A New High (Or Should That Be Low?) In Government Incompetence?

One of the central tasks of government in the 21st century is to arrange for a stable and secure circulation of money. This is true of every government in every country in the world - except Scotland, which curiously has no government-sanctioned paper banknotes, only notes issued by seven retail banks. If the perception arises that the government can't issue money in a competent, trustworthy fashion, people will have to take refuge in other items of value. Fortunately, such a collapse of a nation's currency only happens in countries like Zimbabwe, where hyper-inflation has completely destabilized the Zimbabwe Dollar, which is now no longer issued at all. Most other countries, especially those in the West, are still to be trusted to supply secure money.

One of the few powers explicitly handed to the American Federal Government by the Constitution is "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" (Article 1, section 8, paragraph 5). So what should we make of the following news?

"Because of a problem with the presses, the federal government has shut down production of its flashy new $100 bills, and has quarantined more than 1 billion of them -- more than 10 percent of all existing U.S. cash -- in a vault in Fort Worth, Texas."

This is incompetence of a degree rarely seen at this high, powerful level of government. In order to make banknotes safer, it has made them so safe that they cannot be circulated at all. And this at the grand, total cost of $120 million and with all the notes together representing a value of $110 billion.

And this ought to have consequences for the American Fed's second attempt at quantitative easing (QE2). Quantative easing involves pumping money into the economy to lower long-term interest rates, usually by buying debt, an analogue to printing money. But this failure to actually print that money should give us pause at the Fed's or the government's ability to accomplish their goal. Unless this is a deliberate mistake to undermine trust in the value of the dollar, thereby stimulating inflation and perhaps lowering interest rates. But I'm not knowledgeable of economics to know whether this would work or not. What I am sure of is that Barack Obama is not nearly clever and dastardly enough to pull of such a Nixonian deception. So it seems that this money printing debacle is just incompetence, plain and simple.

Espionage, Not Whistleblowing

I haven't blogged in the last week due to real life stuff that needed to be done and in the course of that week I decided to let the whole Wikileaks mania pass by without comment. I didn't really see the big deal about learning that Silvio Berlusconi is a womanizer and that Nicolas Sarkozy is an arrogant, aspiring Napoleon and that Vladimir (Batman) Putin is the real overlord of mafia-invested Russia and not Dmitry (Robin) Medvedev. Not really worthy of shouty headlines, we knew it all already.

But today, the new Aussie messiah of the internet-age, Julian Assange, from his hideout somewhere in the English home counties, has fired a broadside at the United States that defies silence. By releasing documents detailing facilities "vital to US security" he has crossed from part-time whistleblower to freelance espionage. What good does it do the free world to know that the US and Western Europe rely on a pipeline junction in Siberia for most of their natural gas and that critical Trans-Atlantic communications cables come ashore (Dutch language alert) in Katwijk and Beverwijk? Are we less free for not knowing all this?

By revealing these things, Mr. Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks crew are in fact making us less free by handing knowledge of how to threaten us to people who will gladly use that knowledge for their own nefarious purposes. If terrorists manage to strike at that pipeline junction or at facilities that make desperately-needed vaccines for typhoid or rabies, or - God forbid - get their hands on smallpox samples being used in a lab in Denmark, they can easily hold the free world at ransom or simply destroy things for destructions sake. And this does not just concern Islamic terrorists, but also anarchists in Western Europe and nationalist or communist radicals in Russia. In a dangerous world like ours, ignorance - and I hate to say this as a truth-seeking historian - sometimes truly is bliss. We sometimes need secret keepers to stand silent on the ramparts, aware of things that might terrify us and keep us awake at night.

Mr. Assange can now no longer hide behind the cover of whistleblowing. Releasing these latest cables would, in time of war, have been called aiding and abetting the enemy: a treasonable offence. Mr. Assange is in luck that he is not a US citizen, so he can hardly commit treason against that country, but he might well be charged with espionage, and he would do well to stay in hiding if he wants to remain free. Yet as far as I'm concerned, if he believes in the freedom and the importance of the word, he would give himself up now and, if required, go to the United States to face the consequences of his actions. If a brave man speaks up for what he believes in, he does not cower in the shadows afterwards, but advances "to the muzzles of guns with / perfect nonchalance!"

Labour Big Beasts (and Me) Against Voting Reform

In May, Britons will be going to the poll in the first nationwide referendum for 36 years. No, not on anything to do with EU treaties, something all three main parties promised to hold referenda on at one point or another. Instead they will decide on whether to change the centuries-old First-Past-the-Post voting system to something called Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the first choice of any proponent of voting reform. Nick Clegg called it a 'miserable little compromise' and the referendum is the outcome of exactly that, a compromise hammered out to get the Lib Dems to support the Tories and thus get David Cameron into Downing Street.

That no one really wants AV is shown today by a number of Labour grandees emerging from Westminster Palace to join the no campaign, against the will of their leader Ed Milliband. Margaret Beckett, the former Foreign Secretary, and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the former Home Secretary, Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, now stand alongside Conservative heavyweights William Hague, the current Foreign Secretary and Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary in opposing reform. With Tory members of the Cabinet on this side, only the Lib Dems appear to be in full support of the measure. But we always knew they were such opportunists that even a 'miserable little compromise' will do.

I myself am opposed to voting reform. First Past the Post has worked perfectly well over the years and tends to result in a clear winner, something the British voter appreciates greatly. Even the five day long coalition negotiation after the last election was too long for many voters. So why would they wish to reform te system in a way that will favour smaller parties and thereby lead to a greater likelihood of coalitions and compromise among parties? The current system has also been adapted to suit the British voting landscape and the politically beneficial link between constituency and MP is best maintained by keeping it. And if the objection to First Past the Post is that it is not proportional than AV is not a solution - the votes of the minority will still not matter -, only Proportional Representation would be.

What worries me about today's articles by Ms. Beckett and Lord Reid is that they are decidely negative. Instead of arguing about what's good about First Past the Post, both former ministers have eyes but for what's bad about AV. I'm afraid that negative campaigning will have the effect of driving voters away. Being negative is never pretty and a positive message is always better appreciated. It may be good to start negative, because it is aggressive and let's one set the narrative, but sooner or later, voters will want to hear not why they should reject AV, but why they should retain First Past the Post.

The Gathering Storm on the Korean Peninsula

Today's shelling of a South Korean military base and surrounding civilian areas by North Korea can hardly have escaped anyone's notice. It is the last in a series of provocative actions by the communist Hermit Kingdom, which so far have consisted of cross-border exchanges of rifle fire and the torpedoeing of a South Korean naval vessel. In light of this, it is not unreasonable for the South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak to call for a stern - and possibly armed - response:

"Reckless attacks on South Korean civilians are not tolerable, especially when South Korea is providing North Korea with humanitarian aid," ... "As for such attacks on civilians, a response beyond the rule of engagement is necessary. Our military should show this through action rather than an administrative response" ... "Given that North Korea maintains an offensive posture, I think the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should unite and retaliate against (the North's) provocation with multiple-fold firepower," Lee said. "I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again."

Indeed, to attack a country's military infrastructure, not to mention the indiscriminate nature of the attack which did nothing to avoid civilian targets, is an act of war. Although in this case it is perhaps nothing more then a simple resumption of hostilities, since North and South Korea are still formally at war, the current situation being nothing more than a decades-long truce.

Nevertheless, South Korea should be aware that every response needs to be in line with the prescribed notions of just intentions, just conduct and proportionality under the just war theory. Furthermore, going to war with North Korea is not as easy as it should be considering the North's economic woes and the ongoing famine there. According to this Wikipedia article their armed forces consist of - if one includes reserves - almost 10 million men. Of course, North Korea also possesses at least a few nuclear weapons, which I don't doubt they will use as a last resort. And then there's China, which might or might not act in support of its erstwhile allies. All this should give South Korea pause and food for thought. Can they win a renewed armed conflict with their communist neighbours? If they, even for a second, believe the answer is no, then perhaps they should not start it in the first place. If, on the other hand, South Korea answers yes to this question, then today's attack is reason enough to go on the offensive. After all, given South Korea's overwhelming technological advantage, even the numerical imbalance between the sizes of the two armies should not be too insurmountable a problem.

As an aside, what does this potential conflict mean for Britain's decision to scrap its aircraft carriers? Con Coughlin writes the following in his Telegraph blog:

This morning’s deeply worrying eruption of hostilities between North and South Korea shows just how quickly conflicts can arise, and underlines the importance of having a carrier strike capability to respond to them.
Whenever Tony Blair was faced with an international crisis, his first question was invariably, “Where’s the carrier?” Gen Richards was himself a beneficiary of the protection afforded by carriers when he commanded the British military contingent that was sent by Mr Blair to intervene in Sierra Leone’s bloody civil war.
But if tensions on the Korean peninsula boiled over to the point where Mr Cameron felt obliged to intervene, he would find his military options were severely limited following what now looks increasingly like his reckless decision to scrap Ark Royal and her Harriers.

Indeed, in this case, an aircraft carrier in the area would have given Britain the choice of whether to put pressure on North Korea or, in the event of war, to at least back up South Korea. The presence of Britain and the United States in the area would also mean that China would have more to consider than its relations with South Korea and Japan should the Middle Kingdom intervene. It might even lead China to abandon the hepless North so as not to damage economic relations with the US, Britain, and through the latter, Europe. It is not to late for David Cameron to reconsider the scrapping of the carriers. HMS Ark Royals is still under sail and can be despatched to the Far East within days.

New Al-Qaeda Terror Tactics

Dutch weekly news magazine Elsevier reports (Dutch language alert) on its website that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is changing its strategy from large-scale terrorist attacks a la 9/11 or 7/7 to smaller strikes like last years failed underwear bomber and last months air-freight bombs. Al-Qaeda has realized - some years after the rest of the world caught on - that 9/11 attacks are rather difficult to pull off succesfully. These small attacks are cheaper and easier to plan so Al-Qaeda can, with equal resources, plot more attacks. And by the fundamental laws of probability a few of these attacks should succeed. It is almost impossible for Western security and intelligence services to stop each and everyone of them. Moreover, a succesfull small-scale attack will have disruptive effects disproportionate to its costs. A single bomb exploding in a western shopping centre, train, or airplane will lead to people adjusting their lives out of fear. After two or three, they will start avoiding crowded places all together. So for a fraction of the cost and effort of planning 9/11, Al-Qaeda will have caused more chaos and sowed more terror than on that September morning.

Like I said this strategy - called 'the strategy of death by a thousand cuts'  or 'Operation Internal Haemorrhage - is being implemented by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This subordinate affiliate of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda is overtaking its parent organisation as the main perpetrator of terror attacks. With the disruption of Al Qaeda's activities by the military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the junior group is becoming the greatest threat to the Western world. It makes sense for Al-Qaeda - whose organisatory system is cell-based with each cell being independent of the others - for such a subordinate group to take over if the main (Afghan-based) group is compromised. The change of strategy by AQAP should be a signal for the West to rethink its own counter-strategy. While the War in Afghanistan should continue - and as I wrote yesterday even stepped up - Yemen should become a new front in the larger War on Terror. It is imperative that AQAP is not given the opportunity to implement its new strategy.

The first signs that this is a serious new threat are visible in Germany where reports about impending attacks have led security forces there to ramp of surveillance of train stations and airports. But other islamic terror threats remain. Security services are also warning of 'Mumbai-style' attacks, with heavily-armed gunmen storming a building looking to kill as many people in a surprise attack before security forces can react. Warnings about this have been given by German government officials (Dutch language alert) who hinted that the Reichstag may be the likely target. A similar plot is seen as imminent by British authorities, who have drawn up contingency plans in case the Houses of Parliament come under attack.

All this shows that, although it has been relatively quiet on the terror front in Europe and the United States recently, we can not rest easy, content that no attacks will take place and that islamic terrorism is being contained outside our borders. Like they say in second-rate thrillers and horror films just before someone gets killed: "it's a little too quiet". We may be in the calm before the storm and when it finally comes, that storm may rage more violent than before.

To Struggle in Afghanistan or Submit to Certain Defeat

As the leaders of the 28 NATO member states meet in Lisbon this weekend to discuss the future of the mission in Afghanistan, the real issue at stake is the credibility of NATO's - and the West's - commitment to the War on Terror, so grandly declared almost a decade ago. I know this might sound like a exaggeration, but by setting a fixed date for the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014, NATO is sending the signal to the terrorists that all they need to do to return to power in that country is to be patient. And that same signal will be heard the world over. The virtue of patience will be richly rewarded wherever terrorists hide. Just wait and the West will go away.

Fixed withdrawal dates are never a good idea, unless they are backed up by overwhelming forces in the time till then. If the objective of the invasion of Afghanistan was the removal from power of the Taliban, thereby denying Al Qaeda the support their main state-sponsor and the capture of Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al Qaeda members, then withdrawing in four years time only to have the Taliban return to Kabul will mean that the United States and NATO have suffered defeat at the hands of a rag-tag insurgency. No matter the way Washington spins it, no victory will have been achieved if this happens. The only way to achieve victory is by a troop surge reminiscent of the one in Iraq. But I doubt this will happen. Instead of sending more troops, countries are withdrawing already. They are tired of the seemingly unwinnable conflict. Naming 2014 as the deadline for troops to leave Afghanistan simply fits into this picture.

The BBC quotes a spokesman for President Karzai:

"A journey that has a clear sense of destination is a much easier journey than a journey into the unknown."

A fair sentiment indeed. Yet what is forgotten here is that the destination was known from the outset of the war, only the road to be taken was uncertain. The road now turns out to be harder than imagined and so the journey is being cut short before the true goal is reached. Per ardua ad astra (through hardship to the stars) used to be a noble sentiment but now it seems we will have aimed for the stars but fail to reach them. The hardship is apparently too much and the struggle is not worth it. So there won't be an increase in troop numbers and NATO submits to defeat in 2014 by setting a deadline now and this raises the question: why remain in Afghanistan at all if in four years time the West will leave whatever the state of the country? If victory matters not, David Cameron should follow the example of the Netherlands and withdraw tomorrow.

Yes! God! Yes! Trump for Prez!

Oh sweet Lord, I almost couldn't contain my excitement when I read this: Donald Trump might run for President of the United States in 2012 as a Republican!

"Would I rather be in the race or not be in the race? I can tell you, I love what I'm doing. I'm having a great time what I'm doing.  I'd rather not be in the race,” he said. “But it could be fun because I'd like to see some positive things happen for the country… I'm going to make a decision probably by June.”

What could be better than having The Donald versus The Sarahcuda in the primary, only for the winner to duke it out with The One in the election! It'll be a more awesome election season than 2008 - and it'll be a year-and-half long affair too, seeing as Palin has already as good as committed to running in 2012 and Trump will make his final decision in June 2011.

So what would Trump bring to the election? Well, for starters, he's a billionaire, so he can outspend all his opponents (unless Mike Bloomberg runs as well) in this election by a country mile. So that's 1-0 to The Donald! Second, he can say 'you're fired' every time he wins a primary or a debate, something nobody does with the same flair and panache. 2-0! Third, while most politicians are known for their somewhat lacklustre hairstyles, Trump tops 'em all with his unflappable helmet of hair (or is it a toupet? No wait, I didn't write that, don't sue me). And that's 3-0! Next, if elected, he could do a television show to select his cabinet, or why wait, maybe he could do a televised Vice-President competition. 4-0 ... this is starting to look like a cake-walk! Fifth, he'll rename the White House, The Trump House and clad it in gold, because one can never put too much gold on a building! Five - Nothing! Sixth, Trump'll be the first President to have stood in the WWE Wrestlemania ring! 6-0! Finally, he, unlike any other potential candidate, is truly a self-made man. You see, Trump almost went bankrupt in 1992 and worked himself back to the top again! That's 7-0 before the election has even started and I'm invoking the mercy rule! Game Over! Trump Wins!

The only way The Donald could still lose is if either Chuck Norris or Barney Stinson - or both, or is that too much to ask? - decides to throw his hat in the ring! Here's to hoping!

A Political Supernova

Dear readers, we might be standing witness to an event hardly ever seen by human eyes: the implosion of a political party. Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) appears to be in the uncontrollable process of failing under the increased strain of political power and grandeur. The first signs of the slow collapse became visible a little under four years ago when Dion Graus, a PVV parliamentarian since day one, came under fire (Dutch language alert) for having, apparently, having physically assaulted his 8-month-pregnant wife in 2002. Furthermore, he was reported to have threathened to kill his father-in-law, as well as having threathened and stalked his mistress. All of the charges were subsequently dropped and it should be stressed that Graus was not convicted. But Wilder's, in light of these serious accusations, should have reconsidered Graus' continued membership of the PVV parliamentary faction.

Next, in September 2009 Hero Brinkman, a member of the Dutch Parliament for the PVV was suspected (Dutch language alert) of having punched a barman in the face. The barman did not press charges and Brinkman was let off with a rapping of the knuckles by the Parliament's official Press Centre, Nieuwspoort, where the alleged incident took place. Then in March of this year Brinkman was accused (Dutch language alert) of causing grievous bodily harm and attempted manslaughter. Again the charges were dropped and no prosecution took place. Although Brinkman has never been convicted of any crime, the mere appearance of impropriety caused by multiple run-ins with the law should have been reason enough for Wilders not to put him on the PVV's list of candidates during last June's elections.

These last two weeks the shady dealings of PVV parliamentarians have been coming on faster. PVV MP Eric Lucassen, it emerged last week, was convicted (Dutch language alert) in 2002 of having had improper sexual relations with a subordinate while he was an instructor at a Dutch military installation in Ermelo. Lucassen was also accused (Dutch language alert) of having attacked at a man at a coffeeshop in Haarlem and having wrecked his brother-in-law's car. He was not convicted of the latter two offences. Another MP, James Sharpe has faced charges (Dutch language alert) of causing bodily harm of a fellow athlete when a member of PSV Athletics Club in the late 80s and Sharpe's Hungarian dating-company Digitania was convicted (Dutch language alert) of fraud in Hungary for having used pictures of women without their consent and ordered to pay a fine of 256,000 Euros. Finally, a fifth MP, Richard de Mos is rumoured (Dutch language alert) to have lied on his CV, claiming to have worked as a School Headmaster, while having only completed the required training course.

That makes a grand total of five, count 'em, five, PVV members of Parliament who have done things which are at least improper behaviour for a politician, if not outright criminal. That's almost a quarter of all PVV MPs! For a party that stresses law and order, this is quite an achievement. But Wilders, instead of cutting these people loose, is sheltering them from the storm. All five are still members of PVV faction, and it'll be a small miracle if he expels at least one of them. And at this rate, by next week all PVV MPs will be forced to face some deeds from their past. No political party can survive such behaviour by its politicians or the inaction of its leader. At some point the collapse will become unstoppable and the political star that is the PVV will go supernova.

Drifting Away From the EU

Sometimes European officials do or say something that drives individuals like myself, who aren't completely sure what to think of the European Union project, further into the Eurosceptic direction. This week that mental instinct to stampede occurred on two occassions. The first was last Wednesday's comment by the EU President Herman van Rompuy that "the biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war." Why is it that opposition to the EU must always be challenged by supporters of the Union by invoking the dread spectre of war and destruction? Is it so impossible to politely disagree on the closer union of the European (nation-)states? Sadly, it seems that to Mr. Van Rompuy, this is indeed the case.

But unfortunately for our Continental President peace and cooperation in Europe are not the sole prerogative of the European Union. As we saw a couple of weeks ago with the Anglo-French military treaties, some countries, even those with a history of animosity, can work together without going through Brussels. Does Mr. Van Rompuy really believe that, should the EU disappear tomorrow France and Britain will renege on those agreements and sail their fleets up the Thames and the Seine? Or that Poland and Germany, now NATO allies, will mass their armies along the Oder and the Neise? In fact, wasn't the last war in Europe fought in what used to be a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual state on the Balkans? Yes it was, and should Europe ever become a state, it too will be multi-ethnic and multi-lingual, and that is not a sure guarantee for stability.

The second comment that made my mind do a quick side-step, was made by the President of the European Commision, Jose Manuel Barroso. He blamed the failure of negotiations for next year's EU budget on the stubborn resistance of a few countries, saying: "A small number of member states were not prepared to negotiate in a European spirit. ... Those that think they have won a victory over 'Brussels' have shot themselves in the foot. They should know that they have dealt a blow to people all over Europe and in the developing world." While the BBC does not name the countries blocking the budget, the NOS does: it's the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Of course, once negotiations break down, the blame game immediately begins. And Mr. Barroso has seen fit to clothe himself in what he believes to be the mantle of wisdom, leaving - in his mind at least - the rags of foolishness to the resisting states.

Mr. Barroso should not be so hasty, however. The Netherlands and the UK have good reason to oppose the budget at this point. The European Parliament apparently wants to not only negotiate this year's budget, but also stake claims for the future before any agreement is reached. This goes totally against the rules on the budget, which are never set years in advance. Instead of climbing on his high horse Mr. Barosso should have looked at the facts first. Now I can't shake the feeling that to him it does not matter who is out of line in the negotiations, as long as it's not anyone connected to the European Union. What's more, the states are most certainly 'prepared to negotiate in a European spirit'. The EU is still an organisation made up of sovereign member states, who's sole responsibility is to their own citizens. So by blocking an unfair budget, they are behaving in a proper manner. That is, unless Mr. Barosso would like to argue that the member states are no longer sovereign? But that's a Pandora's box he won't wish to open, as closing it again will be impossible.

The Measure of the Heart's Felicity

In the mountainous land of Bhutan, the Kingdom of the Thunder Dragon, they do not place the ruler of economical growth alongside the effects of government policy to measure its success. Instead, they judge it by employing another indicator: Gross National Happiness. This scale of subjective well-being was first suggested in the 1970s by Bhutan's former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck and has since been studied and taken up by some western academics. It remains, however, ill-used in comparison to Gross National Product.

But a sea-change is on the horizon. The British Government is looking to follow French and Canadian examples and measure GNH alongside traditional GNP data. Although the Guardian indicates that Downing Street is understandably somewhat hesitant to calculate the subjective national mood in a time of deep and biting budget cuts and incipient strikes and riots, I think David Cameron might be onto something here. By measuring happiness alongside economic growth, and perhaps even other factors, a much-clearer picture will emerge of the actual effects of government policy and the state of the nation.

Moreover, unlike what some economists would have us believe man is not a Homo Economicus. He is not, in the words of John Stuart Mills, "a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end." ('On the Definition of Political Economy, and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It', V.38) Nor are economics the sole motor of progress - or in the marxist fashion, history. A man's heart is a complicated thing and cannot simply be reduced to a statistic based on the normative monetary value of the body wherein it beats. Some men strive for ever-greater riches, to surpass in wealth even King Croesus of Lydia. Others are content with simpler things: to breath on waking the misty morning air upon the downs; or the sweet taste of that first pint in the village pub after a hard day's work; or just the kiss and embrace of the one they love. Why should all these things be made subservient to the chilling ebb and flow of economics?

It would be good in this respect to remember something else about Croesus. As told by Herodotus, when the sage Solon visited his palace and had seen the limitless stores of riches amassed there, the King asked him: who is the happiest man in all the world? But Croesus, for all his wealth, was not wise enough to know that the happiest men are those who sacrifice themselves freely - and with no promise of reward - for the sake of others: Tellus, the Athenian, who laid down his life for his country; and Cleobis and Biton who yoked themselves like lowly oxen to a wagon so that their mother could pray at Hera's temple in Argos. (Histories, 1.30.1-1.32.1)

I'll leave you with the words of the German mystic and poet Angelus Silesius (1624-1677):

Love is the measure of the heart's felicity
The more 'tis filled with love, the happier thou wilt be.
(The Cherubinic Wanderer, V, 295)

Playing Politics With the Constitution?

Tinkering and meddling with the make-up and functions of the two Houses of Parliament is a recurring theme in Westminster these past few decades. Every government - it matters not of which political persuasion - appears to be possessed with the innate desire to change the rules in the middle of the game, often aiming to the disempower the opposition. In a way, then, it should not come as a surprise that David Cameron is planning to do the same. He's just following in the well-trodden footsteps of his illustrious Labour predecessors.

Mr. Cameron has long expressed a wish to lower the number of MPs and create more equal-sized constituencies. The main problem with the current number and boundaries of constituencies is that Labour has a build-in advantage over the Tories and the Lib Dems. Safe Labour seats tend to be smaller. Thus, to win such a seat requires fewer votes than a win in a safe Tory seat. Understandably, the Tories believe this to be manifestly unfair, and they have a point. Labour should be allowed to profit unjustly from their earlier gerrymandering. Given the current state of affairs this Labour criticism of constituency reform is laughable:

"Labour insists that the proposed changes to the Commons are an attempt at "crude gerrymandering" designed to increase the Tories' chances of winning a higher proportion of seats at the next election."

Far from skewing the system in his party's favour, Mr. Cameron seems to want to make it fairer for all parties, to level the playing field if you will. This alone is the proper intent that should lie behind constitutional reform: to see a fault and to rectify it, unbiased and for the good of all. Should Mr. Cameron accomplish this he will set himself apart from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

However, if the fear implied in the article in the Guardian turns out to be justified, Mr. Cameron has no such honourable motive. His critics say that he wants fewer MPs elected simply to enlarge the power of the executive:

"We are concerned that the [reform] bill could possibly result in the executive's dominance over parliament being increased," the report states. "This is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on the fundamental reform of the legislature."

As a conservative I am naturally suspicious of constitutional reform, but Mr. Cameron gets the benefit of the doubt for now. None of the parties are saintly when it comes to reforming Parliament and the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity to explain his motives before he is judged. Instead of immediately assuming the worst, a little patience to hear the arguments would be a good thing. But perhaps Mr. Cameron's critics are so quick to cast stones because down in the unspoken of depths of their hearts they know why they would want reform and they see but their own intentions mirrored in his eyes.

Nick Clegg and Election Pledges II: No Honour, Only Deception

Just a couple of days ago I wrote a post about the unprincipled deception Nick Clegg seems to be practicing in his abandoning of the pre-election tuition fee pledge. Now it appears that the truth is even worse than I then suspected. Just as a reminder, this is what Mr. Clegg said but days ago about his pledge not to support any rise in fees: "I should have been more careful, perhaps, in signing that pledge at the time. At the time I really thought we could do it." Bad enough as it goes, but not uncommon fare for political backtracking.

Today, however, the Guardian reports the following:

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

So even before Mr. Clegg had signed his pledge and promised the full National Union of Students (NUS) congress he would not countenance burdening students with pound upon pound of debt, he already knew that his words weren't worth the air they moved or the paper they were printed on.

Has this man no honour? Doesn't giving his word mean anything to him? Apparently not. One of the comments underneath the Guardian article says about Mr. Clegg: "Surely one of the most hated people in Britain right now. His political career is over. Shame he's going to take the lib dems down with him." Let's hope his career is indeed over.

But what about the rest of the Lib-Dems? I used to think most of them were good MPs, standing up for what they believed in. And Mr. Clegg may be an abbarition, but if they don't rid themselves of this baselessly specious leader immediately they do not deserve a continued survival in Westminster. Any Lib-Dem MP who still supports Mr. Clegg should rightfully be a marked man at the next election. Nothing but their dismissal will do as retribution for their deceit.

Pyongyang on the Amstel

Ladies and gentlemen, the long wait is over! For everyone who has ever wondered what it is like to visit the hermit kingdom of North Korea, but couldn't get that elusive visa, wonder no more. Soon to open in the world capital of debauchery: North Korean Restaurant Pyongyang.

They have sky-high hopes of the place too:
"A lot of people from outside of Amsterdam will visit because of the unique experience. The large South-Korean community living in Buitenveldert, part of Amsterdam will mainly visit in the evening. It will be visited by many people to have a first meeting with North-Korea. It will be a meeting point of people interested in culture but also business."


I'm already thinking that it will rival the It's A Small World Afterall ride in Disney Land as the most wonderful place on earth. Where you will be able to savour the exquisite and unique food the people of North Korea, courageous workers that they are, haven't tasted in decades; where the beautiful servant girls dance and sing for the greater glory of the Eternal President, the Supreme Leader and the Brilliant Comrade; where all the ills of the capitalist west are forgotten the moment one takes up the karaoke machine's microphone.

Of course, this new Eden might never see the light of day. They have some very specific requirements for potential employees, including speaking North-Korean and at least a year's worth of experience working in a North Korean restaurant. And with only one North Korean living in the whole city of Amsterdam, (Dutch language alert) it's not looking hopeful. Holding back tears at the thought of this restaurant not opening is almost impossible. Why, oh why Dear Leader, for whom the waves cease their raging and on whom the sun has placed it's brilliance, don't you ride to the rescue of your celestial restaurant? Or send your son, the Brilliant Comrade, on whom the mountains ever smile and to whom the sunflowers look for their guidance, to our aid in this, the hour of our need?

Defence cuts: Money or Military Judgement?

In an earlier post I argued that spending cuts should never be justified solely on the basis of saving money. Any cut should serve to streamline government, do away with non-essential assets or improve services. Yet this view often gets snowed under in the relentless torrent of money-saving measures, as the picture given by ministers often emphasises only the amount of money saved. This was also true for the cuts to the defence budget announced weeks ago.

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier aircraft was 'sold' to the public by stressing that it would save more than a £100 million, but the military consequences were largely glossed over by ministers. The UK would be without carrier-based aircraft for ten years, leaving a gap in the defensive strategy of the country and causing worries about Britain's ability to defend the Falkland Islands. As Con Coughlin argues in his Telegraph column today this should not particularly worry us, as Argentina does not appear to be willing - or even possess the military capability  - to invade the island group. He might well be right. However, Coughlin then goes on to suggest that Harrier should not be scrapped because the aircraft might be necessary to strike at Al Qaeda in Yemen should they ever succeed in commiting a terrorist act on British soil.

Ministers have always said that the cuts to the defence budgets would never impair Britain's military capabilities, without ever explaining in detail how this would be so. For instance, if the Royal Navy could do every thing it needed to do without an aircraft carrier duing the next decade, why the need to continue the construction of two new carriers to be completed in 2020? They never gave, at least in my view, an adequately answer. This gives the appearance that scrapping Ark Royal was done just for financial reasons.

But now at last ministers are beginning to counter this fear. Lord Astor, the BBC reports, has said 'the decision to scrap Harrier had been a "military judgement" and not just about costs. He added: "Deleting the entire Tornado fleet would save three times more money." He said the defence review had been "tough but fair".' I'm not sure whether a Tornado aircraft is better than Harrier aircraft, and the government's position that it is may be true, but the arguments that this is so should not be financial but military in nature. Lord Astor's comments iare a promising start, and the MoD should now continue by informing the public of what those 'military judgements' were.

Nick Clegg and Election Pledges, Not a Good Match

Nick Clegg's comments on ITV's Daybreak today beg the question: why does this make him, and his fellow Lib-Dem MPs look so untrustworthy and opportunistic? Having signed a pledge, before the general election, committing him and his party to not voting for any rise in higher education tuition fees, he now, as a member of Her Majesty's Coalition Government, makes an about-face and supports the near trebling of fees. His exact comments on Daybreak - as reported by the BBC - were: "I should have been more careful, perhaps, in signing that pledge at the time. At the time I really thought we could do it." He then sets about backtracking from that pledge, signed in the full knowledge of what he was committing himself to politically, by blaming the state of the finances and the compromises he had to make to join the Coalition.

It's understandable that Mr. Clegg now wants to distance himself from his pledge, yet this pledge is not so easibly abandoned. It was a major plank of the Lib-Dem election campaign. Something, they claimed, set them apart from the Conservatives and Labour. This is what he said at the time (and click on the link to see a nice picture of a proud Mr. Clegg with his newly signed pledge):

Labour and the Conservatives have been trying to keep tuition fees out of this election campaign. Despite the huge financial strain fees already place on Britain's young people, it is clear both Labour and the Conservatives want to lift the cap on fees . . .The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good, including for part-time students . . . Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election. Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all.

Indeed, if you look at the election results, I think you'll find that the Lib-Dems won a great number of seats on the back of the student voters they so actively wooed. If those students now abandon them the Lib-Dems are in danger of being reduced to a rump party at the next election.

On the one hand, yielding to the circumstances of the times is brave and may sometimes even be the wise thing to do. But to make such a big deal of a cast-iron pledge only to then abandon it months later without even the merest semblance of fighting for what you believe, is not brave, nor wise. It smacks of rather dastardly opportunism and makes it seem like Mr. Clegg will say and do anything for swift electoral gain.

A few Lib-Dem MPs are made of sterner stuff and have signalled their continued opposition to tuition fee rises. They have realised that a politician is worth no more than his word of honour and a promise made cannot lightly be broken. Voters will except a change of heart if it is genuinely based on changing facts and circumstances, but they will see through simple political trickery.

Aim of Protest Lost in Flames

The money quote of the day comes from Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU) (Evening Standard):

“It speaks volumes about the anger and concern of students and academics in further and higher education at what this government is trying to do.”

Why, you may reasonably ask, is this remark so hilarious? Well, it seems that the protesters out in force today to march against the proposed rise in university tuition fees were so angry that they turned into a maniacal horde intent not on peaceful and lawful demonstration, but on the destruction of what I can only suppose they regard as their sworn enemy, the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom.They are angry and concerned, indeed, and they told the Conservative Party about it by assaulting Conservative Party HQ in Milbank Tower. If all these students take away from their university education is that the correct way of showing your disagreement is to throw a massive anger-tantrum, then I doubt a trebling of tuition fees will bring in enough money to raise the standards of British higher education.

Whatever message the protesters had to send has now been swept away by the flames of phoney outrage. Any protest that turns into a riot should not be acknowledged by amending the plans for fee-rises. If they want to be heard, demonstrators need to police themselves better and weed out the riotous elements early on. Now, sadly but inevitably, the majority of peaceful student protesters have to suffer because of the minority who could not act in a grown-up manner.

Squatting Is Nine-Tenths of the Law, Apparently

The famed anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote in 1840 that "property is theft". This slogan has since been carried all over the streets of the world on banners and pamphlets by countless thousands of anarchist activists. On would accordingly expect that today's anarchists would remember these three simple words that inspired some many of their ideological forebears. And I was given to understand that squatters in Western Europe often claim to be anarchists, or at least to be inspired by anarchist theories. But now it seems squatters in the Netherlands have abandoned the simple creed of Proudhon for that capitalist phrase 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'.

In September Parliament finally passed a law making squatting illegal, one of the few good initiatives taken by the former Dutch government under Prime Minister - and Harry Potter look-a-like - Jan Peter Balkenende. No longer would law-abiding property owners have to fear waking up one morning to find their houses or offices seized by balaclava-wearing youngsters. Even the left-wing mayor and aldermen of Amsterdam, usually favourably disposed to squatting, said they would uphold the law and start evicting squatters as soon as possible. So that was that, or at least that's what everybody thought.

Squatters, not content with returning their newly-conquered homesteads to their rightful owners, began claiming protection under the European Human Rights Convention, which prohibits someone from having his home taken from him without judicial fiat. Yes, squatters, having taken a home from its owner by simply occupying it and refusing to leave, in what seems to me clear violation of the Human Rights Convention, now claim protection under the same. What's worse, as the Dutch public broadcaster NOS reports, a bleeding-hearted judge is actually going along with this idiotic - there's no other word for - line of reasoning.

Squatting is robbery, plain and simple and squatters should not expect the law to support them. When news of the impending ban first emerged, squatters took to the streets carrying placards saying "your laws, not ours" meaning that they did not obey the democratically-made laws of society. Yet now, in the face of certain eviction, they choose not to make a stand based on ideals, but surrender quickly and claim the protection of the laws they claimed to despise. I always thought, misguided and abhorrent and criminal though their actions were, squatters at least were led by ideals. But no, they are nothing more than opportunistic hypocrits and they should be treated as the crminals they are.

Are the Unemployed Going To Be Forced To Work?

All the British newspapers are full of it today: the proposal by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith MP to force people on unemployment benefits to do work placement for four weeks or lose their benefits for three months. There seems to be some confusion on the exact terms of the scheme however. The Observer is reporting it as entailing that everyone on benefits will have to participate in work placement or have their money taken away. But the Telegraph writes that the placement scheme will only be forced on those people who are 'work-shy' and failing to do enough to actually find employment. Since the White Paper containing the details will only be released later this week we will have to wait to see who is right.

In either case there is much to be said for forcing those on benefits to spend their time doing something productive in exchange for getting money from the government out of the taxes paid by those in work. (in the interest of fairness I should disclose that I myself am currently unemployed, although I am not on benefits) This is especially true with regards to the 'Telegraph version' of the proposal. Unemployment benefits are intended to help an individual who loses his job through that -hopefully short - period that he is looking for another job. It is meant to temporarily stand in stead of a regular salary so the jobless do not go hungry. It was not meant to go on forever and ever while the jobseeker sits on the sofa.

In exchange for paying unemployment benefits the government may, on behalf of society, demand from the beneficient the effort that he does whatever he can to find new employment. If he does not, why should he continue to receive benefits? This does apply to someone who is trying to find work, responding to vacancies every day, but for some reason beyond his control can't get a break. Yet if someone does not even try to do his best to find work, he should not be rewarded for his laziness. Seems quite fair to me.

If the 'Observer version' is the correct one, it is not that easy, though. Work placement schemes often involve the most menial of jobs, cleaning rubbish on the street, stuff like that. It is unlikely that doing such things will give a jobseeker any relevant experience that he needs to find payed work. But maybe that's not the point. Maybe the point is simply to give the unemployed a "sense of work", as Mr. Duncan Smith is quoted as saying on the BBC website. This might be useful, although I'm not prima vacie convinced it is. We'll just have to wait and see.

Someone who has not waited is Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The BBC has him saying the following - and I'm quoting it in full as the foolishness is worth it:

"People who are struggling to find work and struggling to find a secure future are - I think - driven further into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair, when the pressure is on in that way.

"People often are in this starting place, not because they're wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them, they've failed to break through into something and to drive that spiral deeper - as I say - does feel a great problem."

In cases such as these, when despair has set in and a jobseeker is feeling completely useless, giving him that sense of accomplishment that comes from simply being out doing something from 9.00 till 5.00 will not harm him. It might just pull him out of that 'spiral' and give him hope. Hope that he may yet find work and hope that at least society has not yet given up on him and is contend to let him sit at home alone.

Cameron Should take a Stand for Freedom

China is acting like a bully in a playground. Ever since the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Liu Xiabao has the communist Middle Kingdom been telling off every human-rights-respecting country in the world for applauding - or at least not criticising - the decision. Some countries, like France, have decided to refrain from mentioning the award in their dealings with China and have been rewarded for their silence with lucrative commercial contracts. Fearful as they are of losing the friendship and goodwill of the economic Dragon of the Orient, these countries look the other way when it comes to upholding their own human-rights standards. They take at full face value the threat uttered by Cui Tiankai, a high ranking Chinese diplomat (quoted in the Telegraph):

“The choice before some European countries and others is clear and simple: do they want to be part of the political game to challenge China’s judicial system or do they want to develop a true friendly relationship with the Chinese government and people?” He added: “If they make the wrong choice, they will have to bear the consequences”.

With David Cameron about to head to China for talks with President Hu Jintao, it is now the turn of the United Kingdom to decide on the importance of human rights and liberty for its relation with other states. Will Britain speak up for the values it professes to hold dear, or will economic opportunity force its acquiescence to the unknown horrors of the jail cell, the anguished tears of the torture chamber and the terrible silence of the execution ground?

As far as I'm concerned Mr. Cameron has no choice but to take a stand for freedom and raise China's human rights record when he meets Mr Hu. I have little hope that it will have any effects on China's actions - I am realist enough for that - but at least it will show the Chinese leadership that there are limits to the reach of their economic power. It will show them that not every country will meekly submit to their coarse demands for silence. Mr Cameron now has the chance to show true leadership and raise the standard of liberty that West says it defends and upholds. He should not merely follow in the lock-stepped footfalls of all the Presidents and Prime Ministers who held their tongues in the hope of not offending the jailers that rule in Beijing.

PS. Just as I was about to post this I saw on the BBC News website that Ai Weiwei, the Chinese artist responsible for the beautiful 100 Million Sunflower Seeds display in the Tate Modern, has been placed under house arrest for the simple act of wanting to celebrate the impending demolition of his Shanghai studio.

A Lying MP Should Not Be an MP

Should politicians be allowed to lie to the voters in their (prospective) constuency? One would assume that such a question would be but a rhetorical one. Yet as the BBC reports, today two High Court Judges sitting in a special election court in Saddleworth - the first such court to be convened in nearly a century - had to tell a politician that lying is wrong. Phil Woolas MP, the Labour shadow immigration minister, has been ejected from Parliament as a result of the ruling that he had knowingly lied about his Lib-Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins. During the general election campaign Mr. Woolas charged his opponent with wooing the support of Islamic extremists and that Mr. Watkins did not intend to live in the constituency. Mr. Woolas, of course, is challenging the judgment and the Guardian quotes him as saying that the decision would "chill political speech."

Now I'm sorry to be crass, but Mr. Woolas is just being silly here. This decsion does nothing to "chill" anything. Knowlingly telling an untruth is what normal people call a lie, and we teach children that lying is wrong and that one shouldn't do it. Lying is not part of acceptable political intercourse and Mr. Woolas knows that. If he doesn't he's manifestly unqualified to represent anyone in Parliament. He's definitely allowed to fight the ruling on the merits, by claiming that he didn't in fact lie about his opponent, but not by spreading these horror stories about impending judicial totalitarianism.

Politicians have but one duty to their constituents and that is to inform them of the facts as they understand them to be true. The truth in this case is paramount. If a politician lies to the voters, they cannot make an informed decision on who is to represent them. I understand that politicians are hardly saints and angels and that they spin and twist and twirl the facts to help them get elected, but they should never be allowed to get away with an outright lie. The voters of Oldham East and Saddleford have the right to have their representatives be honest with them and as such deserve a new election.

Under the judgment passed down today Mr. Woolas is barred from standing for Parliament for three years and will not be participating in the by-election. Hopefully politicians will take notice of this and think twice before lying in elections. Even if they get away with it at the polls, they will be rightfully be hounded until caught. It would be better if Mr. Woolas were to be judged guilty in the court of the people on election day, but the court of law is a close second.

An Upcoming EU Referendum?

Daniel Hannan MEP in a post entitled Dutch parties call for another Euro-referendum on his blog yesterday discusses the proposal of Geert Wilder's PVV and the Socialist Party SP to hold a referendum on any new treaty to establish or change the monetary support mechanisms and penalty regimes for countries like Greece that are on the brink of financial ruin. Hannan links to an article on EUobserver.com, which says that the entire proposal "hinged on the support of the largest opposition group, the Labour Party[.]" So there really isn't anything to be afraid of. The PvdA will never support a measure that has no chance of passing the Lower House. Together the three parties have only 69 out of a 150 seats and the other parties are unwilling to countenance another referendum.

Hannan's post ends with him endulging in some wishful thinking:

If the Dutch were allowed a vote, several of their neighbours might become restive. British voters might ask why the Netherlands should be allowed to vote on Britain’s future.

But there is no danger of any restive Britons anytime soon. Besides the political make-up of the Dutch Parliament as outlined above, a second circumstance will serve to block any plebiciscite. Any change to the Treaty of Lisbon, or any other EU treaty for that matter, will normally require the consent of all member states. However, if push comes to shove, the EU leaders will without a doubt - read about it here - activate the Passerelle Clause in the Treaty to change the voting requirements on the issue in question. From then on only a qualified majority of states will have to agree for the change to be enacted. Hannan, normally a man well versed in the myriad ways of politicking in Brussels, has to be aware of this fact.

Holding a referendum in any EU member state at the moment on such a relatively minor issue would also be an impossibly intricate operation. A referendum should only concern that issue for which it is being held - in this case a very complicated set of rules for the financial relationship between the states. But any plebiscite on the European Union will undoubtedly become more about the entire project of European integration than about the issue nominally at stake. If a referendum is to be held at all, in Britain or the Netherlands or anywhere else, it should be about the continued membership of that country in the EU. Only by asking the people to vote on such an all-encompassing issue will the referendum be about that which it is supposed to be about and nothing else.

Small Bar Smoking Ban Lifted

The Netherlands might become the first place on earth where a smoking ban is being lifted, if only partially. Whereas other countries are scrambling to ban things which are harmful to people, adults or children - case in point, San Francisco where it is now illegal for fast-food restaurants to give away toys with kiddie meals in the hope of stopping kids craving a cheeseburger - The Dutch government is changing the law to allow small bars without employees to put the ashtrays back on the tables.

Bars where patrons may smoke will have to put up signs at the entrance stating clearly that smoking is allowed inside and the NRC Handelsblad newspaper quotes (Dutch language warning) the Minister of Health as saying:

If you don't like standing in cigarette smoke, you can go somewhere else.

This to me is a wholly reasonable approach to smoking in bars. Although I like being able to go out, have a beer and come home without having to air out my clothes the next morking, I can decide for myself whether or not I want to go to a bar where smoking is allowed. If not, I'll just go to the bar next door. I don't need the government to protect me from any potentially fatal fumes, I can do that just fine on my own.

The entire ban, in the Netherlands at least, was predicated on protecting employees from the dangers of second hand smoke. While I do appreciate the fact that workers have the right (though right may be a bit strong) to work in a smoke-free environment, this is exactly the reason why today's decision is an eminently appropriate one. For if there are no employees to protect in bar, than a law specifically passed to protect them should have no effect. Yet until today it did, giving rise to the impression that the justification given for the law was no more than a fig leaf for yet another paternalistic imposition on the freedom of choice enjoyed by the common citizen.

Today's decision brings the law in line with the stated intent of the lawmakers, something that should be applauded. If politicians continue to clamour for banning smoking altogether, they will from now on be forced to be honest about their true opinions or face justly the shame of hypocrisy, although I do suspect that some politicians will not be deterred by this.

The Republicans Gain Is Obama's Opportunity

The dominating strain of opinion about yesterday's US Congressional elections seems to be that it is a serious blow to President Obama and his chances for re-election in 2012. For instance, in his Election-Winners-and-Losers list Toby Harnden says:

LOSERS
1. Barack Obama. Ronald Reagan recovered after 1982 and Bill Clinton came back after 1994. But is Obama in the same league as either man? Right now, he looks like a one-term president.

Looking at the results of the vote it does indeed look like a damning rejection of Obama, the Democrats, and their policies. Gaining a majority in the House of Representatives is a coup for the Republicans and a major set-back for Obama's agenda. Eric Cantor, the current Republican minority whip, is already talking about repeabling Obama's healthcare bill as well as cutting spending. Ambitious new proposals like the anti-climate change bill are now also in danger of never getting past the House. With the Democrats holding on to their majority in the Senate, the ratification of treaties and appointments of judges and Cabinet members is unlikely to cause Obama many sleepless nights. But he will definitely have to scale back some of his other plans.

Yet, this should not be a problem and may even be a boon to him. One of the main consequences of the Democrats controlling both the presidency and the two Houses of Congress is that, in the minds of many Americans, they alone were responsible for the lack of any economic revival, as well as everything else that went wrong in the country. Obama and Vice-President Biden toured the country in the last weeks of the campaign season trying to convince voters that the powerless Republicans were somehow just as responsible as the party that actually controlled the strings of power in Washington. Needless to say, few Americans believed them. But now, with the Republicans in the majority in the House, blame can be spread around a little more credibly. This should make it easier for Obama to reclaim some of the 'change' glamour that he has lost over the last two years, by pointing out that the Republicans are shutting the gate on his agenda.

What's more, the GOP is not exactly a united party at the moment. The rise of the Tea Party has frightened a lot of moderate Republicans while a great number of ultra-conservative Tea Partiers have been send to Congress. These two wings will have to spend at least some time sorting out who takes top spot. This leaves open the chance for the Democrats and Obama to split the Republican party along Tea Party / non Tea Party lines by introducing bills that some moderates might want to support.

Finally, the success of the Tea Party has shown us two closely related things that might benefit Obama in 2012. The first is the obvious power Sarah Palin now holds as the darling of the Tea Party movement. She will almost certainly run for President in two years, and at the moment seems to be the favourite to win the Republican nomination. The second is that Americans do not, to use a cliche, suffer fools gladly. The defeat of Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell in Nevada and Delaware respectively is a sign that voters still expect at least a modicum of intelligence in their politicians. Palin's cup did not run over in this department in 2008 and it's not at all clear that she's improved since then. Should she win the GOP spot next time round, Obama might just have a cake-walk, just like Reagan had in 1982 and Clinton in 1996.

France and UK to work together

A new chapter is about to added to a long and checkered history of animosity and co-operation today. France and the United Kingdom have on and off been foes and friends for centuries, but the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and PM David Cameron today will sign two treaties affirming that those long years of hostile rivalry are hopefully behind us forever. Under the terms of the accords signed at Lancaster House the two countries will increase military co-operation and establish a "combined joint expeditionary force',  shared usage of aircraft carriers, as well as set up centres for the testing of new nuclear weapons technology.

The BBC quotes a Downing Street spokesman as saying:

"This summit marks a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. Ours is now a strategic partnership tackling together the biggest challenges facing our two countries."

Seen in this vein, these treaties make a lot of sense. Both the UK and France desire to remain major powers on the world stage, something that is becoming increasingly difficult with the rise of new powers like China, Brazil and India. At the same time, the necessity of budget cuts on both sides of the Channel mean that there are fewer Pounds and Euros flowing into defence coffers. An article on the Guardian website refers to the Entente Cordiale but correctly notes that today's treaties do not arise from fear of a shared enemy, but are "product[s] of hard-headed pragmatism, designed to maximise each nation's military capabilites while saving money."

So here we are, Britain and France have finally decided that what they have in common, in terms of shared values, views of the world and hopes for the future, is more important than their cultural differences. After the dire news of the last weeks with the scrapping and cutting of so much military hardware and personnel, the future's horizon is looking a little brighter for Britain's place in world.

Yet even so - and I hate to end on a sour note - the UK should never become wholly dependent on the goodwill of any nation, not matter how friendly, for the defence of its shores. It's fitting to remember Harold Macmillan's words from the 50s and the plans for an independent British nuclear deterent: 

 "The independent contribution ... gives us a better position in the world, it gives us a better position with respect to the United States. It puts us where we ought to be, in the position of a Great Power. The fact that we have it makes the United States pay a greater regard to our point of view, and that is of great importance."

Substitute 'France' for 'United States' and you'll see what I mean. Only if the UK maintains its own military capabilities will France lift a finger to defend it should ever that need arise. Britain should not, therefore, become a docile demesne, but remain committed to its own defence, while sharing what can be shared.

Brown Is Risen

It may have taken him almost five months, but everybody's favourite failed Prime Minister is about to return to the Commons, the BBC reports. Like a modern-day Christ we thought him dead and buried, but he liveth yet. Gordon Brown will give his first speech in the House since before the Election on a private member's motion to examine options for the maintaince of the yet-to-be-constructed aircraft carriers. Brown will apparently argue that the contract should be awarded to a company in Rosyth, Scotland, near Brown's constituency.

Not really as impressive as returning to announce the redemption of all mankind, but that might have been too much to expect. Still, the criticism of Bernard Jenkin MP is uncalled for. The Tory MP is quoted in the same BBC article as saying:

"His appearance in this debate shows that his decision to order the aircraft carriers was always about protecting his own interests rather than the national interest."

However, far from showing that Brown during his time in Downing Street was looking out solely for the fortunes of his own constituents and not for those of the rest of the country, this just shows that Brown understands that his time as a national politician is over forever. Instead of addressing an issue of paramount importance to the whole of Britain, he is doing his primary duty as a MP, speaking up for his constituents for whom the keeping the maintaince work in Rosyth might mean the difference between having a job and unemployment.

As long as he behaves like any other backbencher, Brown is unlikely to become a 'rallying point' for dissident Labour MPs. He seems to be looking to avoid going down the route Ted Heath chose in continually attacking his own party leadership after he was removed as Tory leader. Brown's decision is a wise one in every respect and if he plays it well he will at least have returned to redeem himself.

Dutch Labour Party in Trouble

It seems that the Dutch minority Government - made up of the (Classical) Liberal VVD, Christian Democrat CDA and supported in Parliament by Geert Wilders' PVV - is in total control of the political narrative and the main victim is the PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party.

According to a poll (Dutch language warning) taken over the weekend, if elections were to be held today the PvdA would gain only 18 seats in the Lower House of Parliament. At present they have 30 seats and they have been on the losing end for weeks now. The ruling parties, on the other hand, are busy gaining votes and would win 81 seats today against 76 at the last election.

Are we witnessing the catastrophic foundering of the PvdA? Maybe it's still too soon to say that, but with its leader Job Cohen struggling to find his role as a voice of the opposition, the party may have to sail the dark, broad seas for a long while still. And the Happy Isles are not yet in sight. In the same poll referred to above, Cohen was judged to have had the worst performance of all party leaders in the debate on the Government's Policy Declaration last week. Other opposition party leaders such as Emile Roemer (Socialist Party, SP) and Femke Halsema (Green Left, Groenlinks) had a much better debate. But even they are far behind Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) who got a 7.2/10 approval grade.

Volkskrant columnist Thomas von der Dunk writes (Dutch language warning) that the leftwing parties need to be much more assertive, much more aggressive in their attacks and opposition. He thinks that Cohen managed to do this, but I'm not too sure. It's all very well that he attacked Wilders on his proposals to stem the tide of immigration, but it's not enough. Cohen's problem might well be that he has the image of being a softy, whether deserved or not. People have trouble believing Cohen when he gets aggressive because of his history of moderation and dialogue when he was Mayor of Amsterdam.

So the PvdA seems to be stuck with a bit of a Catch 22. Either Cohen stays on in the hope that he'll grow in the role of leader of the opposition - without the certainty that he ever will - or  he is forced out. Yet that may well lead to a power struggle that is unlikely to win the PvdA any votes either.

The Government can’t see the wood for the trees

As part of the overall deficit-cutting package announced a few weeks ago by George Osborne, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will seek to sell of gigantic tracts of forests and woodlands all over the UK. All just earn a quick quid.

From Friday’s Guardian:

"The environment secretary Caroline Spelman is expected to soon spell out plans to raise as much as £5bn from the sale. … If confirmed, it would amount to the largest change of land ownership since the second world war and could, some claim, see previously protected woodlands make way for golf courses, housing developments and a wave of new Center Parcs-style resorts."

Now I understand that the deficit needs to be cut, and in general I am fully in support of lower government spending, but here the Government seems to be going a bit off script. Cost cutting and selling off assets should never be done for their own sake. Every measure should have an objective besides simply saving money. In this case, however, there seems to be no rationalisation except the necessity of slashing the DEFRA budget. Except that is, if more golf courses, Center Parcs resorts and expensive mansions are cause enough to get rid of one’s woodlands. Of course, they aren’t cause enough. Britain has enough of those already. Why should a nation highest aspiration be to have the most acres of golf links per capita of any country of the face of God’s green Earth?

It would be one thing if the only forests being lined up for auction would be those hideous commercial monoculture pine-nurseries, but it gets worse: the full, foolish extent of the mistakes being planned is described in last Saturday’s Telegraph:

"Legislation which currently governs the treatment of "ancient forests" such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest is likely to be changed giving private firms the right to cut down trees.

Laws governing Britain's forests were included in the Magna Carta of 1215, and some date back even earlier."

Yes, forests that have been domains owned by the Government in all its many guises for nearly 800 years are now in danger of the logger’s axe. These woodlands, the last of those primeval forests where once Kings hunted the furtive stag and rich-robbing outlaws could live unencumbered by civilised law, are the scattered remnants of a Britain that is passed forever into memory. They are as potent reminders of the glories of the past as the Cathedrals and Manors of men and intrinsically bound to the history of the British Isles.

But before I get overly sentimental – as the romantic in me is perhaps too wont to do – this proposal is a perfect example of why calling the Coalition Government conservative is looking increasingly untenable. A true conservative-minded government would never seek to sell things that have been very well managed by the public sector for centuries without proper review and discussion. In the case of the ancient woodlands of Britain, even a moderate conservative can see that maintaining these forests is something that can only be done by the government. A private company looking and needing to make money of it will interfere in such a way as to destroy the essentially natural character of an ancient wood.

Finally, it ought to be a priority for an administration that wants to promote such a vague concept as the ‘Big Society’ to give people – especially children – the opportunity to experience the joys of a British wilderness. There they might realise that Britain is more than the grey, concrete tower blocks of the modern British city. There they might feel a deeper connection with their country and all its beauty than they will ever feel through government-sponsored society-enhancing programs. A ‘Big Society’ can never come into being without such an instinctive shared connection.

The selling of forests for a few billions would be a mistake. Some cuts are good, but this is not one of those. If the Coalition really goes through with this plan they should also realise that once ancient woodlands are gone they will never come back. And that would be a great sadness. To quote from Keats’ Robin Hood:

             "Gone, the merry morris din;
            Gone, the song of Gamelyn;
            Gone, the tough-belted outlaw
            Idling in the "grenè shawe;"
            All are gone away and past!
            And if Robin should be cast
            Sudden from his turfed grave,
            And if Marian should have
            Once again her forest days,
            She would weep, and he would craze:
            He would swear, for all his oaks,
            Fall'n beneath the dockyard strokes,
            Have rotted on the briny seas;
            She would weep that her wild bees
            Sang not to her--strange! that honey
            Can't be got without hard money!"

Words of Welcome

Welcome, dear Reader, to the Anglo-Dutch Review, a new blog dedicated to the disparate political goings-on in Britain, the Netherlands, Europe and the United States.

 

The first question you might have at the moment – and I admit it would be a fair one if you do entertain such thoughts – is: who am I that you need to continue reading past this point? Well, I am a 25-year-old, Dutch-born gentleman living in London with a passion for politics, literature and art. I have just completed a Master of Arts in History and am also the proud holder of a Master of Arts in International Relations. Fairly well educated by any standard, wouldn’t you say?

However, being educated seems no longer to be a certain guarantee that one may easily find employment. A life a continual leisure, on the other hand, is easily lived, but gets rather dull after a few short weeks. Sitting on a sofa, reading the news, watching the television, and finding out forlornly that another of one’s applications has been turned down is not something that can be kept up for long.

So in the interest of my sanity – and on the advice of my ex-girlfriend, who seemed remarkably concerned – I have taken up a hobby. And not something odd like beekeeping (a tad bit inconvenient in my small flat) or training for the next London marathon (far too tiring) or stamp collecting (which, although a royal pastime, would hardly solve the problem of getting bored). No, none of those things! My hobby will be that most noble of pursuits: to share with the world, in gentle yet generous terms, the fruits of my mind.

Yes, dear Reader, it is my humble intention to inform you of my ideas and observations and opinions about anything political and everything else that is happening in the world today. Or about what happened yesterday or what might be happening tomorrow. Indeed, any subject that strikes my far-catching fancy may well be treated with deservèd disdain, a casual comment, or incomparable praise.

Although I’m conservative by nature – note the small ‘c’ – I am by no means a Tory through and through. Nor am I a VVD Liberal in the Netherlands. Parties and their politburo opinions have little importance to me. It matters not which technocrat frontbencher or backbench whip-taker espouses this or that view, they will be treated all the same. What matters are individual honesty, conviction and the wisdom of the opinion.

I should add, though, that I can also appreciate a certain level of skill at playing the politicians game. Take Lord Mandelson for instance. I have to say, I like the guy. I don’t care much for his political views but as a politician he is one of the best. Give him but the slightest opportunity to employ his scythe-like mastermind and he will make political hay. Why I really like him, though, is not simply his skill, but also the fact that he is quite open about his fondness for intrigue and behind-the-scenes machinations. After all, he openly revels in being called the Prince of Darkness – or as he apparently prefers after his ennoblement: The Dark Lord.

Anyway, before what was supposed to be a simple introductory post becomes too convoluted, I think I should stop. The rest of what I wanted to say, about my character, preferences and so forth will feature in future posts. If you are interested in a blog based not on the mindless trailing of a party line or ideological straightjacket, but on nothing more than the personal honour of the author I hope you will return in the future.