Journal of the Plague Years

• He's completely graceless.
• Breakfast in Tokyo, Lunch in New York... or was it Moscow? Or was it Elevenses in Peking?
• A Nice Word for that Mr. Brown.
• Just say whatever comes to mind, Mr. Brown.
• How did I not notice it sooner?
• President For Life Idi Blair Dada.
• Cling To Nurse...
• It's The Great Leader, Hooray.
• Lisbon.
• Not like Flashman, exactly, but...
• Is Brown A Busted Flush?
• Defence Spending:
• The Morality of Mr. Brown.

He's completely graceless.

29 March 2008 .

Sarkozy seems to have made a real effort to kick-start an Anglo-French renewal and, apart from a bit of rather leaden flirting with Sarkozy's wife, all The Father Of Our Nation could do was glower.

Sarkozy

Breakfast in Tokyo, Lunch in New York... or was it Moscow? Or was it Elevenses in Peking?

24 March 2008 .

A peacebringer in the Middle East? A teacher in a great university? A banker at the centre of world finance? A president in waiting, about to achieve all that eluded Napoleon and Hitler? Perhaps he's sorted all that - I sometimes rather lose track of what The People's Dear Leader is up to. Will he get a T-shirt for his high-altitude gospel of fighting climate change, as he jets from city to city?

A Nice Word for that Mr. Brown.

23 March 2008 .

Criticism of Brown again, for not being particularly telegenic... But it's about the one thing he should not be criticised for - in fact, all power to anyone who can make it to the top without being pretty. Isn't it a large part of our problem that we're electing our leaders more and more on the basis of youthful looks and a quick wit rather than for abilities which will actually do the job properly. It did for Menzies Campbell, which I've always thought's a pity.

Mind you, not being telegenic doesn't necessarily mean you'll do a good job, either.


Just say whatever comes to mind, Mr. Brown.

07 February 2008 .

In the Commons, yesterday, Mr. Clegg of the Lib Dems asked The Father Of The Nation two questions: he referred to the 1,000 intercept requests each day (I'm afraid I didn't hear whether he referred to the number of intercepts made without bothering about the request), to the 1,000,000 innocent people on the DNA database, and to the scandal of routine fingerprinting of young schoolchildren in 5,000 schools; he didn't mention CCTV.

The Great And Benign Leader's response was, "People in this country are reassured by the presence of CCTV". Twice, he demanded to know whether the Lib Dems supported CCTV.

[One of the complaints about Mr. Speaker Martin is apparently that he doesn't hold the Guardian Of Moral Truth to doing what he's meant to do during Prime Minister's Questions - which is to answer questions rather than ask totally different ones.]

Incidentally, I'm far from reassured by CCTV, but I don't know how alone I am in that.


How did I not notice it sooner?

05 February 2008 .

President Idi Blair Dada! Of course, in the real world, Dadaism came before surrealism.


President For Life Idi Blair Dada.

15 January 2008 .

I have no brief for the Royal Family. I don't imagine that we'd get on like a house on fire if we met. However, I am a royalist. I'd rather have a non-political Elizabeth or Charles than a political president any day. President Bush? President Blair? (That might have happened.) President Thatcher? (That would have happened. And, no matter how much you personally might like the idea, there was such loathing of her and her politics among a sizeable constituency in this country that I think it would have been terminally alienating.)

I believe that blair was deluded; I also believe that the evidence is convincing that his greed for power was unlimited. He went a long way to destroying the historical checks and balances that have enabled the survival of our democracy - without an ultimately higher loyalty available to the country there would have been nothing to stop him.

With relief, once blair had gone, I assumed that he had gone. But now it seems he's angling for the presidency of the

>>>EU<<<

Excuse me while I blaspheme.

I'm still wondering why some obscure Spanish or Czech magistrate hasn't issued a warrant of impeachment for war crimes against the man. I suppose I have to accept that I'm so out of touch as to be beyond recovery.

impeachment

Cling To Nurse...

08 January 2008 .

Much as I dislike the Great Leader, reading Cameron today reminded me just how much worse things could get if we dispose of Mr. Brown too precipitously. Does Cameron not mind who he makes afraid?

Imagine yourself poor, old or mentally ill and ask yourself that question again. He really has no heart.

Alternatively: Imagine yourself as somebody who, while healthy and wealthy, is nevertheless concerned about the good governance of the country. And ask yourself the question again. Because he really has no bottom either.


It's The Great Leader, Hooray.

01 January 2008 .

Over the weekend, it seemed that the British government, mindful of its rather dubious history as the late colonial power, was going to keep its nose out of Kenya's troubles following that country's recent election. We were told that, rather, we would work within Europe; I thought it a sensible decision.

This afternoon I caught part of a report from brown. I assume that he must have had words with political leaders in Kenya, but I haven't bothered to chase the news up because what I heard our Great Leader saying was so depressing. I do so hope I've got it wrong.

It seems that what he told the Kenyans he wanted was a short list of hopes (or ideas, or suggestions), that the opposing parties would talk, that they would restrain their supporters from violence, that they could work together in government, etc. (or along those lines). His hopes were perfectly reasonable; but not his phrasing: apparently that he said "I want..." or "I told them I want..." before each suggestion he outlined.

What Britain wants is pretty low on the list of priorities, so far as this matter is concerned. (To offer unsolicited advice is very different from being willing to help if asked.) But what brown wants??? I just hope that the Kenyans don't find his manner as arrogant and graceless as it appeared to me today.

Kenya 'colonial mentality'

Lisbon.

12 December 2007 .

The Father of the Nation did not go to Lisbon for the signing of the EU treaty. Never mind whether the treaty is desirable or not, nor whether there should have been a referendum beforehand; the treaty is of fundamental importance. Every other leader in the EU was there, but not brown. He is such a graceless, surly man. Even if he was trying to make a political point... he is such a graceless, surly man.

Incidentally, there's an expression which TV analysts tend to use, and used again today: when there is an aspect (of some international agreement, say) which our government doesn't like, we are told "Britain doesn't like" (or agree with, or whatever) this or that item. I seem to remember that Britain didn't "agree with" the EU Social Contract. No, dear BBC person: the government may not like; lots of Britons may not like. But to those of us who happen to approve of or agree with the matter at issue (especially when, as with Iraq, we may actually be in a majority), the expression is, at best, offensive. If, on the other hand, there had been a referendum....

'EU Social Contract' Lisbon treaty

Not like Flashman, exactly, but...

08 December 2007 .

No school has a monopoly in the goodness or nastiness of its alumni. However, certain schools do seem to specialise in certain virtues... and nastinesses.

There is a particular type of self-assured, charming, cheerful, sometimes semi-disguised insouciance which the English public school can produce and which no-one else can in quite the same way: there are occasional grammar school wannabes but, fortunately for their own souls, it never really takes.

The type is difficult to describe, but will be familiar to anyone who has met it a few times - and instantly so to those who have been to public schools themselves. It is born of privilege and of at least a degree of wealth; it seems to run in families, sometimes touching some members but leaving others unmarked. It is peculiarly English and probably, like a good vines, requires centuries of imperial nurturing - or a substantial sum paid to a good school.

The problem is that, although it can fool most people most of the time, it is too often self-absorbed and self-seeking... and despite appearances, ultimately cold. Those touched seldom have any interest in or understanding of the lives of the great mass; they do not make good officers.

One public school above all others is consummate in producing the type - alongside another one, very different and much nobler, it must be said.

I hope I do David Cameron a great disservice in drawing his name to your attention at this point. This man may or may not be sincere within his limits; but he seems to lack a certain necessary humility and, if this is so, those limits may prove to be fairly narrow.


Is Brown A Busted Flush?

27 November 2007 .

I've had a sense from the papers over the weekend that The Supreme Leader is irretrievably damaged.

When he became chancellor in '97, I knew very little about him beyond the rumours about the brown-blair duumvirate. When he returned the control of interest rates the Bank of England, I read the signal hopefully - I have always favoured a bit of Keynsianism, which is what I foolishly thought it might be about.

By the time he supported The Dear Leader in the Crusade Against Evil in '03, I had already come to regard him as a teflon-incompetent - worse than useless but getting away with it.

By the time he assumed the purple, I admit that I had come to regard him as personally repellent.

Now, I would like to believe that he's finished bar the rotting.

Only two things worry me. One is that I may be reading what I want to read in papers which I find sympathetic. The second is... what will replace him? Cameron, I have no doubt, will be even more dangerous: voted for the war but trying to distance himself; wedded to precisely the privatisation, deregalation and tax/spending cuts that are causing so many of our ills; no more understanding of systems, I suspect, than the current mob; blair-lite (if that's possible)... etc.

Scarreeeeeee!

At least I don't (yet) see how he can back out of withdrawing from ID cards... but who can tell ?


Defence Spending:

22 November 2007 .

Once again our government is defending itself against accusation of insufficient funding of the armed forces (for the jobs it is asking them to do) by saying that military chiefs did not protest against the budgets when they were announced. [It said the same when a senior officer did finally spill the beans about underfunding in Afghanistan.]

Let us bear in mind that the government is quite right: the generals never emitted so much as a squeak of warning or objection. Well, it has to be admitted that these officers do sometimes come across as rather feeble. But it also ought to be borne in mind that it is a condition of their service that they accept what they are given. They didn't protest because the government doesn't allow them to.

=/=

I have to admit being torn, with respect to our armed forces. On the one hand, I am utterly opposed to the Anglo-American war in Iraq; in fact, I'm not clear why Blair has not been impeached (more anon). I also believe that our political policies and planning have been tragically ill-founded in both Middle East wars. On the other hand (even if Blair's government held that opposing war but supporting the forces fighting it was impossible, immature, or laughable) I believe that our armed forces are entitled to my committed support.

Funnily enough, both the Dear Leader and the Supreme Leader seemed to have had no problem supporting the war but dissing the forces. Some good questions have been suggested in the media today, inter alia by the five military lords in the house.

• Why did Blair never visit wounded servicemen (so far as I know)?

• Why have the military hospitals finally been wound up in the middle of a time of war?

• Why, in a time of war, do we have a 'part-time' Secretary of War who whose time is also spent running the Scottish Office, as well as his MP duties?

• Why was there no thanks to the armed forces in the Gracious Speech?

• Why was the Supreme Leader, when Chancellor, the only cabinet minister who never talked to the military top brass about equipment, funding, etc. problems?

• Why was brown identified in the House of Lords as the most impossible man to work with? (But then, apparently civil servants were leaving the Treasury in droves because he was so arrogant, unpleasant, authoritarian and bullying.)

• Why is the defence budget not keeping up with the costs of equipment?

Oh, more, plenty more, but I believe my distaste for the Supreme Leader is only too apparent. But he is so... infantile... those sulks when blair was on his hind legs... that gravitas (hmmm)...

Come to think of it, I don't know why the generals or the media get in such a lather about how the government seems rather careless of the welfare of hurt and wounded soldiers; you only to look back to the years after Kaisar Billy's war, or after Bonaparte's, to realise that our government is only following in its predecessors' finest traditions.

Footnote: Always interesting to remember the refusal by military staff in the 14-18 war to give parachutes to pilots because money was more important than lives.

'defence spending' 'wounded servicmen' RFC parachute

The Morality of Mr. Brown.

30 October 2007 .

There are two messages in the air about the new PM.

One, as he spins the reduction of the UK forces around Basra, is that he is 'on our side', that he is somehow not really associated with the decision to send them in in the first place.

The other is that we may (all?) deplore the British part in the invasion of Iraq: but Mr. Blair was the man responsible for the decision and he is no longer PM, so we must draw a line under that ancient history and move on. Well; apart from the fact that that particular rotting corpse is not going to stop stinking, I offer the following - I admit with no great originality:

Mr. Brown was and is wholly complicit in that invasion: had he had any doubts at all about the invasion, or any belief in the million who marched against it, and even a smidgin of courage (and, to be frank, I cannot see that he has ever yet shewn any sign of being a courageous man) he should have voiced his objection publicly then. In fact, I take it that if he had challenged for the leadership of the party in early 2003 on a platform of opposing the war, he would almost certainly have won or, if I am wrong, he would certainly have walked away with honour.

As it is, I see no sign in him (on this issue) either of honour or of courage.

Site Map

a210.