The veto that wasn't meant to be

So the Chinese, Russians, and South Africans vetoed?

Perhaps we should call the funeral directors for the UN Security Council itself, as it seems there has been little unaminity since its creation in such matters. Ironic that the same nations that have also been criticised for biased elections are the ones that end up vetoing such a resolution.

Two to Mugabe, nil to the West.

It's only to be expected. When have the G8 ever agreed (and subsequently acted) on anything that wasn't in their own financial interests? Good point about China though, they're quite happy to ban dog meat but when it comes to criticising Mugabe... I suppose with all the repression and censorship in China they're more frightened of being seen as hypocrites, I don't know. Maybe the only time the political rabble ever agree on something is after an eight-course meal!

"Incidentally, we were also briefed that the Chinese would not risk a veto on an issue marginal to their interests so close to the Olympics."

Wrong again. If China shows no mercy to the people of Tibet why possibly expect it to care about Zim?

I wish I could hope this latest act of Chinese defiance of all things good and decent would galvanise the British people into an Olympic boycott - which really amounts now to no more than not watching it on television - but I'm not putting my mortgage (prime or otherwise!) on it happening.

Where precisely was the Chinese 'risk'?

Who ever thinks the days of the Cold War are over, should think again. Once Nelson Mandela, that truly great man is no longer with us, I fear the stage will be set for complete chaos in Africa, which will 'demand' the intervention of Russia and China. This unholy partnership will probably be as binding as the Hitler/Molotov team, but whilst it lasts it will unleash a nightmare scenario. I pray my fears are unjustified.

I just had this wonderful image of Brown, Medvedev and Sarkozy chugging Grand Cru and boisterously staggering around looking for a traffic cone to steal, forgetting they were on a small Japanese island. That night they were all best friends and promised to put Mugabe in his place. Then the morning brought cold Hokkaido mists and a terrible headache for all concerned.

Well, I guess it shows that the Chinese and Russians have every bit as much respect for Brown as most British citizens.

There shouldn't be any surprise to this decision - only the grim realisation that Russia and China have absolutely no interest in anything other than their own economic benefit.

Both counties are quite happy to support any regime that gives them preferential trade agreements and probably even more happy to support regimes that tie the West up in knot and allow them to capitalise on the subsequent malaise.

Nor should we be srprised that the concepts of basic human rights and democracy are treated as irrelevant by two countries that have constantly demonstratred skant regard for these fundamental pillars of responsible government in their own countries.

The tragic irony is that while the west is lambasted with accusations of neo-colonialism and an interfering foreign policy, China and Russia make biliions through their steadfast and over-bearing support for oppressive regimes.

Until the West is prepared to stand up to this, the UN remains nothing more than a paper tiger and dictatorships around the globe can sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that they enjoy the protectionof the new super-powers.

Surely this is not what previous generations risked and gave their lives for.

The Chinese ban dog meat... for the $ake of breeding rabid dogs that devour the innocent. And Mugabe is exactly that! A rabid dog.

Whoever 'got it wrong' there's no doubt this is a huge embarrasment for Gordon Brown and yet another nail in his political coffin.,To see the British PM humiliated in this way is not a pleasant sight even for those of us who would like to see th eback of him.Would Jack Straw have made such a blunder ,with all his foreign policy experience,should he become PM in the months ahead I wonder?

Why did they veto? Because the stakes are low for them, but they get the benefit of humuliating the US (and the UK, but who is really concerned about that?) No doubt the South Africans vetoed because the knew the Chinese would, and Mr Mbeki gets some credibility among his own more rabid supporters. As for Mr Mugabe, he gets off scot free - again.

Now we need to put all of that behind us and step up our own, EU, sanctions, cut all aid routed through the UN to Zimbabwe, and stop deporting Zimbabwe opposition people back to this despicable, corrupt and despotic regime led by an arrogant ageing mad man.

I think a small, ruthless and well trained commando team should be sent into Zimbabwe to take Mugabe out!

The real strength of the UN Security Council is that it puts the lie to the talk.

If it weren't for the UN vote then Brown would have continued to proclaim "sanctions in our time", and denied his doubters.

As it is, we to know where these countries really stand, and confirmation of our beleif that our prime minister is a gullible fool.

Every thing brown says and claims to "know" must be taken with a pinch of salt unless there is independndat external evidence -- in which case he proclaimations are unnecessary and irrelevant anyway.

The possibility of a russian/china/africa axis built on real politik rather than democracy is real.

If democracy doesn't take a genuine stand then our only option will be a future in some large non-democratic block -- which is exactly what the EU is being built/designed for.

The days for democracy (outside the USA) are dark - I am sure the UK will fight this, but will the USA bother to give us the vital support such a battle will requires?

We should be sad that the UN cannot come up with some positive approach to tackling Zimbabwe - in particular Mugabe and his cohort.

Broad sanctions may have made an impact, but would certainly have affected the general population. Targeted restrictions against the ruling elite and their families would be a good move - but the will was obviously not universal.

Hard to understand why Brown was so confident about having carried the G8 and others. The whole thing unravelled before the leaders had even left Japan. (And now Bush has declined to legislate on carbon emissions, so what exactly did the G8 summit achieve?)

Just hope that S. Africa can eventually come up with a diplomatic solution that allows the MDC to share power. Whether they can find a solution that allows the Zim armed forces leadership to be shuffled further from power seems very doubtful. Without them, Mugabe is finished. With them still around, there seems little chance of real change.

The PM says " The G8 resolution is about the general approach - -"

That sums it up on this and all other issues - climate change, food issues etc.

The leaders come up with broad agreements, typically couched in deliberately ambiguous language which renders the so called agreement meaningless and unenforceable. More PR than substance.

This is not Brown's fault - except as part of the collective fault of all the leaders concerned.

However, it does bring into serious question the wisdom Government 'spin' which regularly casts Brown as the behind the scenes hero responsible for achieving the agreement.

I think the speech and the answer to your question Nick was simple diplomatic language for:

"We sat down, discussed the matter, didn't come to any agreement but agreed to release a loosely worded statement to make it look like we did in order to
make it look like this wasn't a complete waste of time".

Brown knew full well the Chinese and the Russians would veto the sanctions before they did.

Prior to the G8, Medvedev stated that it was time to address the causes of Russo-British problems and normalise relations. On the evening prior to the opening or the G8 converence, Newsnight ran an item about the murder of Litvenenko (see Mark Urban's blog for details) and that it 'involved the Russian state'. It was also alleged that an attempt on the life of Boris Berezovsky had been foiled.

It emerged that whoever briefed the BBC was 'off the record' and subsequently that the briefing was unauthorised. Since then, there have been tit for tat allegations and bilateral relations are in a downward spiral of alarming steepness. In such a negative environment, Russian cooperation could hardly be expected.

The Russians set out to embarrass the British at the Security Council and they may well have a point. In the meantime, Zimbabwe has simply become the ping-pong ball in a wider international game and the G8 process exposed for what it is - a sham driven by cock-ups.

Zimbabwe is not a major oil producer (just like Burma, Sudan - except for the Chinese etc.) so nothing will be done - this is not a particularly cynical view - it is just realistic.

The UK (and the USA) did not need UN support to go to war in Iraq so are we not being a bit precious about intervening in Zimbabwe.

What is the point of paying for an army if it is unable to intervene when the Nation is outraged by the actions of a tin-pot dictator? The USA regularly blows up (entirely innocent) farmers' weddings in Afghanistan with remotely controlled robot planes so why not Robert Mugabe? What is the point of brandishing a big stick and not using it against such men as Mugabe? We are I am afraid wimps, just as Mugabe says. Bomb the so-and-so, or shut up!

Re #3 palladas

Good one.

The only logical way to get at the Chinese mindset now is to boycott the Olympic sponsors and to start a public campaign boycotting Chinese products. It's too late now to change this particular veto but would make them "lose face" and could concentrate their minds for the future.

It was folly of the pathetic IOC to hand the Olympics to China in the first place and crass stupidity not to hold them to their promises having done so.

It is a matter of deep regard to this poster that Anglo-Russian relations are currently in such a poor state.

There ssems to be a terrible lack of perspective by the 'British' politicians and diplomats.

They really still seem to believe that they can continue to punch far, far, above their weight in world affairs, despite all the real-world evidence that the opposite is now the case.

The Russians are extremely clever people and can see straight though this 'British' bluster.

Frankly, we need the Russians much more than they need us.

That really is the bottom line and Anglo-Russian relations should be nuanced in those terms.

I find the concept of being intelligent very dangerous. There are too many reasons explained why this cannot happen or that.
We all know that Zimbabwe is in meltdown with a leader that is acting no less aggressive to his people than many other countries.

Yet, what do we do. We are just bad as China and Russia. We know what they do yet be brush that under the carpet.

The problem in Zimbabwe will only be solved by the people as it has in other countries where leaders have been toppled.

The UN is nothing more than a joke.

Pity we cannot edit posts .

Obviously, in my previous post that should read 'deep regret' not 'deep regard'!

Nick, you may not like the idea, but, you were given the spin. I imagine you probably knew it at the time but we're all human, so I wouldn't worry about it. The G8 potato heads effectively had 'nothing to declare', so they did what politicians do best, they created a policy/strategy 'fiction' for you and the waiting world. This meant that they could all go home knowing they at least decided on a form of words that would make it appear something was to be done about the world's favourite tyrant.

No 9 Iain-stevens:

For gods sake the last thing we need is a return of Jack Straw to international diplomacy. Are you forgetting the run-up to the Iraq war? You must be nuts, bring back the man who likes to say anything, to anyone, at anytime for any reason, so long as it's inaccurate and fully expedient to do so. Scrape that barrel any further and you'll put a hole in the bottom of it.

#22

The problem is that Mark Urban is receiving spin about the Russians being a bunch of renegades rushing around killing people with impunity while Nick is getting the 'Russians are nice guys who will help us clean up the world' routine. Perhaps we should cut the BBC a bit of slack. They can only report and comment on what they are told.

If they are being briefed by a government which could not organise an imbibing festival in a drinks manufacturing facility, that's hardly their fault.

@18....So we should boycott the Olympic Sponsors eh?

Isn't that rather like saying that when an Arsenal player gets booked ,we should punish The Emirates?

I wish people could keep their, comments credible, rather than emotive drivel.

# 24

I think it would be a very poor reporter indeed who simply acted as a conduit for what they were told.

I have a high regard for Urban, who has gone into some dangerous places to enable him to report more effectively.

I believe that these reporters, including Gilligan, have a basic integrity, that is sadly lacking in many of the people that they have to deal with i.e. politicians, diplomats and the infamous 'spin-doctors'.

In this context, the job of political journalist is possibly the most difficult of all.

Fro example, most folk would probably think of Andrew Alexander as a financial journalist, as he performed that role for decades at the Daily Mail.

However, Alexander actually started out as a political journalist, but told us that he soon gave that up because "the job was impossible, the people {politicians} I had to deal with told lies all the time".

Now you might have a glimmer of understanding of what political journalist such as Nick has to handle.

No 25: dontneedthegrief:

What's up, like your sport too much? Frightened you'll miss that glorious sight: the media triumph of the autocratic Chinese government declaring to the world how wonderful they are? Maybe you work for one of the 'sports media providers' contracted to do the work of the 'let's all forget how nasty the Chinese regime is department'. Some advice for you mate, nevermind keeping your comments credible, how about just keeping them to yourself. God how I hate apologists.

#27..doctor-gloom

Wow..Touched a raw nerve eh?

Nope..not employed by any related organisation...don't love my sport that much..not an apologist.

Simple point is that the Sponsors cannot be blamed for China's faults

As to my last comment...point proven.

The UN exists and I believe that the world is better off for it existing than not.

However, we see that the UN is not particularly effective in some areas.

I believe that there is a fairly straightforward reason for that lack of effectiveness.

The vast majority of the countries that belong to the UN, maybe some 60% of them, are, in reality, actually dictatorships of one sort or another.

Until that percentage changes significantly, that is, more countries become genuine democracies, the UN will struggle to fulfill its mandate.

Yet again the Zimbabwean people are let down by the people who may have been able to get rid of Mugabe and his thugs once and for all. Thabo Mbeki has proved that he is not up to the task of broker to make life more bearable for those who dared to vote for a different way of living.

We should not be surprised that Russia and China vetoed trade and arms embargoe, after all where does the military weapons supplying Mugabe and his cohorts come from.

#26. Yes, JohnConstable, I agree but when you reach the point where - at best - the sources' left hand does not know what the' right hand is doing or - at worst - is deliberately muddying the waters by contradictory briefings, informed comment begins to become wild speculation.

#27. doctor-gloom.

Oh yes that's all we need. Nobble the sports folk because you can't get to the politicians. Let's have sanctions against the New York Philharmonic for playing in North Korea shall we? Nationalise Chelsea to save Lampard being recruited by the FBS, why don't you? Which planet are you on?

Apparently it is not looked upon favorably to advocate actually doing something about Zimbabwe's 'elected' dictator. It is not even OK to point out that as Zimbabwe has no oil then unilateral military action is unlikely to be taken.

We are allowed to talk about the situation, but to advocate any strategy other than waiting for Mr Mugabe to die in the natural course of things is not permitted. So the suffering of the people remains.

Recall the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller: (Trans. and slightly modified - we are not permitted to write in German in this blog!)

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
(Source: wiki. 'First_they_came')

It is all rather like Dafur, Cambodia, Rwanda, Myanmar (Burma) etc. - we are permitted to advocate anything - short of calling for actually doing something!

You chaps are just suckers for briefings ! Which is unfortunate for us all.

Sorry to be harsh: but why not expend a little more effort and do some serious analysis of your own ?

In this case it's not so difficult.

The Russians and the Chinese are feeling pretty confident just now and there is worse to come - as we predicted here in our look-ahead for 2008

Come on, only a sports nutter would defend such an argument. Simple point? Not so simple, you're naive to think you can separate events off like this. Not an apologist: really? Give yourself a break, have a full english, you need some time to yourself to recover. Got to go, I hear the Zimbabwean cricket team have slipped into the country and are playing my local team up the road. Wouldn't want to miss a good days cricket just because dear old Robert has been a bit naughty lately.

threnodio 31:

How many of you sports nutters are on here? Sport is political my friend.

# 33

Quite an interesting list - but no mention of Bradford and Bingley going down?

Or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac having to be bailed out.

BTW. Not very good reporting by the BBC on this, in fact, the piece I saw on TV demonstred quite a poor understanding of the unique standing of these businesses as quasi-Governmental organisations, funded via the US Treasury.

In my opinion, the 'UK' economy has become much more volatile than it has characteristically been in the past, so HMG are going to be unpleasantly surprised at by the sheer speed at which the economy is unravelling.

Lots of unemployment, I'm afraid.

We just have to get through to the post-General Election period in 2010, when we English should emerge (thanks to the native Scots) in a totally new political framework.

Which should co-incidence with an economic upswing.

#35 - doctor-gloom

I am not a sports nutter.

It is simply that whoever is guilty of the cynical professional foul - Mugabe, Brown, Medvedev, Hu Jintao - showing the red card to someone who is playing in a completely different match is not going to help.

Among sports nutters, I believe it's called taking your eye of the ball.

This sorry tale demonstrates that:

1) Brown is irrelevant and anything he says lacks all credibility.

2) Russo/Sino realpolitik will reign supreme: Africa is an vital source of resources (especially for China) and this is more far important to them than western notions such as democracy or human rights.

3) The Chinese already have the Olympics in the bag. Nothing (short of internal disorder/disaster) will take the shine off this internal PR exercise.

On the last point, I'd be happy if we could all 'express our outrage' at China and the IOC by canceling the London 2012 Games. It would do nothing to help Africa, but would rid us of a 10-billion pound junket.

Re #25 dontneedthegrief
"Isn't that rather like saying that when an Arsenal player gets booked ,we should punish The Emirates?"

Yes, why not? It might even encourage them to sponsor a less unsporting team in the future or even make managers less dismissive of their players' bad behaviour.

And it's not the country of the UAE we're talking about but the airline group, along with the likes of EDF, LG and Thomas Cook.

Clearly it's a personal choice and I would grant that there's little sportsmanship left in the world of professional soccer. There's not a great deal left in the main Olympic sports either, but just a little on the peripheries.

Same with the Olympics. Why should the likes of Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Adidas (to name just 3) benefit from supporting the odious Chinese leadership?

For a full list of these parasites, see https://en.beijing2008.cn/bocog/sponsors/sponsors/

# 38

The point that I was labouring to get across is that the political entity currently known as the 'United Kingdom', lacks a lot of credibility in world geo-political terms.

So, if you accept that premise, which patently a lot of 'UK' based politicians do not, it is pretty irrelevant who the PM is and what he/she says on the world stage.

The big geo-political fish, Russia, China, India, USA must be beginning to find 'our' politicians faintly embarassing/irritating as they vainly strive to continue the illusion that we still are a major force in world affairs.

The UN is a total waste of space!! What is needed is a new organisation set up by the worlds democracies where you are invited to join.
I am fed up with millions of people dying because of UN inaction!

Also please notice BBC/Guardian, America here is doing the right thing and oil is not involved. Could you please criticise Russia/China/South Africa for a change!

Personally I think the US/Uk should overthrow him anyway by force!

Re #27, 34 & 35 doctor-gloom

All valid points. I had no intention of moving this debate to 606 but we do seem to have acquired some refugees from there.

Re 38 ScepticMax
Now that would make a point to the IOC but I fear that much of the money is already committed.

Re #40 JohnConstable

Good point. It's probably only the postscript to empire known as the Commonwealth and the similar 'La Francophonie' that gives us and the French any credibility at all at the 'top table'. Both seem pretty much past their sell-by date, especially if you consider the impotence of both countries in respect of troublespots such as Zimbabwe and Ruanda.

38 ScepticMax

Well said, sir. Agree completely, especially with the last paragraph.
If the games could be cancelled, even at this stage, millions would be saved, and would not be vanishing into the vast pockets of contractors, developers, ministers, etc.

# 43

When we English finally get some politicians who are grounded in the reality of England's political, economic and military place in the world, then I expect we would see a shift towards the 'umbrella' of the EU.

With the EU itself taking over our seats at the G8, UN Security Council etc.

This is actually already happening, at a glacial pace, mainly, in Jack Straw's infamous words. in a slightly different context, "because we have'nt had enough time to shape our public".

The fundamental problem here is a perceived lack of democratic accountability within the EU, which tends to make the English in particular, somewhat reluctant members.

In my opinion, the Englsih public will not allow themselves to be 'shaped' until the EU itself shapes up.

9ian stevens and othersWhy on earth is it Gordon Browns fault that Russia and China vetoed the sanctions, he gets blamed erroneously for many things in this country and I can defend that on occasion but this nonsense that you believe that Gordon Brown had any more influence than anybody else is totally absurd and with regard to some idiot who destroys your argument by saying that no one on the world stage listens to GB is abject nonsense what ever you or the rest of the people on this blog running him down he is there representing me and millions of people like me.
So dont take it upon your selves to think that because you dislike/hate GB that you have the right to say that no one cares what he says or thinks because millions do.

JohnConstable @40: I don't accept your premise.

Blair - for all his flaws (and they are legion) - ensured that Britain had credibility in geo-political terms. (He, personally, still does - bizarrely).

A lot has to do with the perception of influence and power - and, of course, the willingness to project whatever power once has.

Contrary to EUrophile opinion, independent medium-size and small nations can be credible in geo-political (and economic) terms.

Some may think that there is a need for the UK to unite with other European nations to face the challenges posed by a 'rising Russia/China/India/etc.). But there is surely no point in joining a team of eunuchs. [The EU for example, has 'nominally' a standing army of over 2 million soldiers. They are for a variety of reason, however, mostly useless. As for 'economic power', how is the EU to influence scare or threaten Russia and China? Stop buying cheap chinese goods? Stop buying Russian oil and gas?]

Re #45 JohnConstable

If you substitute British for English I'd agree with you pretty much 100%. As a proud British mongrel, I'm about 25% English with most of the rest coming from the "old" British parts of the island - not that I can prove than my ancestors from those parts weren't themselves Saxon or Norman invaders!

Wresting democracy from the hands of the European Council and Commission is not going to be a quick or easy matter, though.

For now, I just hope that the next Tory government sort out the UK democratic defecit without proving themselves to be the unionists who break the union. If they're serious, they need to start thinking hard now about a federal constitution to hold it together.

I suspect that the line given to reporters was an attempt to convert tentative Russian and Chinese support into a U.N. resolution - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It turns out not to be. Democracy isn't exactly thriving in either country, are they sending a message that international intervention on human rights issues is unwelcome?

Nick, maybe you could go back over all the things you have given brown credit for at the G8 and see if they are all actually substanceless too.

Talk is easy (certainly it is no longer cheap), but actions take more than that, and do not automatically follow.

All spin no substance?

#46 grandantidote

take the blinkers off. I have not read any post yet that said the Chinese / Russian vetoes were GB's FAULT. People have said it makes him look foolish, or humiliates him, but not fault.

The point is he proudly stood up and told the world that the Russians, as members of the G8, were solidly behind sanctions. His team were also briefing that China wouldn't risk the political stink this close to the Olympics. 2 minutes later and wham - veto. Put simply his team got it spectacularly wrong, making him look a fool.

I repeat, not at fault, just a fool.

There seem to be a number of comments about the UK's general impotence in comparison to Russia and China that are are a touch unfair - or at least should be if we had a government with any spine.

The UK remains a nuclear power that has a permanent seat on the Security Council. We remain one of the largest economies in the world (and significantly larger than our Russian friends, whose membership of G8 is distinctly tenuous). London is still the world's financial capital and although we cannot pretend to be anything other than junior partner, we are still the most trusted ally of the world's most powerful country.

More relevantly in this case however - we are a major donor country to the region, with South Africa, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania all being major recipients of UK overseas Aid.

Nor should we doubt our ability to act unilaterally - the Mugabe regime is in a position to offer little - if any resistance - if we or any other outside country decided to intervene in Zimbabwe.

Of course we won't do this - one of the "accepted truths" about Zimbabwe is that the UK cannot really get involved because of the colonial history. This is in fact utter rubbish - the French have proved on numerous occaions that the former colonial power can intervene effectively (and actually is often the only country that can do so) without major fallout. More recently, the Kenyan situation demonstrated the West's ability to pressurise an African government into finding a political compromise. However, it is difficult to imagine our current Government having the courage of its convictions to take a more proactive role in this crisis.

Until we - or our democratic Western allies do so - there is little hope for the people of Zimbabwe. There is little chance of Mbeki standing up to the situation unless the country descends into outright civil war, which sadly appears to offer the only likely way in which Zimbabwe can free itself from Mugabe and the ruling junta.

"the G8 resolution is about the general approach to sanctions, agreed by all members of the G8, the UN resolution proposed by the United Kingdom and the USA takes that forward with very specific proposals about sanctions against named individuals and about the arms embargo, and I hope people in the UN Security Council will find it possible to support this resolution"

It would appear to me that the USA and Britain took what was an approval of a "general approach" to sanctions then used that to push for both sanctions against Mugabe and his chums and in addition arms sanctions.
Having had a "general approval" you would have thought that at the very least they would have passed their draft resolution in front of the Russians and Chinese before bringing it up at the Security Council.

We now are left looking stupid; how daft can this lot of halfwits get.

Well, that settles it then..... the G8 summit is a waste of time and money, as strongly suspected.

As for Nick's reporting, he's a political commentator reporting on the G8 summit - that's exactly what he did and isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.

# 38, ScepticMax, I agree with your first point although was Gordon Brown the one behind this 'agreement' of sanctions at the G8 in the first place or was it George W Bush - I suspect the latter.

However, your point two, I think you're ignoring the fact that Western nations also protect their 'friends' (vested interests) regardless of democratic and human rights records.

I am also enraged by the fact that Mugabe and his cohorts are able to act with impunity but also enraged that other nations (with our support) do too - I almost find it worse because if backed by UK gov, they're essentially backed by me.

Until there is a consistent application of punitive measures by the UN against criminal regimes, we will simply have to sit and watch this happen over and over again.

51 Grawth So humiliation and look foolish is not implying that some way he was at fault there were 8 world leaders at that summit but according to you and others it was only Gordon that looked foolish and humiliated and that was because he took the word along with all the others that one of the greatest nations in the world would stick to there word and also with what apeared to be support from China, they didn't, so now GB looks foolish and humiliated, not half so foolish as many of you on this blog for trying to make political capital out of a betrayel that will affect millions of zimbabwe people not that it will worry you and the rest of many of the people on here who seem to think having fun about the situation and comparing it to football is great fun but as long as you can knock GB then anything goes.
Not a fool but a honourable man that expected others to behave honourably.
Its about time you and a good few others on this blog started to respect your country instead of trying to score political points against GB he was there as our representative, if you have no respect for him at least think about the unfortunate people of zimbabwe who are the losers in this betrayal that you and your fellow bloggers are trying to make petty political capitol out off. try 5.9.6.12 .15. and tell me that their not trying to lay the blame at GBs door.

The situation in Zimbabwe is terrible, the suffering by both black and white people is heartbreaking, yet there seems no end in sight. This is a situation where political allegiances have no place here in the UK. Whether one supports or opposes Gordon Brown, this is such an awful time, that people should unite together and try to help the beleagured Zimbabwes. In the grand order of things, Brown is not of significant importance, we do not have the oil and gas of Russia, nor the commercial and industrial clout of China. Brown cannot be blamed for anything, he is just one of the players in a tragedy taking place daily. Unfortunately, I believe that if the UK when ahead and actually took steps to replace this despot, Mugabe, there would be an instant backlash here at home. Remember what happened when Saddam was removed? Robin Cook, Clare Short, George Galloway, the whole misguided, for want of a sharper word, crew rose attacking Blair, accusing him of an illegal war and slandering him by accusing him of lying. There is a corny old agade, which holds true to this day, you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs.

Nick, William Hague was on TV this evening saying that there was no blame to be attributed to GB and he agreed with everything that GB was doing regarding the situation in Zimbabwe and that he had the full support of the house on this issue,

If you genuinely want to help Zimbabweans then you must act accordingly.

So, Zimbabweans who have arrived in England as refugees, sometimes years ago, and have been in limbo ever since, unable to legally work or claim any 'benefits', must be allowed to do such.

We may not be much of a world power any more but English people can still act with honour and be ethical about this matter.

Surely it is the least we English can do.

# 47 said :

"Blair - for all his flaws (and they are legion) - ensured that Britain had credibility in geo-political terms. (He, personally, still does - bizarrely).".

I do not agree.

As it has patently transpired through subsequent events, Mr. Blair strived to ensure that HE had credibility, not neccessarily the country of which he was the Prime Minister, and has been banking that credibility ever since he left office.

To be fair, from what we the general public have learnt, Mr. Blair personally does not seem too bothered about money but like many people, he may well suffer pressure from a partner to 'deliver'.

Who knows, who cares, that is their business.

Labour people will probably look back fondly on his time in office, especially after the virtual wipeout in 2010 but most English folk will probably still be scratching their heads and be wondering 'what on earth was that (Blairism) all about'.

# 48 wrote :

"I just hope that the next Tory government sort out the UK democratic defecit without proving themselves to be the unionists who break the union. If they're serious, they need to start thinking hard now about a federal constitution to hold it together."

I think you are completely missing the point.

Which is, it will not be up to 'Dave' and the Tory Government at Westmonster to decide this matter.

It will be the native Scottish people who decide, and I think they will opt for full independence.

Thereby at a stroke, also freeing us English.

NB. Anybody else notice that the fledging English Democrats came in third at the Davis by-election? I predict a bright future for them when political England is returned to the English people.

At Westminster, Gordon Brown, in my humble opinion, appears out of his depth and presides over an administration, which, in it's heart of hearts, must realize the game is up. Against this background he flies off to a distant Japanese island, probably desperate to make a positive impact with the assembled press corps during and after his maiden G8 summit as Prime Minister. Lecturing a struggling electorate on their eating habits, whilst enjoying sumptuous hospitality, rumored to be an eight course banquet, now seems even more crass in the light of what has subsequently transpired. GB now transfers his domestic ineptitude to the world stage.
In fairness, the duplicitous Dmitry Medvedev and assorted colleagues were probably never to be trusted, particularly when considering the present UK/Russian tensions on unrelated matters, whilst the Chinese record on such UN resolutions has been curious/illogical for many years. At this moment, the majority of the International Community, that is to say, those without a vested interest in Zimbabwe, are back to square one.
Parallels exist between Mugabe and the regime of the late Francisco Franco in Spain some years ago. At some point things have to change and those committed to the Caudillo, in this instance read Mugabe, become accustomed to favourable treatment and become reluctant to cede this prestige. At this moment, Zimbabwe does not have a benevolent Juan Carlos to expedite the transition and the military are in the ascendancy. As Mugabe ages, this is unlikely to change, and will possibly remain unseen by International observers. Maybe the answer to this intractable dilemma lies inside Africa, a continent bereft of a charismatic personality to make things happen.
As George W Bush and GB approach their sunset in the political spotlight, albeit roughly eighteen months apart, the dubious Bush legacy will be events in Iraq and a scandalous failure to capitalise on the Clinton momentum in the Middle East. GB has an opportunity to correct numerous domestic wrongs, errors he can't redeem. His best course of action is a lasting difference in Zimbabwe. Discuss !!

Of course, we're going to boycott the Beijing Olympics and tell the Russians where they can stick their gas supplies in future - aren't we ? ... or is that too much like an ethical foreign policy for comfort ?

58 59 60 John Constable
It says a lot to the rest of the nation when you keep refering to England as being represented as Britain I have to remind you that Britain consists of four nations ie England Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland, you may wish in your obviously xenophobic mind that this was not so but at this moment in time the state that exists is that above.
If labour win the next general election Scotland will remain in the union if the Tories win, then it will mean the end of Britain as we know it, that may please you but I pray to God that the break up doesn't occur. Together we are still a great nation, split assunder none of these nations will have any standing in the world including England. Does your xenophobia extend to the lads fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan shall we bring home the Welsh Irish and Scottish lads and leave the English lads to fight on alone.Is that what you wish for?

Re #60 JohnConstable:

"It will be the native Scottish people who decide"
Well, there aren't many Picts left, but certainly it will be the Scottish electorate who will. But that decision will likely be after the next general election and will be made taking into account the policies of the incoming government, which looks like to be a Tory one.

"it will not be up to 'Dave' and the Tory Government at Westmonster to decide this matter."
My point is that the Tories claim to be The Conservative & Unionist Party but seem to be sleepwalking into breaking the union with their watered down proposals on the "English votes" issue because they assume they'll have a permanent majority of English MPs.

This is analogous to the way NuLabour sleepwalked into its asymmetric devolution project on the presumption that it would have a permanent upper hand in Scotland and Wales, which lasted 8 years but is now in tatters - perhaps ruins after Glasgow East.

The Tories only need recall the successful start of the NuLabour "project" and consider how it has decayed into the shambles that masquerades as a Labour government to realise that nothing lasts forever.

"I think they will opt for full independence."
Just consider the situation from the other side of the fence. With the dwindling exception of a few NuLabour control freaks, nobody on the far side from Westminster of Hadrian's Wall or Offa's Dyke wants a say on internal English matters. What most want, if we can believe the opinion polls, is to control their own local affairs without interference from Westminster and yes, many more are considering independence as a viable option.

"Thereby at a stroke, also freeing us English."
If the English sort out their own way of controlling their own local affairs, the Scots and Welsh have no interest in stopping them. Indeed they would be daft to try, purely on numbers grounds.

Unless new constitutional arrangements are put in place, then Scotland and Wales may indeed choose to free themselves from a union that is past its use-by date. It is for the English to take their own decision.

If a new Tory government sees any merit in the union, it can choose to save it not by bribes of the sort which resulted in the original Act of Union but by sponsoring a constitutional convention to renew it. Unless they do, we're most likely to have a decade of splitting.

Personally, I do think a federal UK would have some merit and a few economies of scale but if that doesn't happen let us hope that the divorces of Scotland and Wales are more like the "velvet" divorce of Czechoslovakia than the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Re #63 grandantidote

Good heavens. Twice in one day I agree with half of a post from you. I think I'll have to take a break.

65 brownedov, thats odd I always feel that you do need a break, perhaps a very long one.

64 John Constable,Not to many Normans or Saxons left either.
The reason that Alex Salmond has postponed the referendum on whether to part from the union until 2010 is because he is aware that the Scots will not be to happy at the Tories taking control of their affairs in Scotland after their previous experience with Maggie.
I agree with your second paragraph.
I tend to agree with your third paragraph.
I as a Welshman did vote for a assemble in Wales but now regret that very much, thats one of the reasons that I am against referendums if someone else had decided for me I could at least blame them instead of myself.
"With the dwindling exception of a few NuLabour control freaks, nobody on the far side from Westminster of Hadrian's Wall or Offa's Dyke wants a say on internal English matters. What most want, if we can believe the opinion polls, is to control their own local affairs without interference from Westminster and yes, many more are considering independence as a viable option."
Well the reference to New labour freaks does nothing to further your agument so I wont go into that the only interest that the regions have in internal English matters is if in some way they affect the rest of us, we the unionists are only interested in what we do as Britain the UK.
I dont know what opinion polls you have been reading but if what you say is true then my experience has been entirely the opposite and very few are considering independence if they were Alex Salmond would hold his referendum now.
Unlike you I do not believe that the union is past its sell by date, to part the union in my opinion would be disastrous for us all.
Can you for one moment imagine trying to split the countries assets evenly dividing the Navy and its fleet, the Air Force and its planes then the Army and all its armoured equipment or do you envisage that the English should keep it all.Well thats not going to happen I can assure you.
Its highly unlikely that a Tory government are going to sponser a constitutional convention to renew it, as you suggest. The Tories dont even want to get on with Europe never mind the rest of the UK.

Re #67 grandantidote

If you re-read #64, you'll see it was me replying to JohnConstable's #60, with the bits in italics being direct quotes from #60.

I'll take a charitable view and assume that you've misunderstood the situation in the Scottish Parliament when you say:
"The reason that Alex Salmond has postponed the referendum on whether to part from the union until 2010 is because he is aware that the Scots will not be to happy at the Tories taking control of their affairs in Scotland after their previous experience with Maggie."

There is no question of the SNP "postponing" the referendum for 2 reasons:
1. 2010 was the date promised in their manifesto to give a fair chance for the electorate to assess the ability of the SNP to deliver. They have no reason to change that.
2. The SNP have no overall majority in Holyrood and so, like previous Labour minority governments at Westminster, they must rely on opposition votes to carry controversial proposals.

How the LibDem MSPs vote may well be crucial, especially as Scottish NuLabour doesn't yet seem to have made up its mind what it wants to do.

Your new Maggie has not yet pronounced whether she's in agreement with Bendy Wendy to "bring it on" or with the announced policy of Westminster NuLabour as against it, so we'll likely have to wait until Glasgow East have voted to see who wants what and who becomes Scottish NuLabour leader.

The rest of your post is largely fair comment, except that the latest YouGov poll headlined by STV on Friday and covered by some of the London press has received no BBC mention to date that I have found except on the "Blether with Brian" blog at https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor

Palladas 11.36 - great idea not to watch Olympics - good practice for 2012.

Well first of all, the Chinese strategy seems to be aimed at the whole African Union.

They probably see Zimbabwe as a liability but have to take the good with the bad.

The worst are not Zimbabwe anyway, they are Sudan.

It is in Sudan that Chinese amorality and self-interest are truly exposed, given the latest reports that the Chinese are breaking UN bans on supply of weapons and training.

Sudan has killed more people than any other conflict since Rwanda, yet the media have always been strangely muted about it - considering its scale.

I suppose that's because of all of the hype - which has a political dimension - around the Iraq War.

I am and always have been a supporter of the Iraq War. I believe it has saved many lives.

The anti-Iraq-War campaign has and is costing lives in Sudan. The hypocrisy at the centre of that campaign becomes exposed in Sudan and Zimbabwe.

The anti-Iraq-War campaign says leave this dictator Saddam in power to murder hundreds of thousands of his people - which he has to because Iraqi oil is in the North and South, not the Sunni centre of the country.

The Sudanese murder the Fur and the Zaghawa and others for the same reasons. There is a group-consciousness about it. Like Sunni vs. Shi'a and Arab vs. Kurd in Iraq.

Above all, though, it's still a government trying to keep itself in power using a population competing over dwindling resources and against a backdrop of potentially great but so far largely untapped wealth waiting to be exploited.

Now Zimbabwe...

Sadly, this shows why the United Nations is no longer the force for good in the world we once hoped it would be.

The UN has become a Self Preservation Society rather than a forum for the betterment of humankind.

Votes taken in the UN have no more credibility than the Eurovision Song Contest.

71 distant traveller , I agree with you whole heartedly regarding the UN, It must be one of the most sought after jobs for diplomats. A world wide gentlemens club, with not too much emphasis on the genleman.
They spend many years in what is arguably the most exciting city in the world highly paid, good food, great accommodation and very little work, they invariably fail to come to any real conclusions and mostly seem to stop any action taking place to solve the problems that there supposed to solve. They are a total waste of money and time.they make the G8 summit look like a poor office party.

70 chillO , Good post, you have exactly the same opinion of the Iraq war as myself and probably many other who are afraid to speak out for fear of being intimidated by the lunatic fring of the anti war fanatics.

68 brownedov sorry about that, must pay attention.

# 72 grandantidote

Yes, for those 'lucky' dimplomats working at the UN, it's certainly the Life of Riley.

In the end, UN Ambassadors, highly paid though they are, are simply mouthpieces for their governments back home. Any debates are really just for show - with Ambassadors intructed how to vote in advance of hearing any of the arguments.

There is also a problem of democratic deficit. Why should a dictatorial government of a country without democracy have any say in the affairs of the world?

China is not a democracy and its leaders brutally put down any dissent. The Chinese view on Zimbabwe therefore has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Re #71 DistantTraveller

True, although absurd hopes for the UN were talked up by politicians of all sides and many countries from the outset.

It has never been fit for the purpose much of the world seem to think it should fulfill.

Like the League of Nations which preceded it, it was founded at the end of a major war primarily to prevent the same mistakes happening again, but arguably it didn't take as much of why the League failed as it should have done.

Some UN agencies work quite well whilst others patently do not, but the Security Council and General Assembly have just about achieved their main goal of delaying WW3 so far.

A new Union of Democratic Nations might be a useful way of doing some of the things we'd like to see the UN being able to, but I'm by no means sure who'd qualify for membership. Switzerland and the Irish Republic certainly, but who else?

For those interested enough to read some of the ideas coming from the Tories now, in this posters opinion, they are themes that are designed to appeal directly to English voters.

That is, the sort of things that the Tories are now stating as prospective policies have almost zero appeal in Scotland and Wales.

So this amateur political poster has to acknowledge that the Tories have, in effect, although they are never going to say so publicly, already looked ahead and have written off the 'Union'.


PS. I care primarily about England and the English so my posts on this blog tend to reflect that political position.

# 64

Thank you for your comments.

It has been perversely amusing to listen to Wesminster politicians tying themselves into all sorts of knots, as they try to come up with some compromise on the West Lothian Question.

When all the time, the straightforward answer, full independence for England, Scotalnd and Wales stands silently as the proverbial elephant in-the-room.

The explaination for this is that politicians often have their own agenda, usually associated with power and status, because that is often the type of person that is attracted to politics in the first place.

Expecting a politican to give up power e.g. political entity 'Britain', is not going to be an easy task but nevertheless I think the tide of history is flowing that way.

# 75 (DistantTraveller), I think you're forgeting John Bolton (former USA ambassador to the UN). I think you'll find that he wasn't merely a mouthpiece but was part of the 'hawkish' Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis that played such a major part in abusing the UN.

Consequently, I think these last few posts are taking a very a pro-Western view of the United Nations. Whilst, I agree that it is difficult to see a future for the UN in its present state, 'Western' powers are as much to blame as 'Eastern'. 'Western' aid has very much been used as a coercive method (or threats of being bombed into to the ground (eg - Bush to Musharraf in 2001)) to obtain a vote or a state's support.

Until this gerrymandering of votes can be stamped-out altogether so that standards (and therefore, application of punishments for criminal behaviour) can be upheld and consistently applied, we better get used to it.

It enrages me that this happens no matter who the perpertrators are.

Re #77 JohnConstable

All good points. Your point re "themes that are designed to appeal directly to English voters" is exactly why I suspect and have said in other posts that Cameron may find himself becoming the last PM of the UK and the first of England.

I can't say I find it easy to get into the Tory mindset, but their jingoist tendencies predate UKIP & the BNP and they've always stressed the Unionist bit of their party name since Jo Chamberlain split the Liberals.

I'm just saying that it will likely soon be in their hands to determine whether it survives or not.

If it doesn't then I wish "the best of British luck" to those who yearn for a more democratic England but don't hold out much hope for them under Tory rule. The LibDems will doubtless develop that theme as the election approaches.

Re #78 JohnConstable

I agree 100% with your analysis if not necessarily with the predicted outcome.

75 distant traveller I dont know how the voting system at the UN could be changed to prevent any one nation with a veto being able to block the majority opinion of the other nations.
It doesn't seem like democracy to me, perhaps I'm wrong but its like having the three front benches in parliament having the right to veto any act going through parliament, irrespective of what other back bench MPs might think about the situation.
We know that China are never going to agree to anything that smells of democracy they dont practice civil rights of any kind so their not likely to support any democratic movement, invariably Russia will support China as they have a long history of apposing anything that the west might support.
So we have stale mate,
What it amounts to is that Russia and China are in control of the UN decisions at the very least they control anything that they wish, even if only to frustrate the other members by making their votes null and void.

O/T, but Nick....

A few weeks ago you were proclaiming that Labour would be announcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq soon. Now the chief-of-the-Armed-Forces has announced that withdrawal is unlikely to begin until sometime in 2009.

Did you deliberately mislead us, or were you lent -upon. I think we should know....

# 63

Re my "obviously xenophobic mind".

xenophobic is defined as an irrational fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially people.

One of the wisest people I ever worked with told me 'never assume anything'.

That is something I try to bear in mind.

I am very keen to see England become a political entity agin in its own right but that does not automatically mean that I have a xenophobic view of non-English people.

As I think I demonstrated on this very thread with respect to the Zimbabwean refugees.

I worked with the 'UK' military for approximately two decades, resigning in the early 1990's as I felt that 'the lads' were being let down by a grossly malfunctioning MoD and some of their suppliers.

I think that subsequent events have sadly proven to a large extent that those fears were justified.

So, I will not take too kindly to anybody suggesting in any way that I do not support our boys out there in conflict zones, where ever in the UK they come from.

My guess is that Brown was explicitly told by the Russians at the g8 that they would support sanctions in the un, and that he believed them.

As a negative for Brown it proves his naivety when it comes to what other countries do/say and that he doesn't understand how international relations work.

I don't think he was reporting the fact publicly that the Russians had agreed to it as a way of putting pressure on them at the un, I don't think he's intelligent or sophisticated enough for that. I think it was simply his honest belief that he was reporting rather than a way to put pressure on the russians to not veto un sanctions.

So, as a negative for Brown I think it proves he has no idea how things work when it comes to International matters (also proved by his telling the Saudis previously to waste all their own natural resources to help prop up a skewed oil market and to help subsidise his own levels of tax).

But, as a positive for Brown I think it does demonstrate that he's genuinely against Mugabe and is willing to risk his own reputation by standing firm against him.

In a practical sense the negative outweighed the positive, but in a political sense as far as the general public goes I think the positive outweighs the negative in this instance. ie that most people (myself included) think that although he failed, at least he tried.

Very rare that I'd ever praise Brown, but in this case, despite his naivety, I think he did an honest job for the wellbeing of the world and should at least get credit for trying.

re 57 grandantidote

re: "Nick, William Hague was on TV this evening saying that there was no blame to be attributed to GB and he agreed with everything that GB was doing regarding the situation in Zimbabwe and that he had the full support of the house on this issue"

excellent; I'm pleased to hear that; I'm glad neither side are trying to skew things for party political reasons.

Mind you, the cynical would say that even if the tories did disagree with Brown about it then they'd fake agreement for temporary party political reasons.

In Hague's case I don't think that'd be true because he strikes me as an honest/decent bloke who's genuinely on Brown's side with this one, but to be honest I wouldn't be too sure about Cameron, I think he'd have weighed up the party-political implications first (concluding the same as Hague but for different reasons)

84 John Constable I at no time in my post suggested that you do not support our boy's out there in conflict zones, I am quite sure you do but you do wish to seperate them into English and others as you do the rest of the nation, "xenophobia intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." isnt that the way you feel about the United Kingdom? why would you want to split England away from the other three nations we have worked together for many years as equal partners, is it that you feel that England should be more equal than the rest of us. The wisest man I ever met told me two things one moderation in all things and two never do to others that you wouldn't want done to you.

grandantidote

Is it that you have some innate ability to fail to understand others and assume that everyone who has a different viewpoint to you is a rabid dog, or is it just bunker paranoia setting in?

I said he was made to look foolish. Others used words like embarrassed or humiliated. Only one post (15) suggested he knew the Russians would go back on their word. The point is he was told something, he believed it, he proclaimed it on international TV and then the opposite happened. What other definition of "being made to look a fool" do you need. On a par with Michael Fish's "there is no hurricane" moment in my estimation.

As to people making political capital out of it, of course that's what they will do - it's politics. If you can take advantage of something to increase your own chances, that's what you do. That's what all political parties have always done. Now you may say that Zimbabwe is too important an issue to do this kind of thing about, but that's the point. If you're going to make a grand international announcement that the whole international community is united, deplores what is happening in Zimbabwe and will support sanctions, then you'd better make damn sure that everyone is genuinely on board before you say a word, otherwise you might end up looking foolish.

Finally, why the diatribe against John Constable? I assumed you read the same posts I do. To me, he comes across as someone who believes that the English subsidise the other nations (particularly the Scots), who believes that Scotland will probably make the final push for independence after the next general election, that the other nations will follow, and that England will actually be better off for it. He may be right, he may be wrong, I don't know, but its not xenophobia. It's a reasoned, rational argument that you happen to disagree with. Try countering it with figures of your own, or an actual counter-argument, instead of accusing him of being slightly deranged.

There has been much sniping that the BBC contingent going to the Olympics is larger than the British Olympic team - but one suspects that they may well be required to report on what one suspects will become a major news and current affairs story, if protests about this and Tibet start to take hold...

#82 grandantidote

The idea of having a United Nations as a glorified talking shop is a good idea.

Talking is always good!

But having 'votes' with or without vetoes is always going to be a problem. "One country one vote sounds democratic", doesn't it? But then you have to consider that some of the countries voting are not actually democracies, and their governments do not represent the views of their people.

I think it is right that we should talk to countries like China, but I don't think we are morally obliged to be constrained by how they vote. Whilst they brutally oppress their own people, why should they have a vote on world affairs such as Zimbabwe?

#79 extremesense

I think we should be less concerned with West and East, but instead concentrate on countries which are pro or anti democracy.

Countries which do not allow their own citizens to vote in free elections should not themselves be able to vote at the United Nations.

As a forum for discussion, the UN can serve a useful function. But when it comes to voting on issues of world affairs, it becomes a farce if countries participating have no democratic legitimacy.

To DistantTraveller:

Yes i agree talk is always good so why every time some countries likes to use sanction/armed invasion to solve problems?

When you refering countries like China who "brutally oppress their own people", by your logic countries like russia and south afria and some other who voted 'no' also brutally oppress their people? Your media doesn't tell you the whole story most of the time and before you assuming people in other countries been "brutally oppressed" please make sure you know what you are talking about. Like this time there must be a reason why Russia, China, south Africa and others voted 'no', we better focus on this rather than pointing at others and blame.

# 82 (grandantitode), I find it quite bizarre that you only seem to recognise China and Russia as the only countries abusing the UN system and your assumption that democracy somehow leads to the application of 'human rights' is preposterous as has been illustrated thorughout history.

You also fail to recognise that China and the USSR (not that long ago), after the death of Stalin, hated each other; China (under Mao) was more likely to vote with Nixon's US than Kruschev's USSR.

Does, the UN need to be fixed? Yes, it does. Time and time again we continue to see people across the World (North, South, East and West) suffer and their cries continue to fall on death ears.... it sickens me me that we have learnt nothing from history.

# 91 (DistantTraveller), the problem with democracy is that we have lawyers.

Eg - John Yoo's advice to Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration that the US can bypass the Geneva Conventions. The legal advice involved many laws both US constitutional and International but many will particularly remember it for allowing the use of 'waterboarding' and strapado/reverse strapado (better known as placing in extreme positions - hanging someone from the ceiling by their arms for many hours so that they eventually dislocate).

Democracy is simply a relative term - it's application is inconsistent even within the governments who promote it. Democracy is no better than any other failed system - the powerful will always succeed.

to all those calling us to invade Zimbabwe, from which country are we to stage the assault?

I bet Gutless Gordon is secretly happy about this. Now he doesn't have to do anything and he can blame all of Zimbabwe's problems on someone else. The perfect New Labour solution.

87 wrote:
"The wisest man I ever met told me two things one moderation in all things and two never do to others that you wouldn't want done to you."

To my mind this is a classic piece of hypocrisy on your part. You are very quick to heap abuse on those whose opinions you disagree with but at the same time you appear to be very quick to respond in kind when the stuff comes flying back in your direction.

Pretty Dopey 'leader' who completely mis-reads what his peers at the G8 said.

This seems to be Gordon Brown's olympic skill - getting it wromg.

He got the G8 message wrong; he claimed there'd be no losers from the 10p tax debacle; he's now claiming there are more winners than losers on VED rises; he's passed a 42 day detention bill without any supporting evidence; he claimed to put an end to boom and bust but the housing market has fallen faster than in the early 90s.

Either the man is supremly badly advised or he himslef is getting it completely wrong or both.

He needs to look himself in the mirror and ask himslef "what exactly is the point of me?"

96 nigellaawesome

Dear Nigellaawesome,
Reading your complaint against posting 87, please do not fall into the same habit of the 'socialist' commentators on this board. Do please avoid personal attacks, reserving them for the labourites, who probably feel very cornered, and knowing they are going down, drop all pretence of objective rhetoric. Madam, I usually enjoy your postings, so do not lower yourself to the level of those yoiu would contest.

Could it be that China and Russia are supplying arms to Mr Mugabe?

87. At 10:17pm on 13 Jul 2008, grandantidote wrote:
“84 John Constable - "xenophobia intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries." isnt that the way you feel about the United Kingdom?
why would you want to split England away from the other three nations we have worked together for many years as equal partners, is it that you feel that England should be more equal than the rest of us. “


G – I am reading the same posts you are, but I am getting a completely different message. It seems to me that John Constable has noticed a problem, and that problem is a lack of balance

The ‘West Lothian Question,’ was first posed many years ago, and was not answered then. The question was then hypothetical, but since devolution has become real and actual.

The simple fact is, that Scotland has a parliament, and England does not. Wales has an assembly, England does not. The Union is out of balance, and not only is that that morally wrong, it is placing a strain on our fragile democracy.

Devolution is a process that has already begun. Like me, I think John believes it should either be completed or reversed.