HE MAKES YOU WANT TO VOMIT, EVEN MORE TODAY

Was I the only one who was more than a little nauseated at the sight of David Cameron at President Mandela's service today?

There is no doubt that the President himself would have forgiven Cameron for wanting him dead nearly 30 years ago, he was that kind of guy. After all he forgave the people who very nearly did kill him. The puny Cameron pales into insignificance by comparison with them, but I can't help thinking that the posh boy was only there today because it wouldn't have done not to have been there. And besides where else was he going to get a selfie with the US president even if he did have to share him with the Danish Prime Minister. (Just imagine, the PM of a ting country with 5.5 million being photographed with the President of the USA. Who'd have thought it!)

I was pleased to see that STV news gave no coverage whatsoever to Cameron and led with Mr Obama's speech, the arrival of Robert Mugabe, and the meeting between President Raúl Castro and President Obama along with the grief of Mrs Mandela and her family. 

The report that I read in the Guardian similarly ignored Mr Smarmy Eton Pants. So if he hoped that some of President Mandela's glitter would rub off on him, it looks like he was sadly mistaken, because he didn't even get coverage on the UK news.

Over 100 senior statesmen from all over the world attended the service in South Africa today, including two French presidents, four American Presidents, the Chinese Vice President, and the German President and Chancellor, in stark contrast to his arch hater's funeral, to which no American President and No French President bothered to show, despite invitations being sent. Likewise Angela Merkel and President Gauck were not in London for Thatcher's obseques.

Many many other leaders from around the world attended, including the Secretary General of the UN, the King of Holland and Crown Prince of Spain.

I wonder if Cameron was the only one there who saw the event as the fulfilment of something he had wanted since 1985.

OVER TO YOU BT...WHY ARE WE BETTER TOGETHER?

In a reply to the video of Ian Brotherhood and his colleagues from the Scottish Socialist Party, Councillor Braveheart wrote the following:

“I was at that meeting. Aiden, the chap with the long blonde hair and the yellow jacket, asked a question claiming to be uncommitted and just looking for information to help his make up his mind.....

“Interesting.”

I started a reply, and got a bit carried away with it, and it rambled on until I realised that it was probably a post in itself, rather than a reply, so here it is.  I'm sorry it's long... and maybe a bit disjointed. 

Braveheart: In my experience, that's the only way BT will engage with people. There is no point  saying to them: “I'm committed YES voter, can you explain why you are a committed NO voter?”.

That was tried in Dundee at a stall BT had at Baxter Park fun day. There was a BT woman there sitting on her own, but obviously there were more people from BT in the background, because, when someone tried to argue with, her two big blokes arrived and made it clear that discussion wasn't on the agenda. Threats were made. And, allegedly, the word “off” preceded by some Anglo Saxon was heard from the lady herself…although to be fair she strongly denies this.

If you turn up at a NO meeting and put your cards on the table you will not be entertained. It is far better to pretend ambivalence and see it they have a decent argument. If they think they have a chance to persuade you, they are likely to make the effort. Intellectual argument is not on the agenda.

So far all I have ever heard is that we are too poor and couldn't afford it. Or that we wouldn't be on the Security Council, and people all over the world wouldn't respect or fear our prime minister. 

Mixing with Kings won't happen much for the Scottish head of government,
but Abdullah wants to buy weapons and we don't sell them

(As even members of his own party can't abide Cameron, I find it hard to believe than anyone anywhere in the world respects him. And despite the 4th largest military spend in the world no one fears him because, since Suez, no British prime minister would dare go to war without America's permission. So, it you want to be scared of someone, probably best make it Mr Obama! I noted the other day that Cameron had the president of Sri Lanka fair trembling in his boots, just like he did with the Chinese when he tried to lecture them. But then like all of his class and upbringing, he still thinks that what the British Prime Minister says carries weight.)

I'm still waiting for an argument from BT that adds up to more that “clout”.

Most Scots truly don't care about being a big shot in world affairs, actually I suspect most Brits don't care about that either...at least not while they queue, or watch people queuing for food bank, and sit in their mufflers in their own homes for 6 months of a cold Scottish winter.

We are realistic. Even Britain is a small and relatively insignificant country: a fur coat and no knickers affair if ever there was one. We have the fourth largest forces in the world but our railways are 3^rd world (particularly in Scotland where there is no electricity north of Edinburgh), our roads, likewise (especially in Scotland where there is practically no REAL motorway, just freeway that pretends to be motorway). Clearly English hospitals are worse than those in the Central African Republic, as people appear to arrive there to be slaughtered in numbers, lying in their own waste or starving to death. Medics assure us that this in not because the staff don’t care; just that there isn't any money.

 

Yes, he actually said that. In English obviously as he is too thick to speak another language,
 and probably too thick to understand the significance of the phrase

Social security has become something akin to almshouses and soup kitchens under both Labour and this government of Eton boys.

Poverty is rife; folk are cold and hungry, stuck in run down towns denuded of hope since Mrs Thatcher concentrated the wealth in a square mile of her capital (doubtless on instructions from Denis, who had much to gain).

These towns have high streets of empty shops and pound stores selling the kind of tat that might just brighten up the inhabitants’ lives for a short time before falling to pieces.

There is no hope of work at anything even approaching a living wage. But people are persecuted by one of life’s big failures, who was lucky enough to bag himself an heiress; Iain Duncan Smith. 

Some live like this...

They beg for enough to top up the inadequate wage so that they can eat. Inflation for the poor is 10%, food, gas and electricity rise a pace while wages go down and benefits are static. And if you are unfortunate enough to need a dialysis machine in your house you are charged another £15 out of your benefits for the spare room it takes up.  Pensions have been decimated and the state pension is the lowest in Europe by wage comparison, and about half what is paid in the Channel Islands leave, OAPs living in a cold hungry misery. How the hell is that Better Together?

  

But goodness me are we feared and respected by…erm… someone, aren’t we?

Scotland knows it will not be important. It will be like Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland, Ireland, Finland, Sweden… and so many other small countries. All of which are better off that we are, although no one knows who their presidents, prime ministers or kings are. And they certainly rarely appear next to Obama, Abdullah or Xi. But there will be no deaths from the cold in Iceland or Norway this year, because their politicians are more concerned with that, and less concerned with running Sri Lanka, or Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or getting a photo opportunity with someone who really does matter, and basking in the reflected glory.

There won’t of course be a house of lords and £300 a day tax free for its freeloaders in Scotland. You’ll remember that Labour always swore they would get rid of this obscenity. Still, if you can’t beat them. ..

...and some like this

And the 'too poor' nonsense that the Tory think tanks pour out, always neglect to take into consideration that not every country, and not Scotland in particular, wants to follow the UK spending plan. OECD seems to think we will be somewhere about 6^th richest country per capita in the world. Why do the Tories think that that equals too poor?

Not having a massive military spend will save a lot of money; not keeping the royals in 5 palaces in or around the capital (they will get one and like it), not taking part in every war that America tells us to (even when they don’t get involved themselves ...what suckers), not putting massive new sewers in London, or Cross Rail or HS2, none of which benefit us one tiny bit, will all make a difference, and yes, burden though Alistair says it is, oil hasn't exactly done Norway any harm..

Warning: Prices can go up as well as down. Yes they can, that’s true. But seriously, what is the trend over the past 40 years? Will it ever go back to 5$ a barrel?

  

Well of course it is better for those people who wish to pursue a career on the international political stage. Tony Blair, a not so proud Scot, would never have shared President Bush’s neo- confidences  down on the good ole ranch in Texas if he’d only be prime minister of Scotland. And Lord Foulkes would only be Mr Foukles if his career had been Scottish. 

...and some get as drunk as lords

I can understand Darling’s dilemma. There he is, working all these years in London and just as he gets old and is expecting ermine and “you rang my lord”, not to mention his £300 a day tax free, it is all snatched away from him. I’d be pissed off too.

I asked you, BH, some time ago to give me some reasons why we were better together. You declined as did everyone else on the blog, except Dean, for whom I have much respect because at least he tried, even if I didn’t agree with his argument.

The other BT supporters on here just walked away.

Perhaps I should start a blog that indicates that I am yet to be persuaded. Then I might get some engagement?

But me no butts...except for the French and the Italians, of course

- l'Américain : c'est business, ne se laisse pas distraire: (the American, nothing distracts him, it's business).

- le Canadien : typique, un peu débranché et naïf; (the Canadian, typically rather uninterested and naive).

- l'Italien et le Français : ne pensent qu'au cul: (the Frenchman and the Italian think of nothing but her butt!)

THE RED CROSS KNOWS BEST ABOUT DISASTER RELIEF, BUT MITT KNOWS BEST ABOUT GETTING HIS PICTURE IN THE NEWS

So caught up in our own affairs with Alex and the European Union, and the visit of Pip Hammond and his Weapons of Mass Destruction, have I been that I've failed to say anything about either the horrific weather "event"  (didn't it used to be horrific weather) in the Northeastern United States, or indeed the Presidential election, with which my friend, and Munguin's Republic's 'Man In America', Danny, has been keeping me up to speed.

So now I will rectify both of these omissions by recounting the story sent by the aforementioned Danny, to whom I say "thanks", of Mitt and the Donations, which although it sounds like a 1970's soul group, is in fact, what has been going on over the last few days in the States.

When Hurricane Sandy was predicted and later when it hit landfall, it was only reasonable to expect that Barack Obama would give it his fullest attention. It's his job. Whether he wanted to or not, he was obliged to stop whatever else he was doing (in this case campaigning for next week's election), and work in concert with the national disaster team, and the governors of the affected states and their teams, to do everything they could to save lives, organise relief, comfort and reassure, and get teams working on normalising life as quickly as possible.

The President had to break into his campaign to do that, because he had a role, a job to do. Mr Romney had no such role and there nothing that said he had to do the same, except that generally speaking people would expect it.

So it seems he decided that doing a little "charity work" for the displaced, bereaved, miserable people would be the best use of his time, so he changed the name of his campaign events and carried on pretty much regardless.

This video clip, which I urge you to watch if you have any interest at all in what is going on in America, covers various aspects of what Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been doing.

I was particularly interested in the ploy Romney used to get charitable donations to the cause to also mean first rate photo opportunities for himself.

For obvious logistical reasons the Red Cross want donations of money (and blood) rather than food. Food randomly purchased and donated on the scale that would be useful for the millions of homeless in the eastern seaboard states would require vast administration to get it to where it would be useful, and even at that tons of it would be useless because it would require cooking where there are no facilities to do this.

But a photo op with Mr Romney accepting cash and cheques wouldn't have made the same splash as pictures of Mitt up to his elbows in poor people's food would. So against the express wishes of the Red Cross, Mitt asked for food.

And worse still, in case people came with no food, he had his campaign purchase $5,000 worth of Walmart food, and as people arrived they were able to pick up something to "donate".  Something that had been purchased by the people to whom they were going to donate it.  It made fantastic photographic evidence of a candidate who cares and who can inspire others to care (even if he has to produce the goods).

Does that not make you sick?

As an afterthought of course, the Red Cross won't want, or be able to use, this stuff. What will become of it? Will the genuine donations from Americans horrified by the plight of their countrymen just go to waste having served their purpose of making Mitt look good? 

Danny has promised to keep his eyes and ears open.

I don't think Mr Romney would make a very good president. 

THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE, YOU SAY JEEVES? TELL HIM I'M BUSY...WHAT JOLLY JAPES

I was amused to read over at Political Scrapbook, that Mr Cameron was “too busy” playing tennis, at Chequers, to take a call from Mr Obama

If I’m not mistaken, routine calls between people at head of government level are usually booked in advance.

I also suspect that if there had been a call from Mr Obama, Dave the Dick would have been sitting at his desk panting, waiting for the phone to ring. The notion that he would have refused to take an unbooked call (indicating that it was vitally important) is ridiculous.

"But there’s a nuclear war starting."

"I’m sorry Mr President; the prime minister sends his compliments and says that he’s too busy chilaxing to bother with you at the moment."

But I see that this information came from none other than Charlie Brooks, husband of Rebekah (LOL) Brookes, the ginger femme fatale of News International fame. It appears that the Brooks enjoyed our hospitality on at least three occasions at Chequers.

Cameron’s office has been forced to deny, of course, that anything of the kind took place, and a check of the telephone logs for the weekends when Charlie was there appears to confirm this.

Imagine being stupid enough to tell a lie that was bound to be denied, just before his trial for perverting the course of justice.

Charlie is a bit of a Charlie methinks, and a very dim one too.

DO YOU FANCY A HOT BRIDIE, GRANNY?

Just a week or so ago it was all so different. There he was being tucked up in bed by one of  the world's most important men, in a flying palace beyond even his none too modest means. He must surely have felt that he was, in every sense "on top" of the world. This, he must have thought, was what life was supposed to be about for people of his class, with his education.


And now...?


Well, he's come down to Earth in more ways than one.


The headlines even in his chumiest of papers, the Telegraph and the Mail are anything but friendly.


First, I suppose, we're in recession. Even if Georgie boy says we are not (which he did, only last week in his Budget), the OECD says we are. This international organisation has been supportive of Osbo's strategy so far, and the Mail is an adoring Tory paper, so we can't really accuse them of an "anti" bias.


Of course it's everyone's fault but George's. And the EU and Euro crisis comes in for a lot of stick, but at the end of the day, it is the chancellor's responsibility to foresee all the issues that might effect the economy when making predictions.


And then the news broke that RWE and Eon have pulled out of the English/Welsh government's multi-billion plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in the two countries. Effectively this appears to have rendered their governments' energy plans in tatters. This is embarrassing for Cameron as he has talked them up presumably in the hopes of scaring Scots whose government refuses to build nuclear power stations.

Furthermore, the country's roads are in chaos too because of cack-handed handling of the possible, but not certain, industrial action that might or might not come about if talks with tanker drivers' representatives fail. This possible action may or may not take place over the Easter weekend (which is an important holiday in England), when millions of families make a mad dash for the coast, and spend most of their holiday sitting in traffic jams). So rather unfortunately for them, in an attempt to blacken the unions involved they let Cameron and  Foot & Mouth, sorry Francis Maude make statements, in which they said, in their own little way, "PANIC". 


Today traffic jams are building up outside petrol stations, even in Scotland, where there is no holiday and no mad rush for the coast. In Dorset police were forced to close petrol stations in order to get the traffic flowing.


This is not a crisis, but the government's handling of it has led to this mess. And even when they are deep in it, they keep on making blunders. Ed Davey suggested that drivers should top up when tanks are half empty, but hours later, said they should when tanks are two thirds full.


Can you imagine this lot handling a REAL crisis?


And lastly (for this post anyway), the Times has reported that Andrew Mitchell, who, according to the Channel Four "Despatches" programme has money salted away in the British Virgin Islands in a tax avoidance measure, also was involved with a company which used a legal loophole to avoid stamp duty worth £2.6 million in 2006. This is the very practice that Gideon says he will clamp down on... 


...and that's not even mentioning Pastygate (or as we call it in Scotland "Bridiegate"), and the Granny tax... or dinnergate...

Yes, how Mr Cameron must long for a good night's sleep clutching Mr Obama's teddy...


(I'm hoping today is one of the days that 'somepapfaedundee' is lurking. The Osbo picture is just for him). The second one is of Ed Davey who has managed to arrange his features to make himself look  soft in the head. His ever-changing advice to motorists gives the same impression!


PS:THE Government's approval rating last night plummeted to the biggest low in its two-year history.

Just 25% of Brits gave the thumbs up to how ministers were doing. And a new high of 61% disapproved, found a YouGov poll for The Sun. Just 34% would vote Tory, compared to 44% for Labour. The Lib Dems flatlined on 10%.

The Budget, the cash-for-access donor scandal and unhappiness over fuel may be to blame...

YES SIR MISTER PRESIDENT SIR (YOU DO STILL CARE DON'T YOU?.... PLEASE...OH PLEASE.......)

It appears from the cables to Washington of the American ambassador and his deputy, that Britain has been sickeningly creepy in their subservience to America and positively paranoid about the imagined fragility of the imagined special relationship.

As I listened to the commentators on radio this morning, I was reminded of early teenage romance and the insecurity it brings; the constant attention to any sign of a cooling from the tenor of a text message to a smile at a potential rival.

So it has been, particularly since Barack Obama entered the White House, with Number 10 and its paramour.

One cable said the British fawning "would often be humorous if it were not so corrosive". They were tempted to take advantage of it to "make London more willing to respond favourably when pressed for assistance".

Another said that Britain would give "unparalleled" help for America to satisfy its aims.... (like go to war; arrange for dossiers to be “dodgy”; tell lies to parliament?)

The British attitude was described elsewhere as neurotic. On taking up the presidency Mr Obama returned the bust of Churchill that Tony Blair had lent George Bush. It was seen as a snub by the UK, whereas in fact, it was Mr Obama being polite enough to return something that President Bush had forgotten. Britain worried that in a speech listing his allies Mr Obama mentioned France and Germany before Britain causing the FCO the heartache that only a spurned teenager knows.

Brown was largely seen as unstable and presiding over a government that lurched from disaster to disaster. (Tell us something we didn’t know.) Cameron and Osborne were seen as shallow, lacking a grasp on political reality and only interested in short term political gain for their party. Fox promised a very pro-American arms procurement plan and said he would deal with those in the party who were against it (Ha ha ha. As if Fox could deal with squat!) Hague went into raptures over how every British PM soon “learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America. We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it." He might have continued that the universe needed it and prostrated himself before the Ambassador promising eternal devotion. (You’ll remember that almost before he had sat down at his desk in the FCO he was on a plane to America to do some heavy-duty creeping.

What I find particularly disturbing is a lengthy dispatch from the Deputy Head of mission stating: "The UK's commitment of resources: financial, military, diplomatic, in support of US global priorities remains unparalleled; a UK public confident that the USG values those contributions and our relationship, matters to US national security.

"Britain's willingness to invest in expensive weaponry is a key part of the so-called special relationship. The UK's annual military budget is running at £37billion. "

So now we know why we live in poverty, our roads and railways are third world and care of children and old people amongst the worst in Europe. It appears that if we don’t overspend on military equipment the US will stop going out with us.

This brings to mind the series of leaks and angry statements from one of the two “lightweights” when Fox was trying to keep military spending high despite dramatic cuts elsewhere. One telephone call to the Prime Minister from Mrs Clinton and lo, Osborne was overruled.

People worry about the EU’s influence over the UK. I worry far more about the fact the it only takes one phone call from Washington for our policy to be changed overnight in an embarrassing prime ministerial u-turn.

How does it feel to be the 51st state; the one right after Hawaii?

Pics: (1) Who the hell is that guy over there with the polished face? He come to sell me a car? (2) Listen up Cameron. Increase military spending otherwise you’re NOT on a promise. (3) Ohhhhhh I say matron. (4) Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, do you like my baseball cap? Should I wear it the other way round? D’yall thank it makes me look lak a reeeeeeal cool American dude?

ONLY IN AMERICA...

Sarah Palin, vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election that brought Barack Obama to the presidency, has indicated she very seriously considering seeking the Republican nomination for 2012.

In an interview with the New York Times she said that she was discussing the matter with her family and “engaging in the internal deliberations candidly”, whatever that might mean.

However, already she is whining about the fact that what she calls (perhaps in a joke, perhaps because she doesn’t know the correct term, you can never tell with her) the "lamestream media" for concentrating on her personal life. Other candidates haven’t had that she reckons.

I’ve never understood why John McCain, an otherwise reasonably sensible man, chose Palin who was the unknown governor of Alaska and former mayor of Wasilla (population 10,256) to be his running mate. She seemed to me to damage his campaign more every time she opened her silly mouth.

She demonstrated an incredible lack of political knowledge, of geography, and of even the names of newspapers and periodicals, never mind their content. She was lampooned by every non rightwing publication and tv channel, and at times made the Republican campaign look like a monstrous joke.

She has, nonetheless, boosted her popularity by becoming a leading light in the right wing Tea Party movement and, as something of a celebrity (in many eyes for all the wrong reasons) has had a measured success endorsing dozens of successful Republican candidates in the recent mid-term elections.

Palin is recruiting extra staff for her office. (Having become something of a personality, and made a pot of money from after dinner speaking, she has a staff.) This is taken as a sign that a bid for the nomination is on the cards. She will have to make her intentions clear by early next year.

If she decides to run, she is likely to face competition from people like Mitt Romney, ex-governor of Massachusetts, Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota, and Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House.

From a Scottish, UK or European point of view, it seems incredible that a person of her intellect could even possibly become the President of the United States of America. She makes Hazel Blears look halfway reasonable. But then you look at Ronald Regan, Bush the elder, and most especially George W Bush, and you think... yep it is possible.

As ‘Letter from America’ Danny often says to me... ‘Only in America’.

A TEA PARTY FOR THE GRAND OLD PARTY

Congressional and State Gubernatorial elections in the USA are a complex mixture, made even more interesting this time because of the “Tea Party” candidates of the righ. It can mean only one thing for Munguin’s Republic. Yes, I bottled out of writing anything myself and asked Danny to do a "Letter from America".

The Republicans had a party Tuesday night, and the Democrats just tried to put a brave face on things, as the votes were counted in the American midterm election. Voters went to the polls to elect the 112th US Congress, along with many state offices. With a few close races remaining to be decided, the Republicans will take majority control of the 435 member House of Representatives by a sizeable margin of approximately 242/193, a swing of 64 seats away from the Democrats. With three races left to be decided among the 37 contested Senate seats, the Republicans will take five to eight seats from the Democrats, leaving a thin Democratic majority as close as 51/49, if all three remaining seats go Republican. Republicans also took key state Governorships.

By any reckoning, this spells big trouble for Barack Obama’s legislative agenda as he enters the second half of his term and looks to the presidential election of 2012. He came to the presidency with a large reservoir of personal popularity, but with the wreckage of the George W. Bush administration all about him, and the immediate crisis of an economic crash looming. Not the least of his problems was the historically fractious nature of his own Democratic Party, which made large majorities in both houses of the 111th Congress somewhat illusory. Less obvious, but just as real, was his own relative political inexperience, and what would prove to be a largely ineffective White House political operation in dealing with a resurgent Republican Party, especially its so-called “Tea Party” faction determined to drive the party to the political right.

Nevertheless, Obama and the Congressional Democrats achieved the passage of major legislation to shore up the weakened economy and re-regulate Wall Street. Most important of all was the passage of his landmark health care reform bill, the signature political issue of his 2008 campaign, and a fitting contribution to the historic legacy of progressive Democratic social legislation stretching back to FDR.

All of this was accomplished in the face of implacable Republican opposition. Facing White House political ineptitude and divisions in the Democratic Congressional caucuses, the Republicans only had to become the “party of ‘No’” to achieve success. Their political tactic was as effective as it was transparently obvious. They would oppose everything, put forward no alternatives, watch things go to hell in a hand basket, and then blame Obama when the next election came around. This cynical political tactic was rewarded in spades with the counting of the votes Tuesday night.

A major political subtext of the midterm campaign was the success of many Tea Party-backed candidates over mainstream Republicans in the party primaries. But the general election results were more mixed for the Tea Party faction. Tea Party Republicans won high profile Senate races in Florida, Kentucky, and at least eight other states. The three Senate races left to be decided involve Tea Party candidates in Alaska, Colorado, and Washington State. On the other hand, the disastrous candidacy of Tea Party Republican Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Senate race cost the Republicans an almost certain Senate seat, as did the candidacy of Sharron Angle in Nevada, which saved the seat of Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. The Senate race in Alaska remains to be decided, but involves the candidacy of popular incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski who mounted a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary to a Tea Party insurgent backed by former Governor Sarah Palin. On balance, Tea Party Republicans made a creditable showing in the midterms, and they should be able to play a significant role in Republican politics going forward.

With the end of the midterms, the 2012 presidential campaign effectively begins with speeches and fundraising in 2011, in advance of the state primaries which begin early in 2012. Their midterm successes may have positioned Tea Party Republicans to advance one of their own to run against Obama. The most prominent “unannounced” Tea Party candidate is Sarah Palin, the current media darling who ran for Vice President on John McCain’s Republican ticket in 2008. Famously, it was then discovered that she doesn’t read newspapers, and frankly seems not to be all that bright. She does have a cutesy wink and a few political punch lines that are catnip to the right wing nut cases of the Tea Party. If she receives the Republican nomination, Obama should be able to make mincemeat of her. Surely she’s unlikely to be elected president. But then strange things do happen “only in America.”

Obama piles on the anti-BP pressure despite Cameron's efforts to defend Britain in "warm" phone call.

President Barack Obama has again vowed to "make BP pay" for not only the multi-billion dollar clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico but also the restoration of the region's economy, undertaking to force the British oil giant to set aside the money he believes it owes as "a result of [its] recklessness.". So much for the “warm” phone call with David Cameron.

In his fiercest rebuke against the company in the 58 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, he promised to get tough with BP and to ensure that it meets all costs he believes it should pay.

In a direct attack on the company's dividend policy, Obama said that the money needed to cover the as-yet unquantifiable costs must be deposited in an independent "escrow" account. "This fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party." "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness," he continued.

The strong words, which came in Mr Obama's first national address from the Oval Office in the 18 months since he took office, came ahead of his crucial meeting with Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP's chairman (pictured), and Tony Hayward, its chief executive, at the White House later today.

Mr Obama also used the speech to make public the appointment of Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, as his new "oil tsar" for the region, charged with developing a "long-term Gulf Coast restoration plan as soon as possible." The plan, which will be designed by states, local communities, conservationists and fishermen and funded by BP, is aimed at reviving the "beauty and bounty" of the Gulf region and co-ordinating how that will happen.

Likening the spill to an "epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years," he went on to detail the government's involvement in the clean-up to date.

In an 18-minute speech replete with military metaphors, he referred to the "battle" the US is "waging against an oil spill that is assaulting" its shores and citizens, and spoke of the "battle plan" of action to clean up the growing slick.

At the weekend the President supposedly reassured Prime Minister David Cameron that his frustration over the mammoth oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not an attack on Britain.

Cameron's Downing St. office said the two leaders had held a "warm and constructive" telephone conversation for more than 30 minutes.

Cameron is under pressure to get Obama to tone down the rhetoric against of a major British company, fearing it will hurt millions of Britons who hold BP stock in investments and pension plans.

Cameron's office said the prime minister "expressed his sadness at the ongoing human and environmental catastrophe," but stressed BP's economic importance to Britain, the U.S. and other countries.

It said Obama recognized that BP – which he has pointedly referred to in public by its former name, British Petroleum – is a multinational company, "and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity." Obama said he had no interest in undermining BP's value. The company's stock has lost 40 percent of its value since the oil rig fire on April 20 that unleashed the United States' worst oil spill.

Downing Street said the two men agreed that BP should continue "to work intensively to ensure that all sensible and reasonable steps are taken as rapidly as practicable to deal with the consequences of this catastrophe."

But when the White House finally released its official statement, only one of the 10 sentences referred to the oil spill. It said the two men discussed the impact of the spill, "reiterating that BP must do all it can to respond effectively to the situation."

Later, a senior Obama administration official, speaking anonymously, described the private conversation and confirmed that the president had told Cameron "that our frustration has nothing to do with national identity" but focuses instead on "ensuring that a large, wealthy company lives up to its obligations."

The official said Obama told Cameron that BP "must meet its obligations to those whose lives have been disrupted," and that the administration "will insist everything be done to cap the well, capture the oil, and pay for the cleanup, the environmental damage done and the tens of thousands of economic claims as a result of this disaster."

Downing Street also said Cameron and Obama reaffirmed their belief in "the unique strength of the U.S.-UK relationship." It announced that Cameron will visit Washington July 20, his first trip there since taking office in May.

How naive of those pro-British, pro-conservative bloggers, columnists and commentators to expect Cameron to stand up to Obama and protect those supposed vital British interests. But in actual fact it's a multi-billion pound international corporation that cut corners and precipitaed a monumental natural disaster. The fact of the matter is that the xenephobic British press whipped this up to sell papers. I for one never though for a second that Cameron would do anything other than what he was told.

Was there ever a small hope that the pro-US tories would stand up to Obama? Not a chance. The only sop that Obama made was to allow Cameron’s office to release its view of the phone call first. One which as you see is starkly different from the US version. And has Obama toned down his anti-BP rhetoric as a result of the call? No of course not. The best our dishwater PM could do was to get Obama to stop using the word “British”. How ridiculous of people to have expected Cameron to have done anything other than what he was told to do by the President. Now Mr Cameron is going to trot off to America because butt licking is so much more effective in person.

The START Treaty: An intellectual anaysis by....errr uhh.... Sarah Palin.... Hmmmmmm

Yesterday 'Letter from America' Danny mentioned to me that superstar politician and president in waiting, ex-Governor Sarah Palin had commented on Mr Obama’s landmark signing of a further START treaty with President Medvedev of Russia (you know, the one Sarah can see from her bedroom window if she hangs out far enough and wiggles a bit to the left… or rather she could if she ever spent any time in Alaska now that she gave up being governor mid term, to concentrate of making serious money as a comedy act at tea parties, and other places where loopy people gather…)

Anyway, I’d been thinking of writing something about that, but needless to say I managed to convince Danny that he should do the writing… and he has.

Once again thanks Danny for your insightful comments on American affairs.



Sarah Palin as Nuclear Policy Analyst


Both of our countries are in the throes of an election season. Readers of 'Munguin’s Republic' will remember Sarah Palin, the helicopter moose hunter, Vice Presidential (and Presidential) wannabe, and Fox News contributor.

On Wednesday, she took time off from book signings and after dinner speeches to appear at a political rally for Minnesota Congresswoman… and seriously deranged right wing nut case… Michele Bachmann.

Then Palin and Bachmann appeared on Fox News for a televised interview. It occurred just days after media reports of a new policy of the Obama administration, which would generally not permit the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations…and as President Obama and Dmitry Medvedev had signed the START treaty in Prague which will cut nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Sarah then gave us her soccer mom analysis of Obama’s nuclear policy, reducing it to something that we ignorant voters can understand.

You see, it’s like kids on a playground who are ready to fight. "It's unbelievable,” she said, “no other administration in America’s history would I think ever have considered such a step. Mr. Obama is like a kid on the playground who says, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face, and I'm not going to retaliate.'"

When asked to comment on Mrs. Palin’s remarks, Mr Obama delivered a delightfully understated smackdown. He said: “I really have no response. Because when last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues.”

He went on to say: “If the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin."

A rather nice “no response” response from the President about Sarah, the soccer mom and part-time nuclear policy analyst.

...............

Danny sent the following Youtube clip, and I'm too dim to upload it, so here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCp2e5TLG6Q

Barack Obama leaves Netanyahu to work something out and goes for dinner....alone

Binyamin Netanyahu was humiliated when, while meeting with the President of the United States in the White House, he refused to back down on his plans to build more settlement in occupied territories of the West Bank.

The United Nations, of which Israel is a member and the United States, which is a generous funder of Israel, have both demanded that no new homes be built on what the UN declare to be Palestinian lands. Mr Netanyahu disagrees, and his government has given the go ahead for a mass of building works.

So Mr Obama, faced with the immovable, left the meeting with Netanyahu and went to dinner. He invited the prime minister to stay at the White House, consult with advisors and “let me know if there is anything new”, according to a US congressman.

The Times reports that one Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by mistrust. Another said that the prime minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”. (I’m not sure why the President of Equatorial Guinea would get that treatment from the President of the USA. In fact, as a president and head of state, he is entitled by protocol to a better reception than a mere prime minister.

That aside, Netanyahu and team were sent off to the Roosevelt Room and after the president had eaten, had another brief meeting with Mr Obama. The prime minister also extended his stay for emergency talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations. However, with no progress being made he left for Israel with no official statement from either side.

It is an embarrassment that he had to return home isolated and embarrassed. He may have found George Bush a walk over. The current president is a different kettle of fish.

I try not to take sides in the Palestine-Israel affair, simply because it is too complicated for me to understand. What I can see is that, under the UN agreed situation Israel has a right to exist, and within its own borders be safe, so the shelling from Gaza and the intermittent attacks by suicide bombers are intolerable. On the other hand the Palestinians are treated incredibly shabbily by Israel and under Netanyahu, the situation has worsened. Starved of food and water, and essentials, including medicines, life, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, has become equally intolerable. Both sides are at fault, and unless something gives, it will only get worse.

I doubt that Netanyahu is an easy man to deal with. He is a hard line right winger. I imagine that his intransigence was less to Barack Obama’s taste than it had been to George W Bush’s. ‘Know thine enemy’, is a good maxim. Mr Obama has already shown that he does not suffer fools gladly. Clearly Mr N, didn’t bother to learn that, and has paid for it with a red face.

Pictured: The Israeli Prime Minister and President Barack Obama


....................