SAS

It seems that although the extraction of our fellow citizens from Libya started off as a bit of a shambles it has now become a success story with other countries, even the US, complementing the government on having sent in the SAS to bring British and Foreign Nationals out of the desert. The story given by Cameron to the Commons this afternoon reads like a Boy's Own Story. It will be interesting in a year or twos time to read the various accounts about went wrong and what went right. It will also be interesting to read about how ineffectual that snake oil salesman Blair's interventions with Gaddafi were. It is difficult not to feel nauseous each time one sees or hears Blair speak. As a result of the perceived failings of certain ministers it is being said that Cameron will feel obliged to exercise the central control practiced by Blair. I do so hope not as the Blair idea of central control related specifically to the message rather than to the delivery of the policy as witnessed by the frightening number of anti crime bills Blair's government passed of which few worked properly, if at all. It would have been so much better to have produced a properly functioning Act rather than producing bills simply to catch a headline. Never again we hope but Miliband is still at it with his pathetic speech today on the cost of living rises. Of course people are going to be squeezed. Everyone knows and understands that but where is the humility from Labour for the part their government played in it? It was the Labour government's policies which caused the inflation we are suffering and which is squeezing the middle.          

The Oil Price

The price of petrol at the pump is scary. Osborne will simply have to do something about it in next month's budget. There can be absolutely no justification for 80% of the pump price being tax. The Bank of England also needs to increase interest rates. Apart from slowing down inflation increased interest rates will increase the value of sterling and make our imports of oil cheaper. Any number of commentators have stated that rather than the cuts inflation is the issue to be worried about. As we all know the so called cuts are only reductions in future increases in spending, not real cuts at all. Miliband the great intellectual, son of the communist LSE lecturer Ralph Miliband of whose legacy or whatever Saif Gaddafi is apparently a supporter, has decided that inflation is increasing the cost of living of the less well off. No doubt he has decided to speak in the hope he can use inflation as a stick to beat the Government with but it will not do. Who undertook the policies, including the dangerous expansion of the money supply, that was inevitably going to lead to inflation? None other than the last Labour government. Somehow truth will out and as someone known as HackneyAbbott has said "Blair, Berlusconi and Sarkozy must be nervous. Suppose Gaddafi blabs about all their deals."    

Rugby and Other Things

What a game. Exhausting yet exhilarating but England held out to win today's 6 Nations match against the French. Nothing more satisfying than beating the French and everyone else for that matter. It will be a great weekend if England can also beat India tomorrow in the Cricket World Cup. It is also satisfying that Fine Gael have come top of the poll in Ireland which feeling is matched by the satisfaction of seeing the battering Fianna Fail have received at the hands of the voters. Fianna Fail was the party of that poisonous and treacherous little man De Valera, not really an Irishman at all but a Spaniard who would have risen high in the ranks of the Inquisition so evil was he. Apart from that there is disappointment that no one has yet delivered the coup de grace to Gaddafi and his nasty, brutal regime. Having read Charles Moore's article in today's Telegraph it is difficult not to be concerned about what will come after the current Middle East despots have all gone. Basically Moore is saying that if Lebanon is an example they will only be replaced by other despotic regimes like the Muslim Brotherhood. As evidence that this is possible Moore refers to reports that that Islamist monster Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi delivered a speech in Tahrir Square, Cairo ,shortly after the resignation of Mubarak, to a large and supportive audience. God help us all.    

Obama

Bummer's foreign policy continues to fail. He and Hillary Clinton, his useless Secretary of State, have been totally rudderless throughout this whole Middle East crisis. In order to leave the shifting sands of their desert policy they are now trying to anchor themselves to some stable ground in the form of Britain and France. A somewhat risky proposition knowing how readily the French are to quarrel with their so called allies and to veer wildly off in a different direction if they think by doing so they can improve their status - in this case over oil. As to attaching themselves to the Brits it is difficult to see what we can offer apart from our knowledge of the region since we have reduced our weaponry to probably less than that which is prudent. Perhaps Bummer thinks Cameron is the man to follow in these overseas exploits and it is true Cameron is the most natural statesman of the leaders of the three countries but is our Foreign Office up to the mark? Not if the fiasco over the extraction of our nationals is anything to go by. However Hague has been otherwise quietly impressive. Perhaps there will be a good outcome after all for the UK and an outcome which washes away the shame of the rapprochement with Gaddafi. The US did the West no favours when it forced Britain and France to cancel their Suez operation.    

Conflicts of Interest

Lawyers are not allowed to act for both sides. There is a very good reason for this. How could anyone be wholly committed to his client's cause if he is also acting for the other side. If lawyers were allowed to do so they would know the arguments of both sides, the strengths and weaknesses of both cases and the strategies of both camps. They would find it impossible to be impartial and would inevitably favour one side more than the other, probably the side that they thought had the stronger case or the biggest pockets or which was likely to give them more work in the future. We all know that conflicts of interest are dealt with in banks by putting up so called chinese walls so that that part of the bank advising clients on investments can take an independent line from that part of the bank representing companies using another part of the bank for its share/bond issue services. We all squirm at how accountants rarely find that they have any conflict of interest but that could be jealousy. In any event the Yes4AV campaign should return all donations given to it by the Electoral Reform Society and terminate any further assistance to its campaign of personnel provided by the Society. The Society has a massive conflict of interest. Not only I understand is it involved in the administration of the AV referendum and being paid by us poor taxpayers to do so, it is also most likely to benefit if the Yes campaign wins by becoming involved in the administration of future General Elections and the supply of electronic counting machines. By not being open The Electoral Reform Society must have known it was acting immorally and all its contracts to run any election must be withdrawn. How can one have any confidence in its impartiality.  

Unions

This blog has previously moaned about the impropriety of the taxpayer being forced to make payments to the Unions which then make donations to the Labour party. I cannot see how anyone can think this is either moral or fair. Archbishop Cranmer has a very good blog on this today http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/ It is iniquitous but hardly surprising that the Labour government should have passed legislation to benefit the Unions out of taxpayers' money. Labour maintains it is the party of fairness and the hard working family but its hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. It is totally unfair on those of us who believe the Unions are dinosaurs who never had a constructive role and should be allowed to wither away to be forced through our taxes to support the Unions. What is almost as bad is that the Unions own the Labour party almost lock, stock and barrel. How can the Labour party promote any other policy than those supported by the Unions? The Unions represent a minority and a small minority at that and even in opposition it is simply not good enough to have a Labour party which can only propose Union approved policies. Better by far to have an independent opposition party and if that means the LibDems so be it.      

Gaddafi

To use his language there is no doubt that Gaddafi is a 'mad dog'. Is his total disregard for others and his willingness to destroy opponents psychotic? How can one treat such a person? Does he need to be put in an asylum for the rest of his life? Will he be shot? In his speech today he says that he is a poor man but this is hypocrisy since as leader he will never have put his hand in his pocket and will always have had access to and use of the best of everything. Witness the mansion his son Saif rented whilst he was a student at LSE. Where did the money to pay the rent come from if it didn't come from the public purse or at least originate there. What is it about these people who think they are the only ones who can govern their country, that they are the embodiment of their nation and that only those who are loyal to them, whilst they are loyal to them, are worthy citizens. The defections from the regime clearly demonstrate that its members are well aware that it has run its course although no doubt in the interest of self preservation further defections will wait until Gaddafi has gone altogether. If he remains those who defected will be mercilessly dealt with. It has to hoped that their brave action is not in vain.  

The Middle East and North Africa

Cameron has demonstrated yet again that not only does he have the capacity to surprise but also to take a stand on certain issues that other politicians might try to avoid for fear of offending their peers. He showed this with his speech on multiculturalism in Munich or week or so back and has done so again today by his speech on freedom and democracy in Egypt today. His sudden decision to visit Egypt has shown him as a man of action who is not afraid to go into a country that is still in turmoil in the hope that by being there and saying what he did he will give encouragement to those who are seeking a moderate civilian government in which the extremists, the Muslim Brotherhood whom he rightly refused to meet, do not play a part. Cameron's refusal to meet the extremists shows a consistency with his dismissal of multiculturalism and looks to have been well thought through. Hague's comments on the events in Libya are also consistent with the Cameron position and it is good to see a bit of joined up intelligent government for once. From what Gaddafi's son has said about Hague's comments to him yesterday there is little doubt that what the government will say to countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco will be consistent with what they have been saying to Egypt.    

Revolution

The power of the internet is becoming awesome. It now seems that even the Chinese, having viewed what is happening in the Middle East over the internet, are demonstrating against their own regime, albeit in only small numbers. As to be expected the authorities quickly snuffed out the demonstrations but from little acorns etc., etc.. On this occasion at least the Chinese authorities have not reacted with the savagery they have adopted on previous occasions. This is in marked contrast to the brutality of the Gaddafi regime in Lybia which has demonstrated to those who thought otherwise that there is nothing cuddly about the somewhat eccentric ruler and that his spots have not changed and nor has he mellowed with age. He is still the ruthless despot he has always been. This makes it even more bizarre that the Blair/Brown administration should have thought that releasing al-Megrahi was a good thing. It wasn't but it would be nice to think both Blair and Brown now feel bad about their foul act. They don't of course as Blair will no doubt say the release was a Christian act and he and Brown will say it was a piece of realpolitic for the benefit of the Country. We know that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel but what is the equivalent where something is said to be for the benefit of the country? That stating that something has been done for the benefit of the country is the last refuge of a charlatan?  

Our Constitution

There is another thing which is deeply concerning about the upcoming referendum on AV. How is it possible to suppose that if the 'yes' vote achieves a majority on a less than 50% turnout that the result can be said to have any real legitimacy? It is extraordinary that the government refused to accept the House of Lords amendment to the Bill that there should be a minimum turnout of 40% for the voting change from first past the post to AV. 40% was already a very low threshold and should have been at least 67%. Thus a truly insignificant minority can change our constitution making an oddball minority even more powerful. It simply cannot be right that a minority can rule the majority. This will lead to considerable resentment amongst that element which did not vote 'yes' and one can foresee that if the same rule is applied to referenda on more emotionally charged issues that the result could lead to unrest. In order for referendum decisions to have legitimacy no future referendum should be held which is not subject to a threshold turnout. We just have to ensure in the meantime that the referendum on AV is lost. Hopefully David Cameron and other top Tories will campaign hard for the 'No' vote, unlike the by-election campaign they ran in Oldham & Saddleworth.

AV

AV is all about the tail wagging the dog. The tail is the smelly end of the dog and so it is with AV, proportional representation and other voting methods with the honourable exception of first past the post. AV ensures that the minority always has the last word which is the antithesis of democracy as we know it which is all about the majority having the last word. AV cheats the majority and is a voting method that satisfies no one and is only pursued by those constantly in a minority. You have to ask why the minority want AV. It is because this is the only way they will have a chance of getting hold of power. Minorities are minorities for a reason - they do not have the policies that command majority support. Why then would a majority want to be ruled by oddball minorities - I can think of no good reason. It is essential therefore to vote against the introduction of AV.

Welfare Reforms

Cameron sometimes overreaches himself at PMQs but there was no such danger of him doing so today when he announced the Welfare Reform Bill in what was a confident and well thought through presentation. The Bill includes the well trailed replacement of various benefits by the Universal Credit and help for the long term unemployed to get jobs and introduces measures to ensure work always pays. The Bill according to Cameron is not an accounting exercise but about changing our culture. Never again, he said, will work be the wrong financial choice. At long last it appears a government is getting to grips with our broken welfare system. That dinosaur TUC is not pleased however and is blaming the cuts for the high levels of unemployment and not increases in scroungers. It is quite extraordinary that there is little acknowledgement that the cuts are only cuts to future rises in government expenditure. The TUC also complain that  low income families will be worse off through the welfare cuts until all the changes come through in 2013, which the government denies saying that no one will be worse off as a result of the changes. It can only be hoped that the Government will stick to its guns and that the proposals will not, unlike the proposed sensible Forestry sell off, prove to be a paper tiger.  

The Suez Canal

Interesting news about Iran sending two warships through the Suez Canal on passage to Syria and the Lebanon. Apparently this is the first time the Iranians have sent warships through the Suez Canal since the creation of the Iranian Islamic Republic in 1979. Egypt has never been 'happy' about the Iranian Islamic Republic which apparently publicly announced on 26 January 2011 that it would be sending the warships through the Canal. One wonders why now. Is the timing to do with the troubles in Egypt or were the Iranians always going to send the warships anyway? In either case the result must be to put pressure on Israel and possibly to test how strong the alliance between Israel and Egypt is following Mubarak's departure. One also wonders what Iran's intention is and whether it is mischievous. Are they going to stir up trouble? If so will the Americans come to Israel's aid? Now that we have so few ships (thanks to the economic mess left by the last Labour government) what will we do? I hope the West will not be pusillanimous as it seems to me that any action by Iran should be met by a vigorous response. The historian Niall Ferguson gave an interview on an American news channel in which he says Bummer's response to the Egyptian demonstrations was dire. See it here on Archbishop Cranmer's blog of yesterday http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

NHS

Is the NHS there for its staff or for its patients? If you assume that the staff are ordinary human beings there will no doubt be one or two saints or Mother Theresa types amongst them but most of them will be like the rest of us. Many of the rest of us have a pride in a job well done but those of us who also have to answer to customers for the service we provide feel an obligation to give value for money. Because we do not pay the NHS directly NHS staff do not feel the imperative of giving value for money to their patients. To get over this hurdle artificial or simulated obligations are put in place which frankly do not work. The NHS is a failing organisation and should be split up and privatised or at the very least each patient should be put into a position through some kind of insurance scheme to pay directly for treatment. In this way the appalling or at best indifferent treatment of the elderly and the too late diagnosis of cancer could be significantly corrected so that at least we have a standard of service at least the equivalent of the French and the Germans. I heard today that a fourth person I know has been diagnosed with cancer in the last 18 months far too late to do anything about it. In each case the person concerned had gone to their doctor complaining of this or that for several months (in one case over a year) before his/her complaint was taken seriously. I also saw how my elderly mother was on occasion left unfed and without water. Do not tell me that the NHS is a great institution - it isn't. Do not tell me that most of the people in it do not run it for themselves when it is all too evident that they do. Some politician should have the guts to say so but no one dares criticise those who have been given an elevated status as some kind of angel. 

The Discrimination Business

Many have an innate dislike of anti-discrimination and equality legislation not only because they object to being considered other than reasonable in all their dealings with other people but because they hate being lectured to by those who have a holier than thou attitude. These decent, ordinary  people cannot see the necessity for any of the legislation anyway and over the last few years of the last Labour government had the distinct impression that all Labour was doing was setting up a whole industry that would become a client group and always vote for it. It seems though that when Mr Gove decided to axe Labour plans to build, rebuild and refurbish schools he failed to discharge relevant statutory equality duties under the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and the Disability Discrimination Act according to Mr Justice Holman who has ordered Mr Gove to reconsider his decision after giving the 6 councils which sought judicial revue reasonable opportunity to make representations. You could not invent such a scenario. There has to be something seriously wrong with the legislation that it can be used to this end. How irresponsible also of the 6 councils to bring this action for judicial revue. The money wasted on this political exercise, for that is all it can be, would be better spent on front line services which, again for political reasons, these councils are no doubt cutting rather than their own bloated payrolls. May they and their like rot in hell.      

Six Nations

It is very rare to see England play such open and exhilerating rugby as it did yesterday against Italy. It is rare too for England to have so much talent on the substitute bench. Admittedly Italy does not have a long rugby playing tradition and its playing pool is very small but they are not a walk over. Ask Ireland who were nearly beaten by them last week. Ireland did not play well last week but were unlucky to be beaten by France this week. Scotland, who played well against the French last week and were tipped to beat Wales yesterday, were pedestrian to say the least against a Welsh side which has yet to find its form. Will the French win the Grand Slam again this year or is it England's turn? I pray it is England which takes the trophy not that it will make a difference to our continued membership of the EU although apparently the are stirrings of euroscepticism amongst the top Tories. Let the euroscepticism bloom into a referendum!     

Statesmanlike

Cameron's statement yesterday evening about Mubarak's resignation was statesmanslike. What a vast improvement on those squirm making statements of both Blair and Brown in similar circumstances. Despite the sometimes childish tone taken by Cameron at the Despatch Box he is developing little by little into an effective Prime Minister. What though to do about the Big Society which it seems is failing to get any real lift off. Someone needs to be put in charge of the project who not only believes in it but has the energy and the time to take it forward. Clearly Lord Wei is not able to do so. What though about Ken Clarke? If he believes in it he is the kind of Big Beast who would bring it to life. If he doesn't have the energy what about someone like John Major or Lamont? The Big Society project definitely needs a well known figurehead. The Big Society has not been well explained and needs to be. It is apparently something which is close to Cameron's heart although as he is somewhat inscrutable it is difficult to know what is or is not close to his heart. Is he really a eurosceptic or a low tax adherent or a supporter of our armed forces or of any of the other things which most Tories are keen on? It is difficult at times to know.    

What a Difference a Day Makes

Heard about twenty minutes ago that Mubarak has now resigned. Presumably the army has told him they can no longer support him and that they are changing their allegiance to the Vice-President. An interesting development that appears to vindicate those who believe that demonstrations can change things. Time will tell how much Egyptian life changes - plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose and all that.

Stand Off in Egypt

Emboldened no doubt by the support from Saudi Arabia and the ineptitude of the Bummer administration in its handling of the crisis, Mubarak has ensured that Bummer and many others have ended up with egg all over their faces by failing to bring his resignation date forward as had been so confidently predicted right up to the moment of the announcement last night that Mubarak had decided to stay on until the end. Whether Mubarak has made a wise decision or not remains to be seen although it is doubtful he would have defied the pressure for him to go if he knew the army would not stand by him as from what one gathers the army is the single most important institution in the country and is always in the background controlling the government machine. What will the crowd do now? Will they continue to occupy Tahrir Square or will they pack their tents and depart one by one? My guess is that in a few days only a token presence will be left in the Square whilst the representatives of the various protesters try to negotiate reforms with the government of which only those agreeable to the army will be enacted. The story might be different if a strong leader of the protestors had emerged but that does not seem to have happened in this case.   

Prisoner Votes

Well the motion was passed but we have not as yet bounded free of ECHR decisions. This will not happen until we have left the EU. This is because this country is bound by its Treaty obligations and as a country that invented the rule of law in the certain knowledge that it is of the utmost of importance in the fair governance of man (a fact which even the wording of the motion recognised: "acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK"), Parliament has by its vote created a dilemma. Was encouraging MPs to vote for the motion a cynical move on Cameron's part to give a little happiness to the eurosceptics in the knowledge that the UK will in the end have to bow the head to the ECHR as Ms Synon in the Mail contends or was it a high risk strategy as Peter Oborne in the Daily Telegraph today suggests which logically should lead to discussions with the ECHR but which unless Cameron is able to negotiate an acceptable solution will end with the dissolution of the coalition. If the coalition ends will we then be given a referendum vote on whether we want to stay in or leave the EU? One can hope so.        

and another thing

Ed Balls was trailed as the Big Beast who would eat George Osborne alive. Having watched his performances at the Despatch Box on both Tuesday and yesterday I would say that he was a flop. He'll have to be much more clever and much sharper if he wants to win his jousts with Osborne. Osborne comes across as pompous yet sharp whereas Balls come across as cocky, nasty and wrong. He's a bit like the Miliband brothers who both come across as supercilious beings convinced that they know it all and that nothing that they do not know is worth bothering about. As they have never done anything in their lives other than politics they are more than somewhat hamstrung in the reality stakes. Too many MPs from all sides are similarly hamstrung. If they were more realistic would Clegg, the Labour party and others be suggesting that Universities must take in the 'disadvantaged' with lower exam passes in order to resolve the lack of social mobility issue rather than doing everything to improve the quality of state schools? if they were more realistic and knew a little more about real life would they have accepted membership of the European Court of Human Rights which was set up to give other European Countries a similar kind of safety net which we had evolved over centuries in this country? To be a member of the ECHR is an insult to this country. We need no lessons from any other country on human rights issues particularly from those countries which have adopted their constitutions since the 2nd World War which is practically the lot of them.   

A Most Important Vote

One of the most important issues facing this country is that of our sovereignty as a nation. For years now and particularly since we joined the EU we have been subjected to laws made elsewhere and on which we as a people have had no method to contest or reject. All the parties have consistently let us down on this issue. That is why it is essential that the Commons votes against the ruling of the European Human Rights Court that we give prisoners the right to vote. We need to demonstrate that we are a sovereign power by making it absolutely clear that it is obnoxious cant on the part of the Court to involve itself in the democratic decisions of this country even when those decisions were made a century or more ago. We also need to roll back the domination of the state in so much of what we do. That is why it is so important that the Big Society succeeds since it will have the effect in some instances of stopping and perhaps also of even  rolling back the ever increasing interference in our daily lives by the state. The last Labour government in conjunction with the EU have purposely made us more and more dependent on them so that they can exercise ever more control over us. Benedict Brogan makes a very good point in his article in the Daily Telegraph today about how those who are dependent on the state are not going to vote for a party which wants to cut the apron strings but will continue to vote for their subsidies instead. Could the Big Society be a subtle way of trying to cut the apron strings? Even if not we have got to get back to a point where the state is significantly smaller than the private sector. It seems incomprehensible to me that as the state in the form of the last government was in large part to blame for the credit crunch in this country that it should not be the state that takes the brunt of the burden of re-balancing the economy rather than the private sector as is now happening. Taxes should be cut to generate growth and a significant number of the civil and municipal service should be dismissed.

Charities

I had not appreciated until quite recently that governments have been making donations to charities. There seems to me to be something very wrong with this. A charity should be supported by those who for whatever reason believe it is worthy of support and if there are not enough supporters to maintain the charity in its chosen field it should close. Why should the taxpayer be forced to make a contribution to a charity with which he/she profoundly disagrees like so may charities I could name? I heard Dame Hoodless the other morning on the radio saying how she was in favour of the Big Society but that there was no one in charge of how the cuts would be applied and that as a result the cuts were harming charities. At no time did this lady indicate, nor of course did the BBC make it clear, that Dame Hoodless is a Labour Party apparatchik and that her charity is in receipt of a considerable amount of taxpayers funds. The Tories must insist that these conflicts of interest are made clear since without such disclosure the impression one is left with is that the Tories are not only hardhearted but also incompetent in applying the cuts to charities. Much better though for the government to cease all charitable donations.   

Banks

Money held by solicitors for their clients have to be held in special accounts known as client accounts. Client accounts are ring fenced so that if a firm of solicitors goes belly up the creditors of that firm are unable to access the client account money. It will instead be repaid in total to those to whom it belongs. Whenever solicitors steal client account money the shortfall is made up out of a fund to which all solicitors contribute. Money deposited in a bank by its customers should be treated in the same way. First of all, unless the customer agrees otherwise, it should be held in a ring fenced account that only the customer can access and secondly the banks should pay a certain amount into a fund that is available only for the purpose of making good any shortfall should a bank lose its customers' funds. Those within the bank responsible for the loss of customer funds should be made criminally liable in the same way as a solicitor who has stolen client account money is criminally liable. With this kind of structure the banks would not then need to split off their high street business arm from the other riskier things they do. There is no doubt the banks, including those who did not need bailing out by the taxpayer, bear part of the liability for the credit crunch and taxing them now they are making profits again seems a good idea of Osborne's despite the childish remarks of one Ed Balls, one of the men who was also responsible for the credit crunch.            

Gossip

It is interesting what one can sometimes learn hacking a little white ball around. From someone who knows him I heard that Craig Oliver, Cameron's new communications man, knows no MPs nor any of the Westminster press corp and has a very short temper, which seems a great asset for any chief government press officer. I also heard confirmation that many Tory MPs are unhappy as few are Cameron fans or ever have been and that their unhappiness has been exacerbated because a number of them who thought they should have got jobs in the administration did not do so because the jobs went to LibDems instead. Apparently although most of the Westminster press corp believe the coalition will last 5 years there is a minority who think it will last only a couple of years because of the tensions it has caused. It seems strange to me though that you would risk a General Election before the hoped for benefit of the cuts becomes apparent and therefore I agree with the majority that it is reasonable to assume that the coalition will last the course with several hiccups on the way. Pickles is not thought to have been a success and Vince Cable is supposed to be a broken man who will be moved from his present job and replaced by Laws as soon as he is able to re-join the administration, if he is cleared over his expenses muddle. Ed Miliband is thought to be doing quite well and although Cameron has not wiped the floor with him I doubt Ed will appeal to enough voters to beat Cameron.        

Sally Bercow

What on earth possessed La Bercow to pose wrapped in a sheet for photos and to allow herself to be quoted as saying "I never realised how sexy I would find living under Big Ben". It is the first time I have heard or even thought of Big Ben as an aphrodisiac and the thought leads one on, as these things often do, to wonder whether there is a Freudian slip here. No doubt a psychiatrist can tell us if in effect she is making a sub-conscious comparison to a certain part of the anatomy of her vertically challenged husband, although I have heard it said by some indiscreet ladies that the size does not depend on one's height but on the length of one's feet in inverse proportion. Someone really ought to make a study of this, or not. It will be just another thing that will be used by some unkind people to humiliate those of us who are tall and blond with big feet. What a pompous ass he is though dressed to look like a court usher rather than in the truly magnificent of full fig of yore. And La Bercow, who presumably agreed to the stunt in the hope that it will promote her career as a wannabe Labour politician, has been made to look frankly like a silly cow. I feel sorry for her in the kind of way one does when one sees someone continuing digging a hole that they should have abandoned a long time ago or better still not even have started. I hope England don't make me feel like that when I watch them this playing Wales this evening in the first match of the 6 Nations Tournament.

Food Prices

I know next to nothing about food prices although I did listen to a BBC radio programme in the car the other day blaming the speculators for much of the steep increases in certain food items such as wheat. The other day I also read an arcticle somewhere complaining about certain governments stockpiling various food stuffs and blaming those governments rather than the speculators for the steep increases in certain products. Simon Nixon http://blogs.wsj.com/simonnixon/ has written a very interesting blog stating that the EU research for a report on food prices had also found no evidence that speculators had caused the steep food price rises but that this part of the report was excised at the request of Sarkozy. It is appalling how evidence of this kind is manipulated in this way. It always shocks me that politicians, civil servants and others can behave in this way. Naive or what but there you are. Anyway, getting back to the point, one of the reasons it seems for the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt and no doubt in other places either currently having demonstrations or about to do so, is the cost of food. Governments stockpiling food like Russia did last summer and of course the Common Agricultural Policy are the biggest reasons for price rises and thus unrest in the Middle East. It really is urgent that the Common Agricultural Policy is terminated. That is the least we can do for the poor of the world.

Mubarak

Mubarak has been wise to say that he is standing down but unwise to delay his departure until September when 'elections' were due to take place anyway. Why is it that despots, despite the many, many examples of recent history always leave their departures until too late and bring in inadequate reforms in the meantime. Too little and too late should be the warning slogan that every despot carries in his heart. There are of course notable exceptions to this rule such as the North Korean despots who despite everything have still not revolted against their tyrannical regime. I imagine no one in North Korea will be allowed to watch what is going on in Egypt in case it gives them ideas. I guess Mao was an exception too although his successors have been clever by giving economic freedom to the people so that their thirst for democratic freedom has been muted. I wonder though whether they are watching what is happening in Egypt like the rest of us and wondering whether they could risk trying the same thing? It is doubtful that the time is right for the Chinese to revolt against their masters but who foresaw the uprising in Tunisia. An Egyptian acquaintance of my wife was back in Egypt over Christmas and told her today that there was no hint of anything like this happening whilst he was there. He is as surprised as the rest of us, delighted if democracy is the result, but very surprised by the demonstrations.     

Betrayal

I had thought that the days of betrayal by the British for imagined gain had ceased many years ago. Who these days for example remembers that we gave up Heligoland to the Germans in exchange for a tract of land in Africa towards the end of the 19th Century? Who remembers that we were accused as a result of betraying the natives of that German offshore island that had for generations before it became British in 1807 been Danish? I was much surprised therefore to learn today that we gave up the mass murderer al-Megrahi of Lockerbie bomb notoriety to Lybia for a mess of potage. That by a Labour government which constantly boasted about its ethically pure foreign policy and which pretended that with them in control we had somehow become a young country. Lies on both counts, just like the lie that they had abolished boom and bust. Blair and Brown should be made to eat dirt and Cameron must not shrink from revealing the appropriate government papers so that we can see exactly what kind of shoddy deal was done in our name. Apart from the enormity of this scandalous act of betrayal of the victims and their families and of this country's reputation for fairness we should know what it was that possessed Blair and Brown to go down this route. What possible guarantee could they have obtained to ensure that Lybia will live up to its part of the bargain? I can't help feeling that yet again we have been duped by wily foes who astutely judged that Blair was a naive and gung ho  schoolboy looking to make a splash in the 'Great Game' and that Brown was a buffoon way out of his depth in all such matters.