House of Lords, its time to go

Never has a thing been so undemocratic and uneconomical like the House of Lords, a place where the people who make the laws are appointed through nepotism and class rather than elected by democratic mandate. Britain prides itself as a beacon of democracy and freedom, yet it is one of two or so states in the world without a written constitution and also without a fully elected legislature.

Prince Andrew, and his fantasy about the Iraq War

According to various media outlets, Prince Andrew has criticized President Bush and his administration for not heeding advice of the British, over the look of post-war Iraq. Much was made in the British media, of the prince’s ‘unprecedented’ attack on Bush; the attack seen not only as unconventional but also an apparent ‘split within the alliance’.

This is complete fantasy; Prince Andrew is actually not insulting the U.S political establishment, but insulting the public. How? This comment is arrogance of royal proportions. Iraq has been in chaos since the very day ‘the alliance’ rolled on Babylonia, and to be even more precise, the U.K and the U.S knew of the very issues that Prince Andrew claims to be concerned about, before the invasion happened. So why now, why five years after does the prince ‘exclusively’ need to tell us, and the American political establishment that Iraq is in a mess? It is all about image. The prince is not upset about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the thousands of American and the alliance soldiers killed, the suicide bombings, or the death squads that rule parts of Iraq. He is upset about the damage to the pompous image of the British establishment from the latest mid-east fall out.

If I were an American, I would be thinking that the prince’s comments are pretty rich; It is the very same industry-the military/weapons manufacturers-that the prince is so intertwined with, that have profited so well from this war, and now the prince complains slyly about the damage to the image of the Brit establishment. Give me a fucking break. (Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Andy.)

And what can be said of the particular media outlets that not only just carried the prince story but also added in their tuppence? Well, they are just like the prince; they don’t not care about the war dead but damage to their image. Damage, which they helped to bring about.

 

 

 

 

The U.K needs to step up the pressure on Russia

Another anti-Putin Russian dies in the U.K, in circumstances that are far from normal; this time a ‘heart attack’ was the killer, happening to the billionaire in his Surrey home. And once more the specter of an apparent Russian assassination appears on U.K soil.

To its credit, the U.K political establishment, specifically, the Foreign Office has been taking steps to show its dislike of what happened to Litvinenko; but these steps-the expulsion of some junior diplomats and the closing of the British Council subsidiaries in Russia is wholly in adequate. Russia needs to be hit where it hurts, its wallet-meaning economic measures than the British should take diplomatic measures. And let us remind ourselves why such action is necessary. A British man (of Russian descent), Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated in London the year before last ,by being given a radioactive substance, polonium-210. Traces of this where found in several parts of London where the unfortunate Litvinenko had been, exposing millions of Londoners to poisoning-If this wasn’t terrorism, then I don’t what was.

How many more people need to be assassinated by radioactive substances or die of a ‘heart attack’ for the British government to take appropriate measures, to not only protect its citizens and visitors from this terrorism but assert Biritain’s territorial integrity?. For if the Russians feel it appropriate for them to bring down those who they dislike by such evil methods, let it be done elsewhere, no right minded person, and hopefully includes British officials think that the south east, Surrey, central London or any other part of these islands should be a political playground ground for the Kremlin.

The idealist-realist

“Students go to uni wanting to change the world, they then come out of uni and realize they have to be a part of it”. Or something like that. For the student is the ultimate idealist, seeking to make a society into uptoia, believing the best in people, hoping that tomorrow can always be better than today. And the realism apparently occurs at some point soon after leaving uni.

Prince Charles and Steven Spielberg have in one way or another snubbed the Beijing Olympics; Darfur and human rights issues have apparently been the basis of their reasoning. And what can be certain is, before the torch is finally lit in the Olympic stadium, even more prominent individuals will step away from China’s hosting of the Games.

So what has idealism got to do with it? Well, the idealist, a stereotypical student for example, would hope and believe the international community would have an epiphany and refuse to send athletes to participate in an Olympic games which is being hosted by a country not thought of to be a bastion of democracy, and seems pretty chuffed about what’s happening in Darfur. Now, the realist on other hand believes that money, not principle is behind the hosting of the Games and that no country will refuse to send athletes to Beijing. Yes, it would be ideal for the games to be boycotted and it would be real to assume it wouldn’t. But what can be said however is that idealism and realism need not be seen as being poles apart, diametrically opposed and from different galaxies, but that in fact, they can be two sides of the same coin, complimentary, and inseparable, ying and yang if you will.

 

Old Labour reappears to nationalise Northern Rock

There will be no ‘Virgin Rocks’; Richard Branson’s offer to take over Northern Rock was apparently not the best deal for the taxpayer. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will become the managing directors of the bank, hoping to give it strength before putting the bank back on the market.

What a fiasco. It has taken the government this long to come to a decision of nationalisation; you would think that after taking so long that they would have at least worked out when best to release this news. They couldn’t even do that. The news broke late on Sunday-their thinking probably being, that releasing the news on the Friday would thwart the Sunday papers. The problem with that is it is so blatantly opportunistic it will give Fleets Streets editor’s drive to pull out related embarrassing stories next Sunday, a time I am sure the government would have thought that the Sunday papers would be filled with everything but Northern Rock. Now they have released it on the Sunday evening, the papers will have it tomorrow and the story will run and run and run. But obviously this article is not about what the media tactics of Downing Streets spin-doctors were, but it does emphasise one of the problems of the government nationalising the bank-indecision. They obviously couldn’t decide when to release the news, nor could they decide on what to do with the bank. I am totally opposed to nationalising the bank, the free market should have been allowed to deal with Northern Rock. However, if the government is going to do something, then they should do it properly and decisively. They have done neither.

At the last election, Labour had a campaign slogan, which said ‘Forward not back’, the argument being Labour was the party going forward and the Conservatives were going backwards. The Northern Rock debacle has actually shown it is Labour going back, from New Labour to Old.

Blair’s vanity and his fake role as the “quartet’s” front man

Israel, more accurately, the Olmert government (well what’s left of it) had had enough. Hamas and its daily rocket launches needed to be stopped, how? By turning off electricity to the Gaza strip, leaving its one and a half million inhabitants in darkness and powerless, literally.

The reasoning for Mr. Olmert’s tactic was made clear; Hamas should stop its rocket attacks on Israel. The problems and ramifications will be explained in another article, what should be said is this, there is no way Hamas will stop its attacks now, nor will the Palestinians move back to the political center where Fatah supposedly are; Mr. Olmert has in fact strengthened the will of Hamas and seeming it couldn’t get any deeper, further deepened the Palestinians hatred for Israelis and more importantly the recreated state of Israel. This was a flawed decision, from a flawed Premier; as hated by the Palestinians, and respected by Israelis he his, it’s a pretty good bet that the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not have done this. One joke doing the rounds in some Israeli circles is that Ariel Sharon’s physical state (he’s has been in a coma for the last two years) shows that ‘the people don’t him, and God doesn’t want him either’. A cruel ‘joke’, and yet the truth is, Sharon seems to be needed more now than ever.

As said before the ramification of the Olmert-electro tactic will be gone into another time, onto another former Prime Minister, the ever-humble Tony Blair. Never a man to shy away from the limelight, he made sure to secure the position as the pr man for the quartet-EU, Russia, UN, US-before he ‘stepped down’ (a really annoying euphemism for resigned) as Prime Minister of the U.K. Specifically his brief was to do with the welfare of the Palestinians through monitoring their economic institutions. When the power was cut off in Gaza, this wasn’t to one house, it was to a region, the consequences of this, it is pretty apparent, will continue for a long while. The economy of Gaza ‘tanked’. What a sight it was, Palestinians going through the damaged border into Egypt to purchase goods, including livestock. Where was the outrage, where was the international condemnation and even more to the point where was Mr. Humility himself, Tony Blair, the man who is meant to be looking out for Palestinian economic interests? ‘World leaders’ and the relevant institutions stayed not only silent, but signaled their approval of the Olmert-electro method, through their silence. Not even a revised version of the tired statement used when flashes of the eternal Israeli-Palestinian incident occurs; “we urge Israel to show restraint, and that Palestinians show their commitment to peace by renouncing violence, so that in the end there is a secure Israel, with a viable Palestinian state, both states living in peace side by side” and so on. No statement at all. Not even a revised one.

Back to Blair’s vanity, he is the quartet’s front man because it was the thing at that time which could do his ego justice; Mr. Blair would probably have said something like “I really believed in it at the time”. You would have thought that the Olmert-electro incident would have been eye-catching enough for Blair to have said at least something. But he, just like the institutions he spins for, was silent. Silent for as long was necessary for people to get this message, they have no interest in the lives Palestinians. If Mr. Blair really was doing the job as described, then not only would he have said something cornering the incident (I know words don’t mean much where politics and politicians are concerned, and what Palestinians need is electricity not words) he would have pressured Israel to not to take that inhumane action. I say because I suspect that Blair was aware of what Olmert was going to do; not a hard thing to believe, as, it is widely known, that the U.K knew of Israel’s plan to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, before they blitzed Beirut.

The Israel-Palestinian issue, is one that it is way too important for vanity to dictate players on that stage, Mr. Blair should resign, or should I say ‘step down’ and let someone, who is keen doing the given job. An economist would be nice, someone who knows what they’re talking about.