Nosemonkey's EUtopia

A quick plug – Nick Barlow has set up a General Election Blog, to which I (along with some other familiar metaphorical faces from the Britblogging world) will be contributing. Here we are again – http://www.generalelection05.com/blog

The plan is to do regular roundups of blog coverage, so if you spot anything particularly pertinent, amusing or whatever from the blog world about this election nonsense, bunk us an email to generalelection@gmail.com – and get in touch if you fancy helping out and all, the more the merrier!

In other news, The Guardian are trying to steal our thunder with their own really rather good Election 2005 Blog – on which this site’s latest posts will also be appearing in their “Blogwatch” section. It’s got me, they’ve plugged my fellow General Election Blog contributor Chicken Yoghurt‘s site – it can’t be bad. Even if they do seem to be a tad behind with some of their posts (I mean, that Alastair Campbell thing’s been knocking around for weeks…)

Now that I’ve bored you enough, read Steve’s thing below this – it’s far more interesting. He should post here more often (hint hint…)

I’m basically a philistine, and have only just returned to the UK after a month in John Howard’s Australian utopia so appear to have completely missed the Newsnight referred to in this article from The Times (thanks to the always great Political Wire)

It tells of a focus group case-study carried out in a marginal constituency (Milton Keynes North East), and contains some interesting points on the challenge confronting Tony Blair (and his considerable electoral strengths), but my attention was drawn to two of Frank Luntz’s other conclusions.

Firstly, was the sheer level of contempt raised among voters by images of Blair and George Bush working together (perfectly understandable as this, admittedly tired, internet viral shows). More importantly, was his belief in the potential strenghts of the Liberal Democrats.

It is perhaps going a bit far to read too much symbolic importance into today’s defection of a Labour parliamentary candidate to the Lib Dems (especially as Luntz also gives weight to Conservative campaign tactics) but some additional support of this point of view has come from the normally staid pages of The Economist (once again, thanks to Political Wire).

This sober analysis backs the view of the Lib Dems as a ‘troublemaker’ party, with enough potential clout to rob influential Tories of their seats and chip away at Labour’s majority in a way that could have an impact on the legislative agenda of the next parliament. It’s well-argued stuff, though the piece ends on an appropriately pessimistic note. Despite Lib-Dem protestations, the main appeal of their party lies to the left. It is difficult to imagine the attraction of this party to those dissatisfied by the Tories (especially given Lib-Dem attitudes to key issues of “race, asylum and immigration”). In addition, if the opinion polls go on showing the Conservatives creeping up on Labour, it seems likely that those lukewarm Labour supporters preparing to register a protest vote against the war may well lose their nerve in the face of a potential Howard government.

If this story is true, disgraced ex-minister and current European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson could be in a spot of bother again. Apparently Mandelson has been in Downing Street to discuss Labour’s election tactics – which surely is in direct contravention of the oath he took on becoming a Commissioner to remain entirely independent from domestic politics?

It has already been pointed out that Mandelson’s membership of the Privy Council and position as a Commissioner are technically incompatible, but becoming involved in party politics on a domestic level while a serving Commissioner must surely be cause for some kind of ticking off? Then again, Commission President Barroso seems to have got away with his not so subtle intervention in favour of his old party in the Portugese elections back in February, so maybe Mandy’s going to get away scott free and all.

Still, Labour must be getting worried if they’re willing to risk bringing Milburn, Campbell AND Mandelson back for this election. You’d think they’d realise that those three are among the most unpopular Labourites in the country, but still…

Update: Downing Street refused to comment on what Mandy’s visit was for when asked at this morning’s press briefing. Which would tend to suggest that he wasn’t there to discuss EU trade.

Update 2: I’ve heard a very vague rumour which may explain all this. If true, there’s nothing dodgy going on. But whether any confirmation will be forthcoming is another matter entirely…

It is possible that the death of Pope John Paul II may delay the announcement of the UK general election, expected tomorrow. So far, all three major parties have decided not to campaign today as a mark of respect. I mean, you know – it’s only the Sabbath… The heir of St Peter has only just died and stuff… They can’t risk banging on a mourning Catholic’s door and stirring up bad headlines, can they?

In other news, there seems to be some confusion among the press. Is Tony Blair willingly abandoning legislation to introduce ID cards and laws against incitement to religious hatred in order to call a general election, or is it the opposition’s fault, as Home Secretary Charles Clarke seems to think? After all, there’s nothing to say that Blair HAS to call the election now – he’s got until June next year. Maybe he should hang on, pass his ID cards bill, piss us all off, and lose like a regular bastard… In short, if Blair misses out on any legislation, or pisses any Catholics off for being insensitive, he’s only got himself to blame.

One thing’s for certain, the Pope’s death is going to make further campaigns on supposedly “moral” issues like abortion rather hard for any of the parties to pull off – the Archbishop of Canterbury has already told them all to grow up, and no one knows what direction the Catholic Church is going to take next. Is anyone going to risk second-guessing the new Pope?

(Oh, and can anyone tell me the difference between the Pope deciding he didn’t want to go back to hospital, knowing that he would die without full medical attention, and making a living will saying you don’t want to be kept alive in a vegitative state?)

Publius Pundit has pretty much all the info on Zimbabwe’s elections you’ll need.

As of 10am UK time, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change has won 31 of the 39 declared seats, although This is Zimbabwe reports that “presiding officers were instructed to openly flout the law by imposing a news black-out on the results until authorised to release them by Harare.” There are also reports of tens of thousands of voters being disenfranchised.

Even if the incredible does happen, and the opposition manage to overcome Mugabe’s dodgy tactics (even if they seem to have been surprisingly nonviolent this time), The Zimbabwean notes that the MDC will still not be able to form a government.

It has to be said – considering the date I’m wondering if these early, hopeful results aren’t just an elaborate and sick practical joke to piss off the opposition even more…

Blogger is playing up, so just a few quickies while it’s working to let you know I’m still here.

Paul Wolfowitz is trying to reassure everyone that he’s not going to bugger up the World Bank, and seems to be attempting to suck up to the EU to make up for his ex-boss Donald Rumsfeld’s somewhat antagonistic remarks about “old Europe”.

In other Euro news, here’s The Bluffer�s Guide to� the Bolkestein directive on services – sounds dull, but it’s likely to be a major issue as neither the right nor the left are especially happy with the thing…

Closer to home, Chicken Yoghurt sums up what must be many people’s feelings in the UK right now, while Perfect has a round-up of some of the nonsense we’re having to put up with.

Still it looks like the state of political debate is soon going to be raised a notch, as Blair finally answers the toughest questions. From a couple of 10 year olds on “Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway”.

Christ almighty… This is how respect for the British political system ends – not with a bang, but with a faint feeling of embarrassment. It’s going to be like watching your Dad drunkenly groping a teenage girl at a party.

The “interview” will likely be broadcast this Saturday – just two days before the expected announcement of the general election on Monday 4th April. Nice bit of free propaganda there from ITV. Unless they get in a couple of particularly subversive 10 year olds, that is…

Following The Zimbabwean‘s online launch (anticipating Thursdays’s doubtless dodgy elections) comes This is Zimbabwe, a bog from the Sokwanele opposition civic action support group. Worth a look – although sadly no comment facility up at the moment. (Hat tip Cabalamat Journal.)

Elsewhere, via Siberian Light, The Agonist has Some Things You Need to Know About Kyrgyzstan. Siberian Light also points to a Tulip FAQ and part 2, a Kyrgyz who’s who.

The FAQ in turn points to a couple of blogs from Kyrgyzstan – Peace Corps Kyrgyzstan and Aileyinastan – although the latter is now being updated from Germany. The first blog has links to a number of others from Peace Corps volunteers although, unlike with Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, there don’t appear to be any native Kyrgyz bloggers writing in English at the moment. Nonetheless, Registan.net (the blog formerly known as The Argus) continues to do a great job of keeping track of everything.

Meanwhile, Publius Pundit asks why there is no attention being paid to vote-rigging in Tajikistan, and points in the direction of an article by a resident outlining the background to the disputed elections there which, as of yet, have received scant attention from pretty much anyone outside the country.

After Blogging Labour MP Tom Watson (which sparked off an interesting discussion, at least), this time it’s Peter “Two Jobs” Hain spouting the guff about how if you vote Lib Dem you’ll get the Tories.

As I believe someone said before – “Vote Kennedy, possibly get Howard – but vote Blair, get Blair”.

Watch this. Watch this. Try and spot the difference between the two parties. Then remind yourself of some of the other crap. Then at least consider checking out Strategic Voter, Vote 4 Peace, So Now Who Do We Vote For? and Backing Blair.

Hell, judging by what happened in Birmingham last time elections were held, even if you do try and vote for another party Labour will just alter your ballot paper anyway…

Ah, it’s great to be living in such a wonderfully free country, isn’t it?

I did have a nice long post about a couple of nicely Eurosceptic articles in today’s Sunday Times, but there was a Bloggerquake, and the entire bloody thing got lost. Being trusting in technology, I type it direct into the thing and never cut and paste from Word, so I have no backup. Piss.

Here they are, anyway, with far less well-considered commentary (which is also, thankfully, considerably shorter – I think I went into rant mode after a bit…):

First up, “French ready to spite Chirac on EU” – which takes the rather unusual line for a Eurosceptic paper of saying that because the proposed constitution should prevent a French farmer from being paid �60 an acre in subsidies (that’s �60 an acre paid for by the EU taxpayer), it’s a bad thing…

The rest of the article is overly simplified “us vs. them” stuff, where the current shift towards opposing the constitution which seems to be happening in France is a combination of old school French arrogance and xenophobia – largely against the British, but also against Turkey. Still, some interesting stuff in there hidden amongst the guff.

Second up is Tory ex-minister and leadership hopeful Michael Portillo, an arch Eurosceptic vby his own admission but whom I normally rather like, with a nicely constructed but overly simplistic take on the whole constitution thing:

“The integrationists want a constitution, president and foreign minister because those are the attributes of a nation state. The treaty does not bring about a United States of Europe, but it seeks to accustom us to the terminology and institutions of a country called Europe.”

Yes Michael. Of course. A constitution, president and foreign minister are the attributes of a nation state and there can OBVIOUSLY be no other motivation for wanting any of these than the desire to become a nation state. Which is precisely why practically every major City company has a constitution, Chief Executive (president) and external relations manager (foreign minister) – they’re all wanting to become nation states too, aren’t they?

As for the old and frankly stale argument about being “accustomed” to the “terminology and institutions” of some kind of European state, this is the typical bullshit which is repeated every single time the EU is mentioned. I could accuse Portillo of precisely the same thing – the more he blathers on about the EU, its terminology and institutions, the more his readers are going to be aware of it. If they’re more aware of it they might start supporting it. Load of old nonsense, in other words.

There’s more nonsense in amongst the rest of the article, which I would go through and dissect line by line, but that’s utterly dull and would take forever. Instead, what with it being a bank holiday and all, I’m going to crack open a beer.

(Oh, and if anyone can tell me who all the people are who are voting in the Guardian’s weblog awards, I’d be grateful. By my calculations, since polls opened on Wednesday evening this site has received more votes than it has had visitors in that time – and other sites on there seem to have disproportionate amounts of support for their relative Technorati popularities. As I am only getting about an extra 30-40 visitors a day from the Guardian, is there something dodgy going on, or what?)

• Bomb in Beirut
• Al Jazeera receives bomb threat over its coverage
• Thai train hijacked by rebels
• Further trouble in Kyrgyzstan?
• Unrest in Togo
• Iraqi police fire on protestors; kidnappers claim to have killed another official
• US Army buries news it won’t prosecute its soldiers
• US happily flogs fighter jets to a military dictatorship
• The 11 days that led Britain to war
• Is the SARS virus airborne?
• The Euro on the verge of collapse?

Former Labour Prime Minister Lord Callaghan has died the day before his 93rd birthday.

Despite being the only politician in history to have held all four major positions in British politics – Chancellor, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister – he’s probably unfairly, for the time being at least, going to be remembered as a bit of a failure. After all, he was only PM from 1976-79, and on losing the 1979 general election his party entered a ridiculously long period of opposition. He was also responsible for the devaluation of the pound in 1967, the deploying of the British army to Northern Ireland in 1970, and was in charge during the Winter of Discontent.

The judgement of failure is, however, unfair: while at the Department of Transport in the late 1940s he brought in both Cat’s Eyes and Zebra Crossings, making our roads safer and demonstrating a strange obsession with animals which he failed to capitalise on later in his career.

God, that sounds callous. By (almost) all accounts he was a thoroughly nice chap. More from The Guardian, The Times and Wikipedia.

That’s what it sounds like as he says “We hope the opposition will quickly take the situation under control.”

Overnight there has been some rioting and looting – five are reported dead, 200 injured. The former opposition leadership, now in command, are promising elections in June. We’ll have to wait and see.

For more info and background, The Argus has been doing a sterling job of compiling info, and Publius Pundit has a good introductory overview of both the country and the situation. There is also a photo album of the rebellion and a hint about the implications at EurasiaNet, and another at Transitions Online. There’s more too at the always reliable Siberian Light, and Gateway Pundit likewise has loads and is being regularly updated – note especially their press reaction roundup (with links).