10,000 Cleggs Under the Sea

Every so often a new unit of measurement emerges.  Remember when t-shirts started coming in S,M,L,XL and Dart Player?  Or when £2,000 became known as an 'Archer'?  More recently, neck ties started being displayed in Windsor, Half-Windsor and 'footballer',

Well, another unit has now joined this growing lexicon: the 'Clegg'.  The 'Clegg' is a measurement of depth, one which describes a state of being completely submerged, totally unable to resurface no matter how much thrashing around takes place.  If you're even half a 'Clegg' down you are in real trouble.

The first demonstration of this unit came during the debate on Student Finance in the autumn.  Those M.P.'s who were in danger of falling by a 'Clegg' began to furiously back-stroke, some rowed back and almost all were in retreat.  Some bravely loosened the shackles that were dragging them under and survived.  Other reputations were completely drowned, which is why Simon Hughes now has a rather soggy looking sheen whenever he is interviewed on the BBC.

Of course, measures were taken to prevent people dropping by a 'Clegg'.  The first employed was the 'patronise in an annoying way' defence, where a succession of LibDems dripped onto our screens and left puddles of weak explanations in their wake.  "You know, Government is all about difficult decisions," complained Norman Lamb.  Fair enough, get out of it, then.  Fewer than one in five people thought your party capable of Governing, no-one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you into it, so stop.  Get out.  Don't do it.  Let someone more capable take over.  After a while, this defence was dropped and LibDems even began to take pride in their saturated appearances.  "We're so wet, it's going to take four years to wring us out!"

But things move on.  After months of keeping their fingers as tightly crossed as possible, the LibDems have got their wish and everyone has forgotten about the tuition fees debacle, haven't they?  Okay, no they haven't, but the fun never stops when you're falling 'Clegg' by 'Clegg'!

I didn't really think that Thursday's 'oops, my microphone has been left on' error by the LibDem leader was such an accidental gaffe.  Despite many commentators believing that he did not intend his comments to be broadcast, I suspected a far more cynical approach, one which was intended to show how 'together' the two wealthy, ex-public school, career politicians in their early 40's were (despite their wildly different backgrounds....).  Friday's appearance by Clegg on a Radio Sheffield phone in was, however, a completely different matter.

For those who missed the story, here's a quick precis:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12866465

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-12865134

Lovely, isn't it.  What a great example to all in the public eye.  Don't bother to read up on what you're talking about, smear those who have and then lie to cover your tracks.  Clegg by Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister is showing how much he is out of his depth in the role.  Ill-suited to power, yet desperate to wield it, the last ten months have seen him going more and more native, the gap between him and Cameron becoming so narrow that you could hardly fit a public sector employee's P45 between them.

Most Prime Ministers get rid of the incompetents in their cabinets fairly swiftly.  Unfortunately, there are precedents where useless ministers have been retained to public incredulity.  Geoff Hoon and John Selwyn Gummer spring to mind.  The current Parliamentary arithmetic, though, will ensure that Clegg will stay on, making error after error, sell out after sell out and gaffe after gaffe.  For four more years.  It may be funny to watch.  As he is going to be responsible for wrecking millions of lives, however, it's more likely to be horribly tragic.

When Attack And Defence Are One And The Same

I always thought Gary Lineker was a centre forward.  Turns out that, logically, he was a defender.  Confused?  So am I........

Recently, David Cameron toured various Gulf States on a trade mission, accompanied by businessmen that are euphemistically known as 'defence manufacturers'.  The name given to such companies is quite noble, a throwback to a mythical age when weapons were produced in order to defend the vulnerable from attacking hoards, most of whom wore helmets with horns to signify that they were the baddies.  Our heroic defenders would only use weapons as a last resort, only when the attack could not be scared off by any other means.  As with most fairy stories, though, the truth is far more sinister than the fiction.

The current action in Libya has opened up a window into international relations which many believed had been slammed firmly shut after Tony Blair's ill-judged foray into Iraq.  David Cameron, egged on by the French government, was determined to secure a UN resolution for 'action' against Colonel Gaddafi.  The reticence of the USA to become deeply involved in such action spoke volumes.  Cameron seems to  believe (completely erroneously) that the main problem with the Iraq conflict was the absence of a new UN resolution.  How wrong he is.  The main problem with such forays into other states is that most people judge them to be morally dubious at best and at worst, completely hypocritical.  Why Libya?  Why not Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Zimbabwe or Bahrain?  You may well ask.  And I could not answer.

The reasons for the course of action that Cameron has taken probably lies in his sojourn overseas.  Some of those countries mentioned have been customers of the UK's 'defence' manufacturers (that phrase again) for a long time, placing millions of pounds worth of orders for British military hardware.  Some of this 'defence' equipment has been put to very good use lately, turned against unarmed pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain.  Indeed, the government of Bahrain has not been selfish - it has even invited the Saudi's to come in and test their 'defensive' equipment on the same demonstrators.  What fun.  I can imagine the two countries generals comparing notes as they flick through the catalogue.  "Hey, Ali, I've got a number 25, watch what it does," (button is pressed, a whooshing noise is heard, and a small mushroom cloud appears in the middle-distance.  "You think that is impressive?  Watch what my number 32 can do." (Whoosh).  "Wow, you can vapourise!  Remind me to order a number 32 when the country's internet is turned back on again.  All this defence is just too enjoyable to stop!"

So why Libya?  Perhaps it is something to do with sheer volume of sales.  Maybe a rueful Gaddafi is currently sitting in his compound in Tripoli regretting his failure to set up a repeat order for CS gas canisters and pepper sprays from those lovely British 'defence' manufacturers.  Maybe buying in bulk is a good way of avoiding air strikes.  Perhaps that is what is meant by defence?  The bigger your order, the better defended you are against air strikes.

So the French and the British take military action while the US keeps a low profile.  Comparisons to Suez must be avoided at all costs (after all, that action was led by a foppish Old Etonian Prime Minister enraged by the actions of a Middle Eastern Colonel and led to thousands of British military personnel being deployed despite the forces being stretched by existing commitments elsewhere.  Erm......).  So the MoD in London gleefully announces that Qatar and the UAE have been involved in the action too.  Brilliant.  At least the British have great bastions of democracy and human rights on their side then....

Innocent people are dying all across the world.  The International Community (such as it is) has a completely hypocritical response to such events, borne out by their insistence on bombing innocent civilians in Libya.  After all, British manufacturers have yet to invent a weapon that can discriminate between a 'goody' and a 'baddy', a bunker and a school, a hospital housing Gaddafi's henchmen and one treating innocent civilians.  Bombing innocent people to protect the lives of innocent people makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  The speed and relish which the British and French have shown in taking military steps hints that regime change is very high up on the agenda, and the protection of civilians is a convenient excuse to get rid of a dictator we don't like.  As opposed to the ones we do.

David Cameron has always aped Tony Blair and he cannot help doing it again.  He seems determined to repeat Blair's mistake of dabbling militarily in the Middle East without any idea of an exit strategy.  He has hit fast forward to Blair's seventh year in office without any of the good bits of the first six.  It's almost inevitable that Cameron will meet the same sticky end, and hooray for that.

Back in the late 70's, a mixture of African and Middle Eastern states worked together to oust Idi Amin from Uganda.  The action was not bloodless by any means, but the strategy took people along with it and ensured that the worst excesses of civil conflict were avoided.  Similar strategies were available to Blair and Bush in 2003, but they were eschewed in favour of macho posturing.  For Bush, seeing Saddam Hussain swinging from the end of a rope was worth the countless civilian lives lost.  The West seems to hanker after the same end for Gaddafi.

I never thought I would say this, but I wish William Hague had been right and Hugo Chavez spare room had been pressed into action.  At least that way, innocent Libyans might have been spared the full brunt of those lovely 'defensive' explosions.

A Modern Day Parable

A Banker, a Daily Mail reader and an immigrant were sitting at a table.

In the centre of the table were 12 biscuits.

The Banker helped himself to 11 of them.

Pointing at the immigrant, he then says to the Daily Mail reader: "You'd better watch him, he's trying to steal your biscuit."

The Banking Beast In: "The Day The Economy Stood Still"

Imagine a scene from an RKO film of the 1930's.  A huge monster is on the loose, rampaging through a town, causing pain and heartache to residents everywhere.  People's lives and dreams are being ground to dust by the monster's careless insensitivity, folks watch aghast while he leaves a trail of utter destruction in his wake.  Suddenly, the monster woulds himself badly.  As he falls, he causes even more problems, the resulting earthquake destroying everything in the surrounding area and condemning people to start a long, painstaking rebuilding process.

The authorities in the town take over the responsibility for the monster.  They tie it down while they ponder what to do with it.  Some think that it can be changed in order to become a force for good.  The decision is taken to keep it alive in its current form in the hope that something may positive may spring from the whole sorry episode.  Despite the monsters subdued state, the people of the town are still very angry with it.  They see the authorities depriving them of food in order to feed the monster and keep it alive.  While the beast sleeps, the old authorities take their leave.

Once the monster awakes, the newly appointed authorities decide to untie it and keep it on a lead.  Instead of training the monster and teaching it to graze and help to repair its damage, it is placed on a long chain.  Off it goes again, stamping on more buildings and causing more disruption.  When people complain that this is happening, the new people in charge of the monster insist that this is the best way forward, as there is no more food to feed the monster.  Isn't it a good thing that the beast is fending for itself?

The monster begins to take food from everyone it can, more than it possibly needs to recover it's health.  This surplus is not going to waste, though.  Oh no.  The beast generously shares it with the authorities which have tethered it so loosely.  People starve while the beast continues in its old way and the authorities get fat at the expense of ordinary people.

Then someone from the authorities comes up with a bright idea.  Why not hand the monster over to the people whose area it has destroyed?  After all, they could then sell it to an organisation that specialises in handling monsters and letting them roam free!  Genius!  The people might then have the chance to rebuild a quarter of the house that the monster destroyed!  Be grateful, people!  You have had your lives damaged, your livelihoods destroyed, many of you have lost your homes and the rebuilding operation will take decades!  But on the plus side, you will now own a tiny part of a monster!  Whether you know what do do with it or not doesn't enter into the equation!  The authorities are setting you free!

And if this analogy needs any explanation, try this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12661005

Failing that, it's sledgehammer time..............