A Big Beast Too Far

There's something that has never really made sense regarding Tony Blair's para-campaign to be the President of the Council because surely Tony Blair knows that people like Tony Blair do not get appointed to European chairmanships. These chairmanships are technocratic in nature and this new role of the President of the Council demands a technocrat, surely. That, of course, does not preclude heads or former heads of government but it equally does certainly preclude high-profile international figures, and especially high-profile controversial figures.

The media seem to have got themselves into a terrible miscommunication and misunderstanding in their reporting of the role of the President of the Council. The role is to replace the current rotating Council Presidency, which switches every six-months between the member governments, and thereby create a chairman of the Council. Such a chairman would have no particular influence over the Commission other than in his capacity to engage in inter-institutional dialogue, similarly with the Parliament. And yet, if one were to read some of the media reports one would think the role demands an Obama be found from somewhere within the 600 million population of Europe. That is not the case.

I also found Miliband's concept of the Council President as breathtakingly naive. The very last thing European member governments want is someone who stops traffic. The member governments want someone who can chair their meetings, for their meetings is where it is at when we look at Europe (Independence in Europe, anyone?), and they want someone who can effectively communicate agreed positions to Europe's other institutions and to the US, Asia, and International Organisations. In other words, Europe does not want someone in which the message will be lost in the speaker.

Perhaps, even more strange than Miliband's version of the role of the President, is his rather little-Brit style in which he posits his support for Blair as some nationalistic exercise, that, because Blair is British then support should be forthcoming. A sort of Team GB for Europe, even if arms have to be twisted to make it reality, a reality it should be, and any questioning would be unpatriotic.

Moreover, the Tories adopting their typical insularity is as absurd as Labour. We know for a fact that Merkel and Sarkozy look upon the actions of Cameron with some misgiving. The Tories' twisting and shaking in the wind of Lisbon is very strange. Those in the Conservative party who have some difficulties with the idea of Europe impinging upon the laws and social life of their Great Britain have sort of missed the boat. Maastricht was the 'Treaty too far' in Thatcher's words and Lisbon is nothing compared to what was signed up to in Maastricht.

I'm pro-Europe and would like nothing more than an independent Scotland in a democratic confederation of Europe. Tony Blair will not be the President of the Council because the role really requires a chairman and the smart money will be on Juncker, in my opinion. Tony Blair is a Big Beast too far, thankfully.

Undergraduate Scribblings

It was the storm that failed to materialise and, aside from the protesters outside the various BBC buildings, all that will be really remembered from the night is the lack of substance of Griffin. It is, and remains, a widely held belief that no right-thinking person should share a platform with someone such as Griffin, and it is a view held particularly strongly by those on the left, and I have some great sympathy with that view. George Galloway recently spoke, however, of his change of belief, and that he would now share a platform with people such as Griffin in order to argue against their beliefs. And, from the evidence of last night, I would advocate and support that new stance because there was a danger that, rather than an appearance on the BBC increasing support for Griffin, a continued veiled menacing silence would allow others to fill in their own prejudices into that silence, creating a slow drift in the minority toward his and his party's ilk.

By having Griffin, an elected representative, on air to share his views and beliefs has evaporated that menace and reveals in broad daylight a bunch of cobbled-together nonsense, probably the result of undergraduate scribblings in lecture halls, barely understood then, and made to fit his view of the facts now. I had hoped, however, that it wouldn't have turned into a baiting arena which it certainly came close to, and I had hoped the tone of derision would have been less scornful because, as I have said, people such as Griffin thrive on being taken seriously, and take that away from them and they're left clutching onto nothing but those undergraduate scribblings.

A Mirthful Spectacle?

I'm afraid, as usual, I'll be tuning tonight into Question Time. I have great sympathy for the view that we should exclude people such as Griffin from such mainstream shows. The arguments for such a belief are cogent and coherent. Yet, I tend to take the opposite view that, such a party has gained representation, it does have a level of support, and so the best way to marginalise such parties are to engage them with argument because, as will become apparent tonight, I'm sure, their beliefs are based on a flimsy, cobbled together philosophy that have always been baseless and empty and useless and this current machination of such ideas are as hollow as those who held them before Griffin.

The one thing that such a party thrives upon is to be taken seriously, though, because they need it, and so they will take tonight as a victory, as a challenge to the mainstream, and as a sign of another small step toward their dystopia (for it is a dystopia to them also, because they believe in conflict and violence). Therefore, I do hope that their big night becomes a mirthful spectacle. I hope Dimbleby takes his designer glasses into his hand, smiling benignly, and looks around at the other guests, who are also smiling benignly, mockingly almost. You don't defeat such people by taking them seriously, you defeat them by laughing at their cobbled-together ideas, their fast-forward cassette-tape rhetoric.

These guys are the school-bullys of the political world; there aren't many of them, most of us will be fortunate never having to meet them, but they linger around on the edges, looking for weakness and playing the occasional game for their own self-satisfaction. Tonight is just such a game, and we should treat them in the manner befitting.

Hurry Up Please it's Time

I, like most folks, thoroughly enjoyed both Question Time and Have I Got News for You this week, finding that one has become as much the other, as one another. It's difficult to distinguish between the comedy and the serious scheduling, which tells us as much as we need to know about Westminster, almost as much as we have ever need to have known. Similarly, like most people, I found my laughter particularly reserved for that chap Sheen, who claims that all us simple plebs are jealous; after all, what right have we to interfere with Sheen's right to spend our money, yes, yes, what? What right, he asks. Interestingly the articulation of his 'high-class, low-functioning, but highly-bred line of reasoning seemed to sound remarkably like the sounds of the final nails in the coffin of the pretence that is Westminster. His hollow little meanderings were the secret farewell of all honourable gentlewomen/men, all constructions of authority were drowned out by his clear received pronouncings ...

HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME

The fact that Sheen managed to strike a comic note is much to his credit, indeed. And, I think, that I like most people naturally responded to his little simplicities with the equally simple response that, despite the limited successes and frequent failings, I have remained honest and truthful and, as such, would never think of swapping my position for his, no matter what his Balmoral-like little house and unmanaged little bit of land. No, I can look myself in the eye. I wonder of Sheen and his ilk can do the same and, you know, I have full belief that they can still ...

HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME
HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME

And, the feeling I get toward Sheen and his attitude seems to chime with the feeling I get whenever some unionist chappie or other starts asking for deference. The underlying impression I get with Sheen, and linked into his line of unionist thought, is that I am being asked to kneel when I have known all my life that one must stand, and stand on one's own two feet. It's just a feeling, but it's there, and it always will be there.

Brown Belongs to Hardy

Kickin' back with an afternoon of chess and '60s music is not a bad way to spend a short holiday afternoon and I've just found out we are absolutely going to get a by-election in Glasgow so happy times for now and ahead. It got me thinking, though, about the prospects of an early general election and, though I believe morally there should be a general election, I'm well aware of Brown's reasoning for hanging on, hoping with some hope that his numbers can pick up again, somehow. And why not? Brown has lived his entire essence to be Prime Minister for so darn long that no one cannot expect him to simply hand it over, and, you know, whisper it, in some small way, I do pity the guy, it has all went so horribly wrong. For Brown to call, voluntarily, for an early general election is the political equivalent of Henchard, in The Mayor of Casterbridge, walking off into the distance. Brown described himself as Heathcliff, but Brown belongs to Hardy, only Hardy could write a Gordon Brown.

Thus, an early general election will only come about if Brown is deposed after a terrible Euro-election and English locals. Reading between the lines I do think Alan Johnson is being lined up even though it would be a very difficult process to get rid of Brown, but from what I've seen and heard, I think Johnson could be looking at a move. To be honest, if Johnson were to take-over after a disastrous elections then I think some of the anger directed toward Labour would dissipate just a little, giving Johnson some time to get Labour together for the early election he would be bound to call. Johnson is comfortable with people in a way Brown can only envy, he comes across well on the telly and radio, and he seems like a decent enough sort of chap. He could setady the ship, and I think there are more than a few in Labour who know the ship is sinking, and a steadying of that sinking ship would give them just enought time to save their own careers......

But, then again, it's highly likely not a single soul at the top of Labour wants to touch the leadership with a long pole, preferring to let Brown lead them over-the-top in a year's time, allowing a few to scrap over what remains.I can't, though, envision any other possibility for an early general election. It's clear people are crying out for one, and I think the people deserve one after what we have learned of Westminster goings-on. If Labour get a sufficient enough beating in early June, then we might just, just get one. So just as we know what to do to try and get a victory for the people in Glasgow, people across Scotland and England need to know what to do to get a general election. Check? Check-mate?

Where are the Gentlemen?

I wonder when the time finally and longingly comes for Brown to be forced to call a general election whether we will once again be subjected to the taunts and abuses of the Labour MPs; flinging trials and arrows in the face of the idea of a Scotland that is something other than Labour in Scotland's clientelistic self-image. Are we to be asked once more to accept as truth their fantasy figures of blackholes here, there, a Scottish basket-case, or are such predictions nothing more than subtle prodding reminders of the wonderfulness of the British state structures? Such proclamations of MacChatter, parochialism, and an inward-looking Scotland doomed to the periphery of everything except the British Labour party? I can only presume they'll go a bit gentler this time round.



The expenses scandals have shown us something more than the simple exchange of some votes for the cleaning of some moats. It has revealed the whole constructed exercise in delusion that is the House of Commons. Watch it all, as the next speaker gets dragged to the chair, although this time round perhaps with some less of the constructed smiles, nothing more than delusion. Westminster Palace is a Victorian facade masking a crumbling and neglected foundation. The Mother of Parliaments is a delusion, willed into existence. It is at best the teenager of Parliaments, once assured and outward-looking, but has found the world has changed and has refused to change with it, sitting where it had always sat, in rueful malignancy. Brown described it as a 'gentleman's club' and perhaps one could add, 'but where are the gentlemen?'



This is why Labour will go a bit easier with their insults directed at Scotland. No more a basket-case because the foundations on which they once rested with some self-righteous assurance have shown to be deficient. No more accusations of parochialism because the 'gentleman's club honour' has been shown to be at best a second-rate university's debating chamber. No more conjuring of apocalyptical images of the outside world beyond Westminster control because Westminster itself is nothing more than a third-rate institution in comparison. Finally, Labour might find the real world and, just like Westminster, will find the real world no longer matches their archaic and faintly embarassing conduct.

Catching a Waterfall

I remember glancing just quickly at the Sun's front page on the day of the 07 election and thought for a split second they came out in support of the SNP and then I realised what the picture really was. There is no better example of the way in which the media over-estimate, as you say, their perceived ability to influence things. Such blatant bias can go on only for so long, until people just shrug it off. I quite liked one journo's description of the impossibility of Martin's task trying to handle this expenses scandal as something akin to 'catching a waterfall in a bucket'. The same could perhaps be said for independence. Labour and the Tories may have a very big bucket but, nevertheless, sooner or later, they'll find it does them no good. My advice would for them is to instead go and build a sandcastle, and call it Westminster Renewed. Anyway, onwards and upwards, to something at least a little better than Westminster nonsense of politics.