THETIDOS

Tax households, forget marriage

2010-01-17T10:52:00.005Z

There are a lot of thing wrongs with the British tax system, but one of the most obvious has to do with the way household income is ignored versus individual income.

Take two households (of two people) earning £50,000. In one, a single earner earns all the money; in the other, it is divided. The tax paid by the former is far, far higher even though the expenses of living are essentially the same.

This is clearly not fair and is dealt with in other countries, such as the United States, by a combination of allowances and household income tax tables to even it out. Not in Britain.

Something should be done to rectify this. It hits hard a lot of reasonably paid, but still not rich people who for one reason or another live on the earnings of one person.

The Tories say they plan to change the law in this regard, but unfortunately as is the case often with right wingers they have muddied up a fairness issue with a social issue. They claim they are going to adjust it to encourage marriage.

Marriage has nothing to do with this. It is households that we should be looking at -- how many people live on how much money. Partners -- gay or straight -- should count, not some quasi-religious notion of what constitutes a proper couple.

The law needs to be changed -- but out of fairness not because of a social engineering agenda.

UK election will be no coronation

2009-11-22T14:59:00.006Z

It would be crazy to take today's Observer poll and say that the Tories' chances of being the next government are sliding. But I am not the only one who has been questioning their supposedly unassailable lead. Seems to me that their support is a mile wide and an inch deep. They are still on track to win against a tired Labour government, but it won't take much to make a real fight of it. Some random thoughts:

-- Was it The Sun? Their attack on Gordon Brown over a hand written note to a grieving mother who lost her son in Afghanistan had a remarkable effect. It made Brown look picked on and brought to light his evident emotion about the war dead.

-- Was it Cameron? His last two appearances on The Andrew Marr Show have been horrible. He comes across as peevish and not entirely likable. Add that to the Toff image and you have problems.

-- Was it Europe? The Lisbon Treaty came into force and the sky did not fall in. EU leaders also showed how nonthreatening the whole thing is buy appointing a couple of probably competent nonentities to the top posts (see previous post)

Another poll will likely come along soon, putting the Tories back up again. But this one at least showed that the road is open for surprises and that, thank goodness, next year's election will not be a coronation.

Two good choices for Britain in Europe

2009-11-19T19:19:00.008Z

While the choice of Herman van Rompuy to be European Union president is hardly bracing, there is plenty in it to please Britons. First, of course, he is not Tony Blair -- so that vomit-inducing prospect can be dismissed (see previous post). But even without that, van Rompuy's ascension can be greeted with polite applause.

The supposedly media-shy Belgian is likely to be just the kind of president Britain really wants. His job is not, of course, EU president. He will be president of the EU council, the group that is made up of member states. He will be president as in preside -- not a swashbuckling leader like they elect in America. Just what the British doctor ordered, someone to do what the council wants it to. Long live the Union of Nation States.

Next, his appointment allowed the second job, foreign policy chief, to go to a Brit, Catherine Ashton. I would fibbing if I said I knew much about her. But I do know that the main reason she got the job is that the EU wants Britain firmly within it foreign policy portfolio. With our links to Washington, the Commonwealth and the UN Security Council, we are to EU foreign affairs what Germany is to its economy and monetary policy. Ashton should combat some of Britain's euro-scepticism by showing that we can be part of the centre.

Both these choices are good for Britain. A president who will be a chairman and one of our own in charge of what we are most interested in. Now if only the Tories don't screw it up.

Three reasons why Blair should not be sent to Brussels

2009-10-24T16:31:00.012+01:00

There are three reasons why Tony Blair should not be appointed as president of the European Union's Council of Ministers, a position that is incorrectly but probably irreversibly being dubbed "President of Europe". The most important has to do with Britain's place in Europe.

The other two have to do with Blair himself.

First, his scoffing at international law and cuddling up to George Bush -- clearly a man with no love of internationalism -- should disqualify him for any prestigious position representing a group of countries. Indeed, a case could be made that he should be sent to The Hague to face war crime charges rather than Brussels to be feted. The war in Iraq was unwanted in Europe (including Britain), probably illegal and fought based on lies. He should not be rewarded for this.

Second, Blair the European was always a con. He promised much but delivered next to nothing. We are no closer -- indeed, may be further away -- from joining the euro than we were when he took office. Our role as a "third" power with France and Germany is laughable. Given the chance to lead Britain into Europe, he caved in and promised a referendum on the ill-fated EU constitution, knowing that Britons would have rejected it out of hand.

In short, he is not qualified for the job.

Now comes the main reason. The British people only need a small push to send the country out of the EU, a disastrous prospect for our economy, society and place in the world. It is not their fault -- they have been subject to decades of lies from newspapers and politicians stirring up false notions of nationalism. No one -- least of all supposedly pro-European politicians like Blair -- ever defends it. They tend, rather, to blame their own shortcomings on it.

So here is the prospect of an intensely divisive and in some areas despised man being touted for a leading position that is being created by a treaty that rightly or wrongly most Britons are suspicious of. The disgust is already palpable.

It would do untold damage to Briton's already shaky relationship with Europe and play directly into the hands of eurosceptic politicians ready to drum up the (false) spectre of Brussels undemocratically running British lives.

For the sake of Britain in Europe if nothing else, this should not be allowed to happen.

Poor Britannia

2009-10-04T10:35:00.011+01:00

Voters often complain that they like none of the candidates presented to them. It is a luxury enjoyed by those of us who live in democracies. At least we get to whinge about it.

Having said that, Britain has a major problem at the moment as a general election next year gets closer. We have three choices outside regional or fringe parties - tired authoritarians, untrustworthy anti-Europeans or ineffective outsiders. Here is the problem:

Labour: First, This is the party that blew its chances for greatness when Tony Blair sacrificed it to George Bush's wars. Second, Gordon Brown has proven incapable of transferring years of wanting to be the leader into actually being one. Probably a decent man -- and certainly not given enough credit for encouraging a global response to the financial crisis -- he has become intensely unpopular and probably reached the point of no return.

More importantly, Labour is arrogantly authoritarian. It is often assumed that left-of-centre parties are liberal, but this is not the case. Old socialist tendencies along with years of being in power have created a party of control freaks. All they can talk about is cracking down on this or that, or forcing society to move in one direction or another that it may not want to go.

Time they were gone.

Tories: Anyone watching David Cameron on today's Andrew Marr show can see the problem. They want to be new and improved but they don't have it in their DNA. Cameron couldn't answer the simplest questions for fear of stirring up either rage within his own party (Europe) or among voters (public service cuts).

Europe is their poisoned chalice. They have already begun swaggering around telling other EU leaders how things should be done and the scepticism within their ranks is dangerously close to separatism from the EU. Even Cameron knows what a disaster that would be for Britain's role in the world and its economy. He just can't say it.

A key element of their Europe policy is to get Britain out of some of the EU's social agenda. These are things such as retirement age, maternity leave, health and safety, job security -- in short the best things that Europe has to offer its citizens. All the Tories want is a free trade zone.

If the Tories get in -- and it does seem likely -- we have years ahead of us of clashing with our EU partners, laws aimed at making life easier for the richer among us, and a nod and a wink to business to keep doing what it has been doing.

They don't deserve a chance.

Liberal Democrats: Almost not worth mentioning because they cannot and will not win. Too many things are stacked against them, mainly in terms of the voting system, but also in their choice of leader. Nick Clegg is decent enough, but essentially a poor man's Cameron.

The LibDem policies appeal to me. They are pro-Europe, green, not averse to a modest bit of wealth distribution, anti-war, and good on compassion. But so was Gandhi and he has as much of a chance of being next prime minister as Clegg, even if he is dead.

Worth supporting, but its like kissing your grandmother.

So, poor Britannia. But at least we are allowed to whinge.

Should the BNP be invited to speak on the BBC?

2009-09-06T17:31:00.005+01:00

The BBC has invited the British National Party, a far-right, racist group, to have a panellist on the public affairs programme Question Time. The rationale is that the BNP had two members elected to the European Parliament at the last election. Here is your chance to vote on the situation:

Should the BBC invite the BNP on Question Time?

poll by twiigs.com

American healthcare is not medical Nirvana

2009-08-21T18:29:00.009+01:00

You can tell a lot about a country's aspirations and view of itself from soap television. Consider the working class struggle and booze-fest depicted in Britain's Eastenders against the middle-class consumerist angst in something like America's Bold and the Beautiful.

So when it comes to healthcare, a noisy American debate that has suddenly dragged Britain's poor old National Health Service into the transatlantic limelight, you can compare the underfunded, scruffiness of Britain's Holby City with the pristine efficiency of America's Private Practice. (Is no one ugly in American healthcare?).

Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Private Practice is what America thinks its healthcare is all about. But it isn't. Most Americans who are lucky enough to have health insurance do not generally get anything like the top-notch treatment as touted by the medical profession, free-market right and drug companies.

They may be like my family was, limited to HMOs who tell you who you can see and for what, yelling at you for taking a sick child to the "wrong" hospital. Or they may be like a dear, now-departed old man I knew who was bounced from one expensive specialist to another for years being misdiagnosed while Medicare picked up his bills.

If they live in a small, poor town in rural America, they will be lucky if they get more than a local pill-pusher and county hospital with limited facilities. But that can even happen in cities too.

So don't buy the argument that a new America healthcare system will somehow destroy medical Nirvana. It is already a mess for most people.

Now none of this is to say that Britain's NHS is perfect. It is just as scruffy, overworked and understaffed as Holby City portrays. It also makes plenty of mistakes and can be an incompetent bureaucratic nightmare.

But it has one thing going for it that American healthcare does not. It is there and anyone can use it. There are no fears in Britain of growing old and not having medical coverage. Health insurance is not even an afterthought if you get laid off or your business goes under.

Like publicly funded schools it is there to serve you. Like the publicly funded military it is there to protect you.

Give me Holby City over Private Practice any time -- although I wouldn't mind the odd Addison Montgomery wondering around NHS the wards.

Reaching across generations

2009-07-18T18:32:00.013+01:00

This week has brought with it three events that have dragged my brain into the past, allowing me to muse on history and life (my abiding pleasure).

-- The 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 taking off for the moon. I was a teenager in England. My father and I dragged mattresses into the the "television room" and sat up all night watching Armstrong and Aldrin walk on the surface and forget about poor old Collins circling around above. It was a great family moment. The evening involved TV telling us how astronauts peed and pooed. The BBC was splendid.

It dawned on me this week that we watched the event on a black and white television with rabbit ears. Looking around at current technology around me only made me realise what a feat it was. There were no VCRs or touch tone phones, let alone DVDs, laptops or iPhones. How did they do it?

-- The death of Walter Cronkite. He meant more to my American friends than to me. But his passing away brought back memories of Watergate, the Vietnam War and the demise of Richard Nixon, all of which he presided over as a God of Journalism.

I am not entirely sure that the America that emerged from those years of turmoil is headed in any more of a right direction than it was at the time. But I do know that instead of a Cronkite telling it like it is, poor Americans are now plagued with biased, misleading and self-serving news reporters. It would have been great to really know what Walter thought of the evil crazies on Fox and the trash talk shows that surrounded his final years and pollute the minds of a nation that deserves and needs better.

-- The passing of Henry Allingham, aged 113. It surprised me how sad I felt when I heard that the "twice teenager" had gone. I guess it was because I liked the idea of someone going on and on participating in a war that so few remember.

The death of Mr Allingham (at his age, the "Mr" is obligatory) reminded me of once meeting a Boer War veteran. He was a Chelsea Pensioner and I was about eight. I have always liked the idea of reaching across generations by chance meetings. The same idea goes, for example, with shaking the hands of someone who once shook hands with Churchill etc.

Soggy with nostalgia, this week. Silly, really. But then life is, isn't it.

How EU worked for Britain over Iran

2009-07-06T22:27:00.007+01:00

No one in Britain ever points out the benefits being in the European Union. So I will. Just one small example more or less ignored by the country.

When Iran started arresting employees of the British Embassy in Tehran, the EU acted with one voice and called in all the Iranian ambassadors, country by country, to complain. It is what partners do.

It may be stretching it a bit to say that this turned the Iranians around on its own. But they cannot afford to alienate all of Europe. Britain, the not-quite-great Satan, yes. But not 27 countries representing almost 500 million people.

As of this post, only one is still being held out of the estimated nine who were originally taken. Thank you, EU.

Telling the truth about Euroscepticism

2009-07-02T21:15:00.010+01:00

It is one of the irritations of being a pro-European Briton that no one ever stands up for the EU in this country. The nearest you get is some barely known Liberal Democrat on a television programme like Question Time arguing that without it the UK would be in worse shape. Other than that it is Eurocrats this, crazy regulations that, we won the war etc.

So it is with a degree of pleasure that I recently came upon a paper from Simon Tilford, chief economist at the rather thoughtful British think tank, the Centre for European Reform. Tilford does not exactly defend the EU, but he does attack those who attack it, saying they are not telling the truth. British Eurosceptics, he says, are not being honest about what retreat from full membership of the European Union would mean.

A newly 'emancipated' Britain would not remain part of the EU's single market, at least not on the terms the Eurosceptics claim. It would not reduce the regulatory and compliance costs facing UK business and it would end our ability to shape the EU's single market.

Essentially, Tilford argues that Britain's anti-EUers -- who range from idiots who talk about independence, to tabloid nationalists and Tories who yearn for an England long gone -- would give up any say in their own affairs in exchange for being able to say that they were not actually in the EU.

Britain needs to step up its involvement in the EU, not leave the playing field in a huff. It needs to strive to ensure that EU financial regulation is -- as far as possible -- proportionate and reconcilable with the UK approach. More generally, it needs to make common cause with other economically liberal member-states to ensure that the EU evolves in a direction that serves British interests.

Tilford unfortunately thinks in terms of what Britain can get out of the EU rather than what the EU can achieve as a body. He also focuses too much on financial matters (but, then again, he is the CER's chief economist).

But at least there is someone with a bit of intellect out there trying to tell Britons that the EU is more than just a faceless body that demands that all bananas be straight and that it would be a unmitigated disaster for Britain to disengage.

We need more of this kind of argument. Britons must not be allowed to slide out of the EU in a state of blissful ignorance created by lazy journalists and ignorant politicians.

Teenage thoughts on freedom

2009-06-21T02:51:00.005+01:00

Rummaging around some old keepsakes today, I found a letter that I had written in my teens on a visit to Berlin. It was interesting not just because I had forgotten it, but because I commented on the Wall. The visit was in 1971 when the Cold War was very much in force. I reprint the relevant comment here:

"The Brandenberg Gate, Checkpoint Charlie and the Wall are very frightening. It is only when you get near them that you feel the real evil of autocracy -- communist or otherwise. You can see people perhaps a hundred yards away who cannot so much as walk over to you and ask for a light. It is very depressing, yet strangely enthralling -- I could look at it for hours."

It is good to know some 38 years later that that particular evil is no longer there. But Cyprus remains divided, Iran is cracking down on dissent, Aung San Suu Ky is locked up, women cannot go out alone in some Arab countries, gays can't marry in most places, and poverty and starvation are worse rather than better.

We all have a long way to go. But at least that East German can now walk over to the West and ask for a light.

Clutching at straws on a bad night for Britain

2009-06-08T21:29:00.006+01:00

As I feared, Britain's anger with its politicians and its lack of engagement with Europe has led to a disastrous European Parliament election as far as anyone is concerned who is pro-European and left of centre. Tories coming top and UKIP getting another seat was bad enough. But the vile British National Party getting seats is more than a national embarrassment, it is a disgrace.

So having thought about it all for a day, I scrape up the following to make myself and other pro-European, left of centre types feel a bit better:

-- The party that saw the biggest percentage increase in vote was the Greens.

-- The Conservatives gained just 1 percent more than last time in the vote. Hardly enough to suggest a huge endorsement.

-- The BNP actually polled fewer votes in the two areas where it won seats than last time. It owes its success to Labour's collapse rather than a sudden right-wing frenzy among the English.

-- Ditto to a certain extent for UKIP. It gained only 0.3 percent more of the vote. Its seats came from the Labour meltdown.

-- The Liberal Democrats did get an extra seat (although their share was down and nowhere near what it needs to be for them to be a viable opposition).

But all this is grasping at straws, I admit. It was a night when ignorance about Europe, fear of immigration and anger at the government combined to boost the right and feed the country's eurosceptic neurosis.

A bad night for Britain.

Two pictures to remember Tiananmen

2009-06-02T21:35:00.019+01:00

Hard to believe but it is 20 years on Thursday since China's military cracked down on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. We now know China as a burgeoning capitalist kind of place that owns vast swathes of the United States economy through U.S. debt and which many hope will actually lead the world out of this nasty recession we are in.

We should not forget, though, that China is brutal to many of its own people. It stamps on human rights, executes those it does not like and shuts down freedom of speech and expression.

To remind us, I offer two photographs. The one on the left is the inspiring one we know and love. Something poetic about it. The other picture, on the right, which was re-published today in The Guardian, tells the real story.

There is only one problem

2009-05-29T19:14:00.004+01:00

Leave it to Desmond Tutu to get it right. He who would be the greatest man in Africa but for Nelson Mandela has this to say to The Guardian about Middle East peace:

"You can give up on all other problems. You can give up on nuclear disarmament, you can give up on ever winning a war against terror, you can give it up. You can give up any hope of our faiths ever working really amicably and in a friendly way together. This is the problem, and it is in our hands"

Pretty much says it all, but if you want more from the good archbish, try this interview from Hay-on-Wye literary festival.

Capturing the end of an era

2009-05-24T20:56:00.008+01:00

In the past few weeks I have learnt of the deaths of two men whose passing marks the ongoing end of an era. I won't mention their names because there are many like them and, in that sense, neither of these two were special.

The first I did not know very well. He was just a very old and sick man. But it turns out that when he was in his 20s in the 1940s he was captaining a U.S. submarine in the Pacific. "Where the action was," he told me when I asked. He was part of that group brought to light in the book and film "Run Silent, Run Deep". He told me of his war -- the sinking of two enemy warships in terribly dangerous conditions -- as if he was describing a trip to the grocery shop.

The second was a dear relative and one of the nicest people I have ever met. He was a young kid from rural Pennsylvania who found himself fighting on the beaches of Normandy, a place he probably had never heard of. He could talk you through "Band of Brothers", telling you what was coming next all the way across the Rhine and into Austria. He jovially mocked the ex-soldiers in it who said they did not need rescuing from Bastogne. "That's not what they said then," he said.

With twinkling eyes, he once told younger relatives who were planning to backpack through Europe that he had done that too when he was their age. They did not immediately get it.

Men (and women) like this are leaving us daily. I am so very glad that I spoke to these men and got at least some of their stories. We should all be asking as many as we come across about their time and keeping it alive, even if it is only in a small way like this post. They will all be gone very soon.

One thing I did get to do was thank my relative for helping me to have freedom in my life. His reply, if I recall correctly, was simply, "Your welcome".

The sorry state of EU Britain

2009-05-16T16:55:00.022+01:00

I can't speak for what is happening in the rest of the European Union, but Britons are about to make some terrible mistakes. They will go into next month's European Parliament elections focused on just about everything other than what it is all about -- Europe.

Some of this is not new. We British are among the most ignorant members of the EU when it comes to understanding what it is about, what it really does and what are the benefits of being in it. At one level there is a steady drumbeat of made up or misinterpreted nonsense from the newspapers -- EU want your bananas to be straight, EU says you can't say Miss or Mrs anymore, Lollipop Ladies to be banned etc. On the other there are the politicians, either having a Victorian hallucination about what Britain is in the modern world or using the EU as a nice excuse for anything they want to do but know will upset their voters.

The result is the European Parliament elections are never about the EU unless is it someone demanding that we get out. Take a look at Labour's TV commercials (which don't even mention Europe) or even the misleading handouts of the pro-EU Liberal Democrats as brought to light here by blogger Adrian Short.

It is even worse this time because of the unbelievable scandal over MP's expenses. Labour, already unpopular because of the recession and whatever number of years it is of fairly appalling management, is going to get thumped. But the Tories are by no means shining in this scandal and have just reminded voters who they are by claiming expenses for things like moat cleaning. The LibDems have unfortunately gone back to being ineffectual.

This means that very few British voters will even consider Europe when they vote and may turn to the likes of the secessionist UKIP and -- horribly -- the far right BNP to punish the bounders who run this place.

In the old days, this might not have mattered beyond being embarrassing. That was when the European Parliament was a powerless talking shop. But it isn't any more. It has real clout and shares many legislative powers with other EU institutions. More importantly, it oversees these institutions and it the only directly democratic body the EU has.

It is no place to send people because you want to punish someone else or because you don't think it is important. Please don't.

On letting the unspeakable be spoken

2009-05-06T20:36:00.010+01:00

There is something initially joyous in hearing that the British government has banned some of America's right-wing culture warriors from entering the country because they may encourage hate. A full list is available from The Washington Post but it includes Michael Savage, a conservative radio host who has made controversial remarks about immigrants and Muslims, and the vociferously anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper.

But after a quick burst of "and a jolly good thing too" a true liberal should have pause for thought. As horrid and asinine as some of the beliefs these people hold might seem, is that a good enough reason to ban them? It is not as easy for some of us as we might wish it to be. Who decides what is appropriate speech in a democracy? How can garbage be shown up for what it is if it is not allowed an airing? And when does garbage change to something altogether more reasonable that a given government might not like?

A similar dilemma arose in the 1970s when the very nasty, quasi-fascist National Front held marches and rallies in Britain. A lot of people on the left wanted them banned. But the government let the NF go ahead. The solution was found in a series of strong counter demonstrations that sought to show up the NF for what it was.

Perhaps the reasonable course of action in Britain would be to let the likes of Savage et al in to talk (although there is no reason to believe they want to) but to make sure that every unpalatable utterance from them is met with the protest and derision it deserves.

Boris Johnson and the U.S. quarterback

2009-04-30T12:36:00.009+01:00

Back in the 1980s a Senate seat was opening up in the U.S. state of Texas. Of the names bandied around at the time for Republican candidate (and likely winner) was one Roger Staubach, the retired quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys. Problem was, nobody was sure whether a) he was interested b) he could think about anything other than throwing a football or c) that he was even Republican. In the event, he did not run, answering at least questions a) and b).

The issue, of course, was that Staubach was a name, and in a political system which rewards fame rather than achievement he was the first on many Texan lips. But being famous does not automatically mean you are politically capable (see many, many examples in U.S. Congress).

Parliamentary democracies, which choose leaders from a pack of legislators, tend to have avoided this problem. Hard to imagine someone as unphotogenic and dour as Gordon Brown being elected to anything much in America, for example. But few would deny that he has the intellect and ability needed in a politician whether you agree with him or not.

Britain however has done its usual and adopted one of the worst aspects of U.S. culture (eschewing a lot of the good stuff). London has a directly elected mayor and it is fast becoming a celebrity contest. Boris Johnson, the current incumbent, has many things going for him -- intellect, wit, a comic touch and charisma that is not always to every one's taste. But does becoming famous for bumbling about, making gaffes, dropping the odd Latin phrase into conversations, and appearing on quiz show, make him qualified as chief executive of one of the world's greatest cities. Clearly, no.

The Evening Standard newspaper recently reported that Alan Sugar, a business man currently made super-celeb by hosting The Apprentice on UK television, is a name being bandied about to run for London mayor next time.

Here we go. How long will it be before Tories/Labour/LibDem backroom strategists reckon David Beckham, Jordan, or JK Rowling have just what it takes to win?

It won't happen, but London should go back to picking its mayor from among the relative nonentities that make up its council. Enough with I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Elected

Democracy in South Africa

2009-04-25T15:41:00.003+01:00

A photo of Nobel prize winners in Cape Town harbour to celebrate another, peaceful and democratic election in South Africa

Zuma's triumph

2009-04-23T21:07:00.007+01:00

Jacob Zuma is perhaps not the candidate that Western investors and governments would have hand-picked to lead South Africa. But they will get used to it, just as they did with Brazil's Lula and have done with just about everyone recently except Iran's Ahmadinejad. They have also had some time to get used to the idea, given the fact that he has been heir apparent for more than a year.

What may be most disappointing, however, is that Zuma looks like he has seen off any serious opposition even if the African National Congress doesn't get the two-thirds parliamentary control it needs to change the constitution (still up in the air). Not that a change is likely -- the ANC has had two-thirds since it took power and not destroyed anything yet.

The bigger issue is that the ANC is retaining its role as the only party of power nationally. This is a pity because South Africa needs to move away from the "liberation party" syndrome that bunches everyone in one group because of an overriding goal.

That goal has been met in South Africa. It now needs for politics to break up and create not just a vibrant democracy but one that has plenty of dissidents.

Roxana Saberi and the embrace of Iran

2009-04-18T19:27:00.013+01:00

Is anybody of a certain age getting a strange deja vu, Cold War feeling about the sentencing of journalist Roxana Saberi for spying in Iran? Anyone remember Nick Daniloff? Journalists are such easy pickings. Gathering information and disseminating it is anathema to nasty regimes.

The timing is interesting, coming just a few days after Iran signalled some interest in following Washington's warming moves. Perhaps poor Ms Saberi will be the pawn that allows some talks to get going.

In the meantime, it does come under the "early test for Obama" category, as the Los Angeles Times points out. He is going to have to be very angry and concilatory at the same time if he really wants to end the Axis of Evil nonsense. And all those full-mooners at Fox and in the Republican party will be baying away that they knew it all along.

Head-bashing, G20-style

2009-04-18T11:55:00.006+01:00

Britain is still being rocked by the G20 demonstrations of a few weeks ago. It is all a bit 1970s with police brutality at the core. A man died of a heart attack sometime after being pushed over by a policeman; in another case a young, small woman was roughed up. All this has been captured on film via mobile phone etc. In that sense, I suppose, it is not very 1970s at all.

Is recession-hit, unemployed Britain about to see the return of thuggish, Thatcherite-style policing? Short answer, no. For one thing, Britain is a changed nation and would not put up with it. More importantly, however, the police are different. The police perpetrators of the G20 incidents are clearly outliers, acting suddenly and without the support of their colleagues around them. Bit like bouncers who lose it on a Saturday night and go over the top.

Not that this excuses anything. There is also a big question of discipline. Why did these types get into the force in the first place. And why did sergeants and the like allow some police officers to cover their identification numbers.

All stuff for the government and police authorities to deal with. But not a sign of the good-old-head-bashing days returning. YouTube wouldn't let it happen, anyway.

Waiting, not jumping in

2009-04-14T15:30:00.005+01:00

Last laugh on a rather appalling "Meet the Press" last Sunday. For some reason the assembled crew seemed to think that Obama is failing because he hasn't fixed North Korea, Iran etc. And after all he's had, what, about four months.

Biggest criticisms were about how the mighty U.S. was being held at bay by a bunch of scruffy pirates off Somali. No one chose to remember that the only reason the pirates had not been blown out of the water was that they were holding a U.S. citizen hostage.

Fast forward a few hours and NBC is showing impressive graphics about how the hostage was freed and the pirates dealt with in a very straightforward and deadly manner.

What Obama and the military appear to have done is to calmly look at the situation, plan for an opportunity to solve the problem and then done so about as efficiently as anyone could imagine. Our "Meet the Press" critics probably yearn for the Bush years when no one would have sat back and thought about it, just rushed in.

I guess a thinking administration is going to need some getting used to in some quarters.

Obama sees some light

2009-04-13T20:38:00.006+01:00

Obama's comments that there are tiny signs that the U.S. economy is improving is interesting because he would hardly have said this if it was going to backfire. He is much too clever for that. There are in fact a lot of little signs all over the place, including China, which, let's face it, is just as important as Washington these days.

So let's say the world economy does start to get better -- and financial markets seem happy to accept this -- what about the banks? Economists seem divided into two camps. One says we are having a pretty nasty recession but one that will end. The other says that banks are so beaten up and indebted that the global economic foundations cannot hold.

I guess I am in the first camp. The reason is basically that the second offers no hope to anyone. Agreed this is a different recession than others I have gone through. But markets and economies have shown in the past that they are primarily driven by sentiment. So when things start to look up, sentiment improves. Obama is feeding this.