BLOG POSTS

The forthcoming British general election is such a non-event that it hardly merits discussion. Gordon Brown’s revelation that May 6th would, indeed, be election day surprised no-one, as the date had been leaked to the public domain over a month ago.

The UK media is doing its best to pump up public enthusiasm, but Brits are so fed up with politicians and their sleazy, underhand, games that turn-out looks like being at a record low.

David Cameron, the still-wet-behind-the-ears Tory party leader is telling the people the Tories are the party of change. It’s hardly original, is it? That’s been the slogan of every political party in opposition since Robert Walpole.

(For American readers ignorant of UK political history, Walpole is considered to have been the first British prime minister. His title was, Sir Robert Walpole KG, KB, PC – though he was more colloquially known as “that fat old Squire of Norfolk”).

How can the Tories be the ‘party of change’ when their policies are nearly identical to those of the present government?

There was a time the British electoral system was unique. Not any more. Now, the ‘American way’ has permeated all aspects of UK politics, so it comes as no shock to learn that both major parties have employed the services of certain American gentlemen responsible for the success of the Obama presidential campaign in 2008.

Only two winners there, then. Given the low level of the UK pound it’s likely they’ll have requested their substantial fees upfront, and in dollars.

While both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are claiming a hung parliament (no working majority for any party) will prove a disaster for the country, what they truly mean is it’ll be a catastrophe for them. Serving the whims of their corporate masters would prove much more difficult with minor green parties, or even the much abused Liberal Democrats, in tow.

In fact, it might well prove the best situation for today’s Britain. Plenty of other governments are managing very well as coalitions, and the result is a much broader based political system. One has only to study the German model to perceive the advantages.

The British, however, have traditionally shown themselves to be a ‘two party’ people. When the one they choose lets them down – whether through fault, or simply circumstances beyond their control – they’ll swing en masse in the other direction.

They’ve always been a ‘suck it and see’ race, and not overly quick to learn from history.

So, my guess is that, while there’ll likely not be a Tory landslide come May 7th, David Cameron will be the next British prime minister, and the first Tory to achieve that since 1990.

If he fails to win, then the Tory party may as well pack in politics and take up flower arranging. Given the record of the Labour government, certainly during its last two terms in office, I doubt even the British can be that forgiving.

Sadly, though, the plain truth is they’ll be even worse off under the Tories.

Filed under: Political shenanigans

Today, the British government announced its intention to turn 210,000 square miles of the Indian Ocean archipelago into the world’s largest marine reserve.

According to the BBC, the British Foreign Secretary David Milliband, said of the project:

Its creation is a major step forward for protecting the oceans, not just around BIOT [British Indian Ocean Territory] itself, but also throughout the world.

“This measure is a further demonstration of how the UK takes its international environmental responsibilities seriously.”^[1]

The British government, it seems, is to be applauded.

Or, is it?

In a recent post on Sparrow Chat, I wrote of the US military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Indian Ocean chain, and how it’s presently being stocked to the gills with armaments, including “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.^[2]

The area fell to Britain in 1814 with the defeat of Napoleon (originally, the islands had been conquered by the French), which probably would have made little difference to its 2,000 inhabitants, except that in the 1960’s the United States decided it needed a military base in the area. Diego Garcia was perfect for the job, or would have been were it not for the locals.

The last thing America wanted was a load of curious islanders delving into their affairs, so the British (who were being well paid for their skulduggery) forcibly ejected the lot. Some were shipped to Britain, the remainder dumped on a Mauritian quayside and left to fend for themselves.

The British government responsible for this disgusting act of barbarity was headed by the Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson. Edward Heath, his Tory successor, happily continued the policy.

For forty years the Chagossians have fought a bitter battle in the UK courts, for the right to return to their homeland. Finally, in 2007, seven judges agreed that their right of abode was so fundamental the British government could not take it away.

In response, the UK government appealed to its own legislative body, the Law Lords, who happily overruled the decision.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Undeterred, the Chagossians have taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights. A verdict is expected this autumn.

Meanwhile, the British government announces its decision to turn the area into a marine reserve.

Which means a ban on fishing.

Which means the Chagossians, if they win their battle, will be unable to pursue the only livelihood open to them on the island.

With no means of support, they’ll be unable to return.

Such is the devious nature of the British government.

^{[1] “UK sets up Chagos Islands marine reserve” BBC, April 1st 2010}

^{[2] “Matters We’re Not Supposed To Know About” Sparrow Chat, March 15th 2010}

^{NOTE: John Pilger produced a documentary on the plight of the Chargossians. It’s called, “Stealing A Nation”, and is available on Google video or YouTube.}

Filed under: David and Goliath

I stopped at the red light this morning, and there it was in front of me: a Honda Civic, black, the driver – murky behind misted glass, but – obviously female.

Neither the person, nor the car, attracted my attention. It was the stickers on the trunk lid that caught my eye.

On the left side was written: “LOVE WINS”; on the right: “LIFE IS GOOD”.

While it’s refreshing, perhaps, not to be assailed by hate messages, or the usual redneck expressions of insecurity: “LEAVE THE BITCH AND COME HUNTING”, or, “MEN DO IT IN HUMMERS”, I have to admit these more positive affirmations still sat uncomfortably within my head as the black Honda took a side turn and disappeared into the dawn.

Drive through any European country and the number of bumper stickers, or other printed displays of opinion, will be glaringly obvious by their absence. There’s no law against it, and the occasional vehicle may be found carrying just such an item, but, so rarely, it’s a profound novelty.

In the Western world, at least, to display one’s feelings and emotions to all around, in such a manner, is almost uniquely American. So much so, it begs the simple question: why?

Why do so many Americans find it necessary to bare their souls in this manner. It’s as though they’re afraid the things they hold dear will be whipped away from them in an instant. That, by not declaring their beliefs, someone will assume no-one has them any more, and terminate them.

Americans are pitted against each other in a way unknown to any other civilized nation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the bitter wrangling colloquially called a ‘political rally’, or ‘town hall meeting’, though bitterness permeates not just the political scene, but almost every aspect of society.

This negativity is at odds with a general neighborliness so much revered by the American people, and often noted by foreigners visiting these shores.

I think what made me uneasy about the black Honda’s declarations was that, like all other pronouncements, torn and flapping in the breeze behind an inordinate array of US motor vehicles, they’re just totally untrue.

Just as not doing ‘it’ in a Hummer doesn’t mean you’re not a man, and treating your wife badly will probably achieve nothing short of being brained by a frying pan, so neither does love always win, or is life constantly good – at least, not in a general, all-embracing, sense.

The car’s occupant may be convinced that love will eventually conquer the world, rather than the enormous firepower of her nation’s military, and, for her, life may well be a bed of roses, but it isn’t the case for everyone.

To publicize such an assertion is to demand others feel the same way, as if to not be so is, in some way, a weakness. But isn’t that the case with all these US bumper stickers – they’re just a declaration that, “I’m right, and you’re wrong.”

The owner of the black Honda has given no thought whatever to the lives of the many people caught up in the grimness of civil war or unrest throughout the world; the plight of the starving; the diseased without hope; those afflicted by the results of her own nation’s depleted uranium bombs.

For millions in the world life is vile, and death a blessed relief. As for love, it belongs no place there are weapons. And in America, weapons are everywhere. No-one can look down the barrel of an AK47, or a Walther P38, and love their victim.

Sadly, it’s hate, not love, that wins out every time.

The owner of the black Honda Civic is either incredibly naive, or totally self-obsessed.

Filed under: Something about wood and trees