's how things currently are on the sea of pre-election aimlessness. All three main parties lack a helmsman or maybe even a rudder. Even the Scottish independence debate has descended into a squabble about details rather than the big issues of the pros and cons for everyone of the UK remaining intact. No sign of big pictures or the ability to generate excitement and forward momentum anywhere although the goal mouths are wide open for anyone who does.

Headline of the Day....

"Lib Dems want compulsory sex classes"- The Times.

Where does one even start to comment?

A Levels-The rewards of success for their architect.

-This year's A Level grades were very good despite tightening up the sylabus and marking (although the overall " pass" rate above grade F is still 98%).

-There is a much better social distribution of top grades than previously so more less well off students will be  going to good universities.

-There are 30,000 additional university places than last year thanks to increased government funding.

Much of this success story is down to Michael Gove, summarily replaced as a supposed electoral liability by the new "Peace in our Time-I love teachers" lady.  Students and their parents might like to join Mr Gove in reflecting on the justice or otherwise of being thrown out of office for being disliked by those to whom any  reforms of a too often  underperforming state educational system are abhorrent.

Unfortunately the executioner, David Cameron, marooned on an island of lack of feeling for realities outside his own close knit circle and advisors, has by ditching one of his best and most loyal performers, again devalued his own leadership.

Footnote: Another area in which British politics is currently flying blind is foreign affairs. Few/none of our leading politicians has a deep experience of or even interest in matters beyond our shores. Perhaps if they took their families on holiday to places further afield than Spain, Portugal and Italy (yes, that's Dave, Nick and Ed this month) they might just start to sniff, smell, feel and even understand a wider world. It will take time but it's never too late to start. Meanwhile sorry to anyone threatened with genocide in these holiday months,- we just can't get our heads around it. It's all too much.

ISIS-Britain Flexes Its Muscles.

Following today's very limited US attacks on Isis militants "to protect American nationals and interests", -note no mention of the 100,000 or more Iraqis facing threats of imminent genocide,- the UK has weighed in.

Definately no military intervention but a couple of million pounds worth of tents, solar powered lighting, meals and bottled water. That's a big comfort. At least people can be slaughtered in tents, aided maybe by electric light and having had a portion of a meal and a gulp or two of water. There are a few more millions going to charities "already on the ground". Unfortunately there is no sign of any in the affected areas. Never mind. At least when its all over and its safe to venture out of Baghdad or wherever they are holed up they will be able to afford to get to the scene of whatever has happened in more, newer and shinier 4x4s.

Isis must be quaking in its shoes.

Didn't we do well..................Afghanistan "Rebuilding".

The Times reports that the cost of "rebuilding" Afghanistan has now exceeded that of the post WW2 Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe. The US has forked out £61.5 billion since 2002 and the UK(which actually spent its Marshall Plan money on social engineering in setting up the NHS rather than actual engineering) has thrown in £890 million.

 Those sums are on top of the actual military operations on which the US has spent a staggering £296 billion and the UK £22 billion.

In both cases one is entitled to ask "For what?"

In both cases the answer has to be "Nothing" or at best "Very, very, little".

Between the western allies, actually mainly the US and UK, we have destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure, failed to put in place a stable non corrupt and Taliban-proof government and in the process lost and had maimed for life large numbers of our own soldiers.

With all the redevelopment money spent we might expect to see a new, disciplined, well trained and effective armed and police forces, a network of excellent highways, new, well equipped school,hospitals and power stations as well as replacements for shattered homes. In other words a fine new model state working robustly and able to stave off any future attempts by the Taliban or others to put the clock back.

Instead the US watchdog on Government spending is said by the Times to have reported that most of the projects are undermined by poor planning,shoddy construction, mechanical failures and inadequate oversight. In other words there is precious little to show for the billions and what there is is unlikely to last long before collapsing or breaking down, probably for ever. The same continues to go for most misguided foreign aid but that's another story. Our legacy in both human and physical terms will be dismal.

 As we have said before, anyone with any idea of Afghan history, its social /tribal history or anything to do with it would have said that at the beginning and never have embarked on this adventure. Even a flight over the country tells most people that idealistic visions of democratic, or indeed any unified, rule have any chance of realisation. Despite that the UK ,led by the US and the Bush/Blair relationship, did. In the British parliament barely a voice against was raised against it by anyone in any party. Most were actively supportive with the grave tones and seriously furrowed brows which are intended to denote deep understanding and wisdom at such times. Even now most of our politicians, terrified of accusations that they have thrown away hundreds of British and many more Afghan lives for nothing,- as they have,- remain in denial. They mutter things about it all having been worth it. It hasn't. Worse, having created this mess (Yes, Mr Blair) we will now blame the Afghans for not resolving it and we will walk away leaving them to their fate. 

Clegg wrings his hands. ( ps That's not new)

Today's Times has plenty to send sane readers reaching for the nearest bucket. The prize for cringeworthiness must though go to the soon-to-go on hols Nick Clegg..

Talking about educational policy following the unceremonious and dubiously motivated departure of Michael Gove, possibly the highest achieving and certainly most energetic member of the Cameron cabinet, Nick has been speaking. "We need to reset the relationship (between government and the teaching unions), not I should stress by abandoning all government policy or reforms, but by ensuring that where there is debate and discussion between the teaching profession and the government, it is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and that we seek out every opportunity to celebrate, and not always to denigrate, the fantastic work that teachers do."

Taking the last bit first, we note the absence between the words " that" and "teachers" the word "good". That's crucial. Everybody knows that good and excellent teachers are magnificent. Most also know that a minority are not good, not good at all. It's probably always been thus but it's an issue that has in the interests of the affected children to be tackled head on, however loud the howls of protest by the militant unions. Poor performance must never be celebrated. It simply can't be tolerated and everyone has to be aware of that. Good teachers will applaud being relieved of the burden of the inadequate ones. They, the good ones, the school heads, the pupils and most parents will know who they are but the unions will usually defend through thick and thin their "right" not to be sacked. That's absurd and not in the interests of the majority of the members who they are also meant to represent.

Then there are the weasel words  about not abandoning all government policy or reforms. Note the word all. It is key. Here Clegg is opening an avenue of comforting compromise to Gove's change resistant adversaries. He is cynically implying that, given a shot, the Lib Dems would be ready to curry favour with the supply side of the educational establishment by retreating from at least some of the reforms. He's giving no guarantees though. That would require balls, -and not of the Ed variety,- and he will always keep his on the fence. No wonder both major political parties fear having to do some sort of deal with his party after the next General Election. It is quite possible that neither would now contemplate a new coalition and would instead go for a minority government which would then go for an overall majority in a new election maybe six months later. In retrospect this is probably what the Conservatives should have done in 2010 as losing a second election against the spectre of a possible return of Gordon Brown should have been unthinkable.

Finally there are the words about "mutual respect", a very fashionable concept. Everyone it is said deserves respect or in some circles respek .The notion of it having to be earned rather than taken for granted is absent. The obsession with giving equal weight to,shall we say less well formed, ideas to as much more considered ones is of course very politically correct as well as nice , warm and fuzzy. It goes a long way to explaining why getting a lot of things done is a glacial process and why even some of the most energetic eventually lapse into tears and despair.

It seems that Mr Clegg chooses to fail to understand that a 5 year parliament is a very short period of time. Tony Blair had the same problem in his first term. He had some great and widely supported ideas on public service reform but thought he had all the time in the world to deliver them. He didn't. Iraq hove into sight at the beginning of his second term .That was the end of time and energy to focus on his original programme and what could have been a great political legacy began to turn to dust.  Michael Gove though understood it perfectly. To achieve anything it must be complete and robustly nailed into place within the five years, or it might never happen. That's why he came out of the trap fast, didn't waste too much time, trampled on a few feet but got his measures as far down the track as quickly as he could before Cameron's wobbly knees and Australian "How to Win" adviser derailed him.

As joint leader of the coalition, Clegg should be saying he's full of admiration for what Gove achieved and that if anyone thought that his departure indicated a government withdrawal from the hard parts they could think again as the reforms are here to stay. Instead, sadly increasingly true to form ,he opportunistically went into MCavity "I wasn't here mode". Expect to see more of that as the General Election approaches.