FIFA this, FIFA that.....

The story of the week, one that has taken up a ridiculous amount of air-time (the whole of TV news 2 days running), is the corruption scandal at FIFA.

Really?

This has been common knowledge for years so why the big indaba right now? We all know the FIFA means ‘fee for this’, fee for that’. I must have been at least two world cups ago that Blatter was being investigated by the Swiss fiscals for hanky-panky. Now Blatter (which in army speak is ‘drunk’) announces that he has investigated himself and finds himself unimpeachable. A couple of naughty boys have been sent to the bench for being guilty of being found out. ‘Crisis; what crisis?’ says B. He must have been reading Harold MacMillan’s memoirs. Well, the sponsors are beginning to think there is.

Why is so much of world sport run by elderly overweight crooks who couldn’t lay straight in bed? We have football,  F1 motor racing, and the world champs the IOC, to name but the most blatant.

 

 

F1 seems to be run by rich and dodgy geriatrics who couldn’t drive a pig to market.  

 

 

Cricket at the international level is hugely tainted by betting scams by Indian bookies and cheating players. We have still to hear the outcome of last year’s scandal with the Pakistanis. The International Cricket Council is changing the rules to make it almost impossible for minnows to get in the swim, so after all the effort and sacrifice made by the Afghan team to get a place in the world cup they are now likely to be sent off. The English team seems to be run by numpties who two years running have started the season early and in the two wettest venues.

 

 

But just wait for the Olympics. There are already ructions over the arcane ticketing process. We are told that the number of officials and hangers-on freeloading their way into the Games would fill a stadium and certainly all the best hotels in central London. Then we have the ‘Zil lanes’ on the roads from which all traffic will be banned except for the big-shots, including one running all the way to Weymouth on the south coast for the sailing events. I suspect  that this might cause an outbreak of ‘up yours’ from the motoring public. And it will be a criminal offence for any small shopkeeper to display an advert at his shop for a competitor to one of the sponsors, so get that Pepsi sign down, Mr Patel.

 

 

And there are plans to make the whole of South East England a ‘no-fly’ zone that will not affect commercial traffic but will ground all general aviation, including week-end flyers and flying schools, for the whole of the summer. What is this in aid of? Is the IOC worried that Al Qaeda will bomb the events from Piper Cubs and Tiger Moths? And who will pay the compensation – if any – for the loss of revenue by the businesses that rely on summer use of planes and airfields for their income? The IOC or the English taxpayer?

 

 

A couple of Brussels sprouts: Do you think that the EU boss Mr Rumpy-pumpy and the foreign affairs gauleiter, ‘Baroness’ Ashton, were chosen for their looks or because they are totally useless?

FIFA this, FIFA that.....

The story of the week, one that has taken up a ridiculous amount of air-time (the whole of TV news 2 days running), is the corruption scandal at FIFA.

Really?

This has been common knowledge for years so why the big indaba right now? We all know the FIFA means ‘fee for this’, fee for that’. I must have been at least two world cups ago that Blatter was being investigated by the Swiss fiscals for hanky-panky. Now Blatter (which in army speak is ‘drunk’) announces that he has investigated himself and finds himself unimpeachable. A couple of naughty boys have been sent to the bench for being guilty of being found out. ‘Crisis; what crisis?’ says B. He must have been reading Harold MacMillan’s memoirs. Well, the sponsors are beginning to think there is.

Why is so much of world sport run by elderly overweight crooks who couldn’t lay straight in bed? We have football,  F1 motor racing, and the world champs the IOC, to name but the most blatant.

F1 seems to be run by rich and dodgy geriatrics who couldn’t drive a pig to market.  

Cricket at the international level is hugely tainted by betting scams by Indian bookies and cheating players. We have still to hear the outcome of last year’s scandal with the Pakistanis. The International Cricket Council is changing the rules to make it almost impossible for minnows to get in the swim, so after all the effort and sacrifice made by the Afghan team to get a place in the world cup they are now likely to be sent off. The English team seems to be run by numpties who two years running have started the season early and in the two wettest venues.

But just wait for the Olympics. There are already ructions over the arcane ticketing process. We are told that the number of officials and hangers-on freeloading their way into the Games would fill a stadium and certainly all the best hotels in central London. Then we have the ‘Zil lanes’ on the roads from which all traffic will be banned except for the big-shots, including one running all the way to Weymouth on the south coast for the sailing events. I suspect  that this might cause an outbreak of ‘up yours’ from the motoring public. And it will be a criminal offence for any small shopkeeper to display an advert at his shop for a competitor to one of the sponsors, so get that Pepsi sign down, Mr Patel.

And there are plans to make the whole of South East England a ‘no-fly’ zone that will not affect commercial traffic but will ground all general aviation, including week-end flyers and flying schools, for the whole of the summer. What is this in aid of? Is the IOC worried that Al Qaeda will bomb the events from Piper Cubs and Tiger Moths? And who will pay the compensation – if any – for the loss of revenue by the businesses that rely on summer use of planes and airfields for their income? The IOC or the English taxpayer?

A couple of Brussels sprouts: Do you think that the EU boss Mr Rumpy-pumpy and the foreign affairs gauleiter, ‘Baroness’ Ashton, were chosen for their looks or because they are totally useless?

The Spectator article on Netanyahu as the mouse that roared

Every time a new twist enters the Arab/Israeli accord equation, I find myself with progressively less enthusiasm for a solution. I agree with Melanie Phillips that the latest episode of verbal assault between O and N will lead to naught because, as she said, the Arabs won't play anyway. I thought her take that O's words were merely electioneering talk designed, in this instance, to "whip feeble American Jews back into line".

Has Melanie opened Pandora's Box? Her broadside against American Jews will most certainly hit home because there is some truth in the opinion of European Jews in particular that American Jews no longer have the stomach for unconditionally supporting Israel. I rather suspect American Jews sense this and will react both defensively and with an element of guilt. Most importantly, I doubt that whipping up nationalistic Israeli emotions here in the US will contribute one iota to a solution. Indeed, there is no solution that falls within the realm of civility.

I have no qualms about O gingering up Israel's heartbeat in the form of Bibi emoting on national TV about what Israel will and will not do. We must not forget that there are two sides to this issue. Much of what has been publicized by the media here has been in the direction of poor Israel being abused by Palestinian terrorists seeking the latter's total destruction. Snippets from the Arab side of the story vary considerably from this message. Again, Americans are swamped with information that only serves to reinforce the committed and confuse the masses. We are going nowhere and to my mind, nowhere may well be the wise destination when considering the alternatives.

Oborne on Obama: Daily Telegraph 27th May.........

It was reported somewhere that during his speech to Parliament in Westminster Hall, Barak Obama spoke of Churchill 5 times. It would have been a golden opportunity for the reporter, or anyone else, to have recalled O's having returned Churchill's bust from the White House to the UK and made the point that the respect shown for WSC in O's speech was not indicative of someone discarding his bust out of a sense of colonial victimization.

In my opinion Peter Oborne offers sour grapes in today's DT item regarding the Obama visit. Peter says O didn't do this and that and that Dave practically kowtowed to him after promising not to repeat the apparent subservience of Blair to Bush. Peter was trite and petty and failed to hit upon the big issues. This is possibly because there were none to consider apart, of course, from no evidence at all that O was anti British as so many observers over there have been sensing and reporting. For the most part, America's reaction to the visit was much the same as that of Ken Clarke.

Are we unable to conclude that Anglo-American relations are strong and healthy? It is as if UK pundits are afraid to say something positive for fear of being branded as soft, or heaven forbid pro-American. Could it be that the problem is less one of America being anti-British that the UK being anti-American? Many observers over there are just looking for a fight and are still gnawing on that old and stale meal 'over paid, over sexed and over here'.

I am so very pleased that we have a good relationship with the UK and am so very grateful for the cultural, ethical, linguistic and legal heritage we were given by the country and its people. If we want to talk about relationships personal and national, another event occurred this week that is far more significant to me than Dave and O's mutual admiration society. Namely, the relationship between the US and Israel and in particular, between Netanyahu and Obama.

Next in line is our relationship with Russia, especially in light of news that Putin will most probably run again for President, our cooling relationship and the 'reset' button that Hillary so publicly pushed seems not to have worked.

Gotcha, Mladic!

It’s not all bad; at last that animal Mladic has had his collar felt. So we may now write ‘finis’ over the glorious chapter when UN forces stood by as 8,000 Muslim males were massacred.

I remember that when I was working in Banja Luka after the Dayton agreement, I went to a rally addressed by Arcan, one of the chief assassins. He looked every inch the mafia boss, with his black suit and shades and bodyguard of heavies – a truly sinister figure. He got his come-uppance when someone took him out a while later.

Banja Luka is a miserable grey place, every inch the ex-communist workers’ paradise.  The only building of distinction was the ancient mosque, a magnificent pile built in about the 14^th century. I say ‘was’ because the Serbs had blown it up, and there was no trace of it whatsoever except a green space where it had once stood. Unfortunately, they were none to skilled in the demolition business, because they also succeeded in blowing up a large chunk of the adjacent shopping area.

The only Muslims left were in the graveyard; ethnic cleansing was complete.

EU wastes aid money.....quelle surprise encore!

The excellent site Open Europe has just published its analysis of EU spending. Here is its summary.

The UK currently contributes £1,424m to EU external aid spending, around 18%

of the UK’s £7,767m total aid budget. The UK Government has said that its

recent “plans to redraw the aid map will concentrate efforts on countries where

UK aid will, pound for pound, achieve the best results in fighting poverty and

building a safer world.” This redrawing of the map must also include EU aid.

Money spent as EU aid continues to be poorly targeted at tackling poverty. Only

46% of EU aid reached lower income countries in 2009, compared with 74% of

UK aid and 58% of EU member state governments’ aid.

Geographical proximity and ties with former colonies continue to determine the

destination of much of the Commission’s foreign aid. From 2000-2009,

developing European countries received $10.49 per capita, while Sub-Saharan

Africa received only $3.94 per capita. Turkey was the top recipient of EU aid in

2009 and other European neighbours Kosovo and Serbia were also in the top ten

recipients.

EU aid, which is managed by the European Commission, currently has

administration costs of 5.4%, which are higher than the UK’s Department for

International Development’s (DFID) costs of 4%, and the UK Government’s target

of reducing these to 2% by 2014-15. Some EU aid streams, such as the

programme for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, have administration

costs as high as 8.6% - above the ceiling the UK imposes when giving grants to

NGOs.

€1.4bn or 10% of EU aid is needlessly passed on to other multilateral donors

every year, such as the UN and World Bank. This money is simply being recycled

between donors – up to three times in some cases – before it reaches a recipient

country and is subject to unnecessary administration and transaction costs. In

2009, the Commission also agreed to ‘delegate’ €242.7m worth of aid spending

back to the EU’s national governments, which begs the question why the money

was ever given to the EU by member states in the first place.

EU aid is too often not aligned with other EU policies. For example, in 2008, the

Commission established a migration centre in Mali to provide support to migrants

seeking temporary jobs in the EU. However, with only Spain having signed a

migration agreement with Mali, the €10m centre has helped only six Malians find

work in Europe, although the centre also served as an information and education

hub.

The EU’s current drive to transfer up to 50% of its aid directly to recipient

governments’ treasuries, through ‘budget support’, rather than pre-agreed

projects means that the EU risks donating money directly to discredited or

illegitimate regimes.

While budget support does offer benefits, such as better alignment of aid with

recipient countries’ national policies, the EU often lacks the proper controls and

monitoring to ensure money is not wasted or lost to corruption. The huge focus

on budget support risks an overreliance on an unproven development policy.

Some aid funding does not even leave the EU, or even Brussels. In 2009 alone,

the EU granted a Brussels-based communications agency nearly €500,000 to

produce various promotional brochures and campaigns. This included €90,000 to

co-ordinate an “I fight poverty” music contest amongst young people in Europe, to

increase “development awareness”.

Gagging for it........

A current legal controversy in England would be incomprehensible and constitutionally impossible in the US. This is the so-called super-injunction, or ‘gagging order’ that has been getting massive press coverage here. What has brought it to prominence is that it is being used by footballers to prevent publication of their overly-energetic sex lives. The root is that surgically-enhanced young sluts hire themselves out to these overpaid morons for around £1000 - £1500 a night and then threaten to sell the story to the press unless there is further sweetener. Thus we have the hooker and blackmailer together, although I guess this combination has been common since the beginning of time.

It is rooted, like so much of bad law these days, in the wretched Human Rights Act, another Blair legacy. The issue goes back to the European Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the Council of Europe donkey’s years ago. Within this is enshrined a right to privacy. There is also a right of freedom of expression so it doesn’t require much of a leap of imagination to foresee the muddles this would cause. It was never a real problem until the HRA took on board the right to privacy and the European Court of Human Rights got jurisdiction as a consequence.

Interpretation by the Judges in the higher courts in England enables them to grant an injunction against publication of material which would be an invasion of privacy unless overridden by the public interest. And for the avoidance of doubt, ‘public interest’ has nothing to do with ‘interesting to the public’. However, the Judges have taken upon themselves to carry the concept a stage further. The so-called ‘super injunction’ prohibits publication even of the fact that an injunction has been granted.

This is beginning to smell very much like secret ‘justice’; MPs have blown the gaffe on this by, for example, disclosing that Sir Fred Goodwin, he of the RBS debacle,  was having naughties with a member of his staff whilst the bank was  going tits-up. Judges had the effrontery to criticise them for using Parliamentary privilege to by-pass the injunction and suggesting that it should be abolished. Not a smart move. MPs are exceptionally jealous and protective of their privileges and this is a fight that the Judges can’t win – neither should they, of course.

Whether discussing Uganda whilst the bank was going down is a matter of public interest is a matter of opinion; whatever Fred had his eye on, it certainly wasn’t the ball.

The Lord Chief Justice, Judge Judge (yes, really) was being exceptionally and culpably disingenuous when he said that the super-injunction had been legislated by Parliament when it passed the HRA. It did nothing of the sort. The super-injunction was invented by the courts.

The Master of the Rolls, Judge Neuberger, has asked what all the fuss is about since only 2 have been granted since 2010, one for a short period and the other overturned on appeal.

Can this be so? Or is this a careful selection of dates? ‘Private Eye’ says that it has a list of 53 super-injunctions that have been granted since Judges invented them. The HRA was passed early in Blair’s first administration. The first known super-injunction was in respect of Trafigura relating to massive dumping of toxic wastes in West Africa, when Carter-Ruck (of course) was initially successful, but from memory the cat jumped out of the bag in the House of Commons under Parliamentary privilege. But this was only in 2009, ten years after the passing of HRA.

It must be said that the media had it coming to them. I formed a view in the ‘90s that I have seen no reason to change; that they had become so outrageous and depraved in their pursuit of private sleaze that there was bound to be a strong reaction sooner or later, especially as a prime target was the Establishment. Their disgusting methods, such as phone-tapping and ‘doorstepping’ were bound to create a backlash. Some of the  Red Tops have reached a stage where they contain nothing but sport and the doings of ‘celebs’ (high-class tarts with outrageous boob-jobs), complete with pix that in a former age would have attracted the immediate attentions of the Yard’s ‘Dirty’ Squad.

And so we now have drama reduced to farce with a Scottish newspaper publishing the name of the latest celeb to get a super-injunction because it is outside the jurisdiction of the English courts; and there is no way that the Attorney-General is going to have a dog in this fight . We have Schillers, who seem to have stolen the clothes of Carter-Fuck as scourges of the press, trying to sue Twitter (the Californian judiciary will  have a big laugh at that one). We have the social network tweeting and face-booking to their heart’s content. And all that money spent on lawyers’ fees effectively down the Khazi.

                                                                 

A great day for the Irish.........

So that was the Queen, that was. When the State visit to Ireland was announced I think that most of us hoped that she could just get through it without trouble. I suspect that few thought that it would have been a diplomatic triumph. The Irish handled it perfectly - respectful but not fawning, dignified but not cold, and who would have expected a standing ovation for Her Maj at the theatre?

Much of the credit must go to the President of Ireland. The Irish seem to have a talent for choosing attractive and brilliant women for the job. Mary McLeese, who is 60 and looks 30, was a Professor of criminal law at 24! Her predecessor, Mary Robinson, is an outstanding international public servant. Both are eye-candy. Both have beautiful speaking voices. Why can’t America get a similar POTUS?

I am sure that we have now seen a turning point in the English/Irish saga. Perhaps we might now get on with telling jokes about each other.

Apropos which, we came home from South Africa on the old ‘Canberra’ on one of her last voyages. One of the on-board entertainers was a very funny Irish comedian called Pat Noonan. One of the features of Irish life is the ‘holy hour’, the only time of day when you can’t get a drink. Pat described how he went into a bar only to be told by the barman that it was the ‘holy hour’. So he said he would wait. And the barman said ‘Will you have a drink while you are waiting?’

Some years later I went into the bar of a lovely pub in Waterford with my son-in-law, Paddy. The barmaid told him that she didn’t open for another 15 minutes. Paddy said that we would wait. So what did she say? Yup! As another great Irishman, Oscar Wilde once said ‘Life follows art’.

Outsiders might find it difficult to understand the relationship between English and Irish humour. The English is based on irony – the myth of the thick Paddy when the English know perfectly well that the opposite is true. We know the Irish to be very smart indeed – a small country that has produced Becket, Wilde, Joyce and more other poets and writers than you could shake a shillelagh at. They also seem to run a disproportionate amount of UK business e.g. the fearsome little guy in charge of BA.

Irish humour is based on logic; they torture logic so that it will tell them anything; it is subversive logic; it is reduction ad adsurdum. For example, who can challenge the logic of ‘If I were you, I wouldn’t start from here at all’ in answer to a traveller’s request for directions?

I remember a real life example. When my old friend Frank Rooney was practising law in Ireland, he was approached by a ratty little fellow who asked if the counsellor ‘would be after making a will for Paddy Riley’. When Frank said he would, the guy said ‘Would you make it unbeknownst?’ When Frank asked him what he meant he said ‘Unbeknownst to Paddy Riley!’

And no sooner has the Queen departed than O arrives. A  great day for the Irish, as  the old song goes.

That was the week, that was..........

The world turns and what a week for news.  Jeff Randall put it well; the Queen was in Ireland, Netanyahu was in Washington and Dominique Strauss-Kahn was in jail. Our dear leader has been madly backpedaling after having been interpreted by media wolverines as having given Israel away to the Palestinians. His restructured Middle East policy, at least the Israeli bit, was quickly endorsed by Agnela Merkel, danke schoen madam hausfrau. Wait a bit, we did not really mean that Israel must retreat to its 1967 boundaries, but rather those boundaries should be recognized as the point of departure for further peace negotiations. By the way, the outcome should include a contiguous Palestinian state. Aside from Angela, nobody seems to be very happy.

Netanyahu's reaction appeared to be untypically statesmanlike. What's more, both he and O took on professorial airs in explaining their perceptions. It will take some time to sort this all out, but we have made every assurance that we will continue to defend Israel and its people.

O's policy speech to the non-Palestinian Arab world was not bad at all, indeed it was quite good. Too bad his credibility remains in question. For one thing, O insists on casting the demonstrations conducted under the umbrella phrase of Arab Spring as a popular movement of disaffected youth seeking work, democracy, and a greater slice of the economic pie. Others disagree stating that the demonstrations were motivated by tribal and religious grievances against a dictatorial, ruthless and corrupt ruling elite. Others go on to say that whatever the issues, the movements are being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood or other even more sinister Muslim groups. While we are led to believe that nice little boys and girls are struggling to institute Western democratic standards, the prevailing institutions remain corrupt, elite, despotic and heavily influenced by the national militarily.

This observation has not escaped the Arab populations who remain steadfastly suspect of American intentions. This does not mean they are correct in their suspicions, but rather they want demonstrable evidence of our sincerity rather than polemics and rhetoric. I would like to think that O is sincere in his objectives, but sadly unable to put action into his words owing to our own moribund institutions and, more importantly, the need for restraint in supporting popular movements that were not there yesterday, have no recognizable leadership, and are untested with respect to their own national and international policies. One thing for sure, they all seem to be taking a much harder line on Israel that was previously seen among the dictators we supported for so long a time.

Our having abandoned these dictators also leaves a bad taste on the Arab palate. Whether they support or condemn their former leaders, they feel America has betrayed their friendship and hospitality. Everyone is wallowing in the muck of conflicted values and policies, indecision, poor intelligence, unstable and poorly led popular movements, and the threat that Muslim extremism may piggy-back on the newfound inspiration and confidence of the Arab Spring.

O is the most energetic US President since Kennedy. The White House is aglow with parties, fetes and festivities ranging from classic to banal. When its not party time, O is delivering a speech or on tour somewhere in the US or abroad. At present he is busy giving a new dimension to the term 'Black Irish'. Finding their Irish roots seems to be a national pastime among our Presidents. Everyone figured this would surely end with O giving the Paddys a chance to return to their Guiness and grief.

That was the week, that was..........

The world turns and what a week for news.  Jeff Randall put it well; the Queen was in Ireland, Netanyahu was in Washington and Dominique Strauss-Kahn was in jail. Our dear leader has been madly backpedaling after having been interpreted by media wolverines as having given Israel away to the Palestinians. His restructured Middle East policy, at least the Israeli bit, was quickly endorsed by Agnela Merkel, danke schoen madam hausfrau. Wait a bit, we did not really mean that Israel must retreat to its 1967 boundaries, but rather those boundaries should be recognized as the point of departure for further peace negotiations. By the way, the outcome should include a contiguous Palestinian state. Aside from Angela, nobody seems to be very happy.

Netanyahu's reaction appeared to be untypically statesmanlike. What's more, both he and O took on professorial airs in explaining their perceptions. It will take some time to sort this all out, but we have made every assurance that we will continue to defend Israel and its people.

O's policy speech to the non-Palestinian Arab world was not bad at all, indeed it was quite good. Too bad his credibility remains in question. For one thing, O insists on casting the demonstrations conducted under the umbrella phrase of Arab Spring as a popular movement of disaffected youth seeking work, democracy, and a greater slice of the economic pie. Others disagree stating that the demonstrations were motivated by tribal and religious grievances against a dictatorial, ruthless and corrupt ruling elite. Others go on to say that whatever the issues, the movements are being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood or other even more sinister Muslim groups. While we are led to believe that nice little boys and girls are struggling to institute Western democratic standards, the prevailing institutions remain corrupt, elite, despotic and heavily influenced by the national militarily.

This observation has not escaped the Arab populations who remain steadfastly suspect of American intentions. This does not mean they are correct in their suspicions, but rather they want demonstrable evidence of our sincerity rather than polemics and rhetoric. I would like to think that O is sincere in his objectives, but sadly unable to put action into his words owing to our own moribund institutions and, more importantly, the need for restraint in supporting popular movements that were not there yesterday, have no recognizable leadership, and are untested with respect to their own national and international policies. One thing for sure, they all seem to be taking a much harder line on Israel that was previously seen among the dictators we supported for so long a time.

Our having abandoned these dictators also leaves a bad taste on the Arab palate. Whether they support or condemn their former leaders, they feel America has betrayed their friendship and hospitality. Everyone is wallowing in the muck of conflicted values and policies, indecision, poor intelligence, unstable and poorly led popular movements, and the threat that Muslim extremism may piggy-back on the newfound inspiration and confidence of the Arab Spring.

O is the most energetic US President since Kennedy. The White House is aglow with parties, fetes and festivities ranging from classic to banal. When its not party time, O is delivering a speech or on tour somewhere in the US or abroad. At present he is busy giving a new dimension to the term 'Black Irish'. Finding their Irish roots seems to be a national pastime among our Presidents. Everyone figured this would surely end with O giving the Paddys a chance to return to their Guiness and grief.

That was the week, that was..........

The world turns and what a week for news.  Jeff Randall put it well; the Queen was in Ireland, Netanyahu was in Washington and Dominique Strauss-Kahn was in jail. Our dear leader has been madly backpedaling after having been interpreted by media wolverines as having given Israel away to the Palestinians. His restructured Middle East policy, at least the Israeli bit, was quickly endorsed by Agnela Merkel, danke schoen madam hausfrau. Wait a bit, we did not really mean that Israel must retreat to its 1967 boundaries, but rather those boundaries should be recognized as the point of departure for further peace negotiations. By the way, the outcome should include a contiguous Palestinian state. Aside from Angela, nobody seems to be very happy.

Netanyahu's reaction appeared to be untypically statesmanlike. What's more, both he and O took on professorial airs in explaining their perceptions. It will take some time to sort this all out, but we have made every assurance that we will continue to defend Israel and its people.

O's policy speech to the non-Palestinian Arab world was not bad at all, indeed it was quite good. Too bad his credibility remains in question. For one thing, O insists on casting the demonstrations conducted under the umbrella phrase of Arab Spring as a popular movement of disaffected youth seeking work, democracy, and a greater slice of the economic pie. Others disagree stating that the demonstrations were motivated by tribal and religious grievances against a dictatorial, ruthless and corrupt ruling elite. Others go on to say that whatever the issues, the movements are being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood or other even more sinister Muslim groups. While we are led to believe that nice little boys and girls are struggling to institute Western democratic standards, the prevailing institutions remain corrupt, elite, despotic and heavily influenced by the national militarily.

This observation has not escaped the Arab populations who remain steadfastly suspect of American intentions. This does not mean they are correct in their suspicions, but rather they want demonstrable evidence of our sincerity rather than polemics and rhetoric. I would like to think that O is sincere in his objectives, but sadly unable to put action into his words owing to our own moribund institutions and, more importantly, the need for restraint in supporting popular movements that were not there yesterday, have no recognizable leadership, and are untested with respect to their own national and international policies. One thing for sure, they all seem to be taking a much harder line on Israel that was previously seen among the dictators we supported for so long a time.

Our having abandoned these dictators also leaves a bad taste on the Arab palate. Whether they support or condemn their former leaders, they feel America has betrayed their friendship and hospitality. Everyone is wallowing in the muck of conflicted values and policies, indecision, poor intelligence, unstable and poorly led popular movements, and the threat that Muslim extremism may piggy-back on the newfound inspiration and confidence of the Arab Spring.

O is the most energetic US President since Kennedy. The White House is aglow with parties, fetes and festivities ranging from classic to banal. When its not party time, O is delivering a speech or on tour somewhere in the US or abroad. At present he is busy giving a new dimension to the term 'Black Irish'. Finding their Irish roots seems to be a national pastime among our Presidents. Everyone figured this would surely end with O giving the Paddys a chance to return to their Guiness and grief.

'Scotsman with a grievance.....'

'It is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine'.

Back in La-la land, Dave is now getting open dissent in the Cabinet over his aid policy. He is now proposing to make it law that 0.7% of GDP is reserved for aid; in other words, it is not merely ring-fenced, as if that were not bad enough, but inflation-proofed. Foreign aid seems to be his Holy Grail, which is incomprehensible when you think about the dire state of the economy and just about everything else. He said it is because it was an election manifesto commitment. Well, so was a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. We are still waiting.

And on the referendum reference, what will we make of proposed independence of Scotland?

‘Canny’ is a Scots word. The OED defines it as ‘shrewd, worldly-wise, circumspect, sly, drily humorous’. That just about sums up the Scots; I have worked with many over my long career and they are all of these things and great to know (except the morning after).

Alex Salmond, now the undisputed ‘PM’ of Scotland, is the canniest politician in Britain. So anybody who imagines that he is going to rush into a referendum to make Scotland independent at the earliest opportunity needs his head read. Some hacks are already suggesting that Cameron should make a pre-emptive strike and call an early referendum to kill the dragon.

That is not going to happen either; Dave has had enough of referenda for the time being. He would be nuts to get in Salmond’s light and then take the flak if the gamble didn’t come off, or to risk an ‘up yours’ reaction from the Jocks who would be very inclined to vote for independence just to screw the Tories (the Scots can be a bit chippy that way) when, being canny, they are most likely to vote against full-blown independence. Dave has a few more important priorities right now, such as the Royal succession in about 50 years time, reform of the House of Lords, fixed term Parliaments. He might even get round to the dire state of the nation one day.

It is unthinkable that they would want to go it alone. Scotland’s only real resource is the rapidly diminishing asset of North Sea oil. I have done my best over the years to assist them with their most famous and delectable export, but economically there is not that much going for them. Remember that the Act of Union was sought by the Scots, not the English, because in 1707 the Scots were skint. Had the Scots got full independence already they would have gone bankrupt on the collapse of RBS.

The other implications are that they would have to set up the full panoply of statehood, including a diplomatic service with Embassies all over (including London!), a defence service, customs and immigration – the full Monty. It is highly unlikely that the Scots would prefer to pay for all of these themselves whereas today it is mostly paid for by the English.

And the cruellest cut of all would be the loss of the £28 billion the English taxpayer sends to Scotland every year to help them with their free University education, free prescriptions and all the other goodies.

My take is that Scotland will go in the opposite direction to the EU; instead of ‘closer and closer union’ it will be ‘looser and looser union’. Scotland will take over most powers over a period of years, leaving a customs union, defence and some other functions that would be better managed jointly. Crucially the Scots would have their own budgetary and taxation powers. Joint services expenditure might be met through a ‘common purse’ arrangement.

Mention of the EU raises another complication; Scotland as an independent nation would have to apply for EU membership, so some kind of transitional arrangement would need to be negotiated.

At last we might get an answer to the West Lothian Question! And an English Parliament.

Who's up for the Republicans?

As America seems to live in a permanent state of political flux with electioneering never ending, it’s a bit puzzling as to why we still have little idea about the runners and riders looking for Republican colours in the Great POTUS Handicap.

The possible line-up looks dire. Even more so that Newt Gingrich has announced his ambition (has he? He doesn’t seem quite sure). On present odds, I would rate O as a shoo-in, especially after topping the Top Towel-head. Newt could never run for office in the UK, not with a name like that. One can only imagine what our rude and licentious media would make of it, but ‘pissed as a....’ would be overly tempting.

However, his reputation over here is not a fondness for a drop of the hard stuff (which does not appear to be one of his  redeeming vices) but as a self-opinionated, self-righteous, two-faced hypocrite and humbug (he no doubt thinks highly of us, too).

In short a run-of-the-mill political has-been who had his day when accusing Clinton of discussing Africa with Ms Lewinsky when he himself was indulging in a bit of horizontal jogging with his assistant (for whom he ditched his wife, married his doxy and divorced when he discovered she had MS).

The others moving up to the starting-gate all seem to be yesterday’s men, apart from the ludicrous Alaskan Annie Oakley who is not yet even yesterday’s woman.

 No doubt the hour will findeth the man. And it won’t be ‘Bad Hair Day’ Donald. So much for the lunatic fringe.

Irish week.......

Inevitably, this has to be ‘Ireland’ week with Her Maj making the first ever state visit to the Emerald Isle. Hopefully this will help to draw a line under 500 years of pretty dreadful history.

The Beeb launched a stunning new series to accompany it, called ‘The Story of Ireland’. I was so impressed with the first airing that I immediately bought the ‘book of the series’. My knowledge of Irish history is woefully lacking, and I intend to be better informed if no wiser.

 The Romans left Ireland alone; they called it ‘Hibernia’, the land of perpetual winter and the home of dragons. Pity that the English didn’t follow suit.

I knew nothing of the advanced state of civilisation in Ireland when England was passing through the Dark Ages (which actually were not quite as dark as all that).

 They developed a Celtic script and produced a vernacular translation of the Bible about 700 years before Tyndale. They led Christendom.

 Irish monks were established in Italy in the 7^th century under St Columbanus, who, in the best of Irish tradition, promptly had a Donnybrook with the Pope.

 The Irish were not altogether of the Celtic race; more a pot pourri, like the English. They were much inclined to raid Wales for slaves.

 One of the enduring characteristics of the Irish is that they tend to blame the English for everything that goes wrong (in which they are often fully justified!).

 For example, whenever my lovely friend Liam Fox visited from Dublin when I was working in Malawi we would go out to dinner and also have a drop of the hard stuff. This generally led to Liam being locked out of his hotel in the wee small hours or some other catastrophe.

 We met up in London thereafter and we agreed to have pre-lunch drinks at the Sherlock Holmes pub in Trafalgar Square and lunch in the Commonwealth Club. Liam hovered down a few pints of Abbot Ale, which is heavy stuff. Glasses were filled and refilled frequently over lunch and we were just relaxing over the port when he discovered that the waitress was from his part of Ireland. That called for another bottle which she was happy to share with us.

 We left at about 4 p.m. and Liam insisted on going back to the Sherlock Holmes. I had one drink and left him there as I needed to get my train before rush-hour.

 He phoned me from Dublin the following evening with the news that he had spent the night in hospital having fallen down the escalator at Trafalgar Square tube station. He then said (and I remember his words exactly) ‘Bejasus, whenever I meet up with you, you get me into terrible trouble’.

 I rest my case.

Dirty Dominque...

Something about the Dominique Strauss-Khan incident is eating away at my standards. So he got randy with a hotel maid. Nasty, indiscrete, French, but not necessarily a deal breaker. He will not go to prison if his lawyer is any good, and I am told he is.

That which absolutely boils my blood is DSK was put up in New York in a $3,000 a night hotel presumably paid for by the IMF. An Indonesian laborer would not make that amount of money in three years with basic wage at about a dollar per working day. Where in the world is the IMF's sense of balance, fairness and values to support such luxury? What amount is paid for other members of the IMF board to spend the night somewhere?

I call this immoral.

Donald Trump, Soros, Bill Gates or any Saudi Prince can spend whatever they want for a night in a hotel, but officers of international organizations should be ashamed of themselves for using donor money for their trysts and treats while staying abroad. I am completely against this sort of spending and firmly believe it is not for comfort, a better nights sleep, first class service, privacy or anything other than overweening egos that compel our captains of development to indulge in such unmitigated hedonism.

I hope DSK goes to prison and they cut off his ego. 

Mad as a box of frogs.....

In yet another ‘foreign aid’ scandal, we hear that the President of Malawi has chucked out the British High Commissioner for criticising the President’s corrupt use of aid money. So Dave has chucked out the Malawi High Commissioner and aid is being ‘reviewed’ i.e. frozen. The President had thought fit, in one of the world’s poorest countries, to buy a £9 million executive jet, top-of-the-range Mercs for his satraps, and a mega wedding party when he got spliced again, to one of his ministers.

Which brings us to the matter of direct budget support.

This was first mooted by DFID some years ago and they tried to persuade the other international development agencies (as we must now call the donors). The philosophy is that we must get away from the paternalistic approach redolent of colonialism, and instead of telling beneficiaries what we are providing aid for, we let them choose the destination for aid funds.

There is some merit in this; the history of foreign aid is littered with the wreckage of failed or unnecessary donor projects, like the fish freezing plant built on an African lake which would have used up all the water in the lake and so became the world’s most expensive drying shed. Senior donor officials seriously suggested to me that we use aid funds to install computers in every school. The fact that most of them lacked roofs, windows, water, and sanitation suggested other priorities. The lack of any power supply would also have been something of a handicap.

And I was called a reactionary when I proposed that schools should get rid of their water-borne lavatories and revert to the well-tried and almost maintenance free ventilated improved pit-latrine (the famous VIP toilet). My rationale was (a) that the kids came from bush homes and didn’t know how to use a WC; (b) the WCs were quickly stripped for useable materials; (d) they were frequently wrecked; (e) the maintenance cost was huge; and (f) the water bills exceeded the teachers’ salaries budget.

Needless to say the shiny-bums at head office had their way.

DBS might work if there are two essential conditions – that the beneficiary must choose from a specific menu which does not include executive jets or Mercs or vintage wine,  and that the donor has a full-time auditor in the beneficiaries’ HQ who must also approve each expenditure proposal. I suggested as much to the Minister, having just worked on a DBS-style project in which DFID showed no interest in how the money was spent and in fact has subbed-out financial oversight to  another donor altogether despite having a large office in the country.

And yet we now have some prat proposing that the donors should simply hand out money to individuals ‘to increase their purchasing power’. Mad as a box of frogs!

Osama the Martyr..............

Someone recently said in regards to the bin Laden episode: after the bloodshed, bleeding hearts. The latter are streaming out of the woodwork and in the process are attempting to convert our former public enemy number one into a hero and martyr.

I find this flip flop behavior strange indeed. It indicates a serious lack of personal and national self-confidence inflamed, as always, by a media driven primarily by sensation. 

The more O gloats over bin Laden's assassination, the more the media exposes intimate details about how he was really a good and decent person who was only trying to promote an enhanced adherence to moral laws. The intended conclusion of all this is that if the West had really understood bin Laden, we would not have topped him.

Now that is an interesting philosophical statement credited originally to Pascal and dripping with humanitarian emotions. I once took it to heart, but now I find the older I get, the less tolerant I am of criminals, misanthropes, preachers, liars and politicians.

I cast bin Laden in the same role as multitudes of other religious fanatics claiming a monopoly on the almighty and a single path to salvation while condemning all others who fail to agree. Nor do I have much tolerance for the millions of sheep who comply with their chosen fanatic.

And I am not at all inclined to act on the knowledge that if I try hard enough to understand these people, all will be forgiven. Pascal should have limited himself to the sciences.

Bleeding hearts......

Someone recently said in regards to the bin Laden episode: after the bloodshed, bleeding hearts. The latter are streaming out of the woodwork and in the process are attempting to convert our former public enemy number one into a hero and martyr. I find this flip flop behavior strange indeed. It indicates a serious lack of personal and national self-confidence inflamed, as always, by a media driven primarily by sensation. 

The more O gloats over bin Laden's assassination, the more the media exposes intimate details about how he was really a good and decent person who was only trying to promote an enhanced adherence to moral laws. The intended conclusion of all this is that if the West had really understood bin Laden, we would not have topped him.

Now that is an interesting philosophical statement credited originally to Pascal and dripping with humanitarian emotions. I once took it to heart, but now I find the older I get, the less tolerant I am of criminals, misanthropes, preachers, liars and politicians. I cast bin Laden in the same role as multitudes of other religious fanatics claiming a monopoly on the almighty and a single path to salvation while condemning all others who fail to agree.

Nor do I have much tolerance for the millions of sheep who comply with their chosen fanatic. And I am not at all inclined to act on the knowledge that if I try hard enough to understand these people, all will be forgiven. Pascal should have limited himself to the sciences.

Dumbing down the Daily Telegraph

I happened to see a print edition of the Daily Telegraph the other day. It is many years since I bought a hard copy, ever since their disgraceful treatment of their two countryside writers, Robin Page and Willy Poole, who were excellent. The DT replaced them with Germaine Greer of all people. What does an academic feminist from Van Diemen’s Land know about English country matters? I seem to recall that one of her contributions was to support the expansion of Stansted Airport whilst objecting to the little grass airfield near her home used by the local flying club.

The DT now looks like a broadsheet red-top. It has enormous banner headlines, lashings of trivia about celebs etc, and no fewer than 11 fashion columnists, compared with 10 for serious political comment. It also carries what seems like a daily health warning; this week – overweight causes dementia, bellyfat leads to heart attacks, coffee causes breast cancer,  paracetamol is linked to blood cancer.

It is well padded-out with trivia. Here a three front-page stories on one day:

·        ‘Lady Gaga debuts new ginger beehive’;

·        ‘Beatrice to put hat on e-bay’;                                                        

·        ‘Was Kate’s dress an imitation?’

After its enormous scoop 2 years ago on MPs’ expenses it has been losing circulation again, fast. The previous owner, the late Lord Fartwell, must be spinning in his grave.

Dumbing down the Daily Telegraph

I happened to see a print edition of the Daily Telegraph the other day. It is many years since I bought a hard copy, ever since their disgraceful treatment of their two countryside writers, Robin Page and Willy Poole, who were excellent. The DT replaced them with Germaine Greer of all people. What does an academic feminist from Van Diemen’s Land know about English country matters? I seem to recall that one of her contributions was to support the expansion of Stansted Airport whilst objecting to the little grass airfield near her home used by the local flying club.

The DT now looks like a broadsheet red-top. It has enormous banner headlines, lashings of trivia about celebs etc, and no fewer than 11 fashion columnists, compared with 10 for serious political comment. It also carries what seems like a daily health warning; this week – overweight causes dementia, bellyfat leads to heart attacks, coffee causes breast cancer,  paracetamol is linked to blood cancer.

It is well padded-out with trivia. Here a three front-page stories on one day:

·        ‘Lady Gaga debuts new ginger beehive’;

·        ‘Beatrice to put hat on e-bay’;                                                        

·        ‘Was Kate’s dress an imitation?’

After its enormous scoop 2 years ago on MPs’ expenses it has been losing circulation again, fast. The previous owner, the late Lord Fartwell, must be spinning in his grave.