Is there an election coming up in the next year or so?

I used to have a lot of time for Sarah Brown, the PM's wife. Of course, she is not nearly as entertaining as Cherie Blair but she has always seemed very pleasant and intelligent, even elegant in a quiet way, obviously a fond mother and a sensible spouse (though even she could not make a human being out of her husband).

I am beginning to change my mind. There seems to be rather a lot of Sarah Brown around. Clearly, the Labour strategists have realized that there are many people who feel as I do and find the lady quite attractive. What they have not realized, being the usual kind of political dim-wits, is that if they keep pushing her into the limelight that good will is going to disappear. Mine, for one, is already fading.

Apparently she visited Glastonbury with the model Naomi Campbell. I missed this momentous event as I am profoundly uninterested in Glastonbury but now that I know I cannot help wondering at the preposterousness of neat, quietly pleasant Sarah Brown at that muddy, rowdy, noisy event.

Now we are told that she will march in the Gay Pride parade this Saturday because both she and her husband (who cannot attend for security reasons) want to show their support for the gay community in this country.

Excuse me, but is the gay community in any way oppressed in Britain? Has anything happened since the last Gay Pride parade to make the Browns feel that their support is needed? Or did they not know that there has been an annual Gay Pride parade for good many years now? (I must say, if I were the Gay Pride parade organizer I would run shrieking away from the Browns and their support, not wishing to be contaminated.)

Tomorrow Trafalgar Square is being taken over for Canada Day. I am not a great fan of Trafalgar Square being taken over by any taxpayer-sponsored demonstration but I shall go along to this one. Canada and the Anglosphere need supporting and it would be nice if the Prime Minister and his lady thought so, too.

Incidentally, the Gay Pride parade is on July 4. Is there not another event to be celebrated on that day, one that has to do with our greatest ally and with the Anglosphere in general? I trust Mr and Mrs Brown will lend their support to the community that has been under attack for some years in this country - Americans who live and work here.

Don't see it, myself

EurActiv is reporting that there is considerable excitement amongst the colleagues a.k.a. member states of the EU about the fact that the unreliable Czech Republic with its collapsing government and bloody-minded President will no longer be taking the rotating presidency of the Union. It will now be the much more reliable Swedes.

The Swedish government has already announced that the aim of the presidency will be "to push for 'more focused' Lisbon Strategy". A little late, methinks, as the aim of the Lisbon Strategy was to create by the rather unusual method of endless rules and regulations as well as scorecards, the most dynamic economy in the world by 2010. That economy was going to be the European one, whatever that might mean. Greater focus in the last six months of the allotted time is not going to achieve those desired results.

What I find rather peculiar is the assumption that somehow the Czech presidency made a difference and left scars on the political process of European integration. What difference? What scars?

No need for military confrontation

The response of many to suggestions that President Obama could have been just a teensy-weensy bit more supportive of the anti-Mullah movement in Iran was the usual one of "what, you want America to invade Iran". Well, no. There are many points between vacillating the way the President of no vision has done and actual invasion, which is not being planned, would not be a good idea and, incidentally, was not planned under President Bush either, despite endless reports of people "in the know".

The Wall Street Journal reminds its readers of the way President Reagan managed to help Poland and the independent trade union Solidarność. It made a great deal of difference and, as we know, helped to bring down Communism in Eastern Europe without an invasion.

Of course, that needed a leader of vision. Sadly, it does not look like the United States has one of those at the moment.

Read the article in full.

Where are those Tory supporters of Obama?

President Obama and the White House has officially abandoned yet another promise that was going to make his administration so wondrous to behold and live under. During his campaign he made it clear that once legislation is passed by Congress it will be posted on the internet for five days before he signs it, so people can read and comment. No law is law in the US until the President has signed it.

Having not done as he had promised so far, he has now announced that it will not happen. There are all kinds of excuses but the problem is that socialists like President Obama want to push through as much legislation as possible in as short space of time as possible. Popular reaction and transparency would get in the way.

This is of particular importance at this stage:

The explanation of the policy change also presupposes that there is meaningful opportunity for public involvement while legislation is still pending and subject to revision. Yet as the debate over the Waxman-Markey climate change bill illustrates, this is not a fair assumption. As Jim notes below, the House is preparing to vote on an 1,000-plus-page bill that was subject to a 300-page amendment last night — an amendment that was not even available to many members of Congress until today. Most members of Congress have had no meaningful opportunity to read, let alone digest, the bill. The same is true for most legislative staff. Forget the public.

If legislation of this sort, which establishes the first-ever regulatory controls on the most ubiquitous byproduct of modern industrial society, imposes new efficiency requirements on all-manner of appliances and consumer products, could trigger the imposition of tariffs on foreign products (likely in violation of U.S. trade commitments), furthers the federal government's environmentally destructive love affair with corn-based ethanol, contains numerous provisions drafted or urged by various special interest groups, and (at least in one version) contained provisions designed to create a national housing code, can be adopted by a House of Congress within hours of being written (let alone becoming public), then any claim of transparency in government is a farce.

As we know the Waxman-Markey passed the House, 219 to 212. How many of those 219 read the Bill or the 300 page Amendment? And the public? Oh well, they can just lump it.

Where are all those Tory supporters now?

Maybe the Tories should start paying attention

This is probably a lost cause but I cannot help advocating that the Tories, if they really do want to be known as a reasonable party rather than the Anything But Gordon Brigade, should pay attention to what is going on.

For instance, they seem to have got themselves into a real pickle over the new Spaker of the House, John Bercow, who has announced that he was pleased to be leaving the Conservative Party (as he has to, according to the rules). Shriek, howl, gurgle! Well, I'd be pleased to leave that snake pit (apologies to snakes) if I had ever bothered to join them.

While we are on the subject, I do find it just a little puzzling that people who have assured me and everyone else with foam on their lips that the real problem with modern politics is the Whip system and the obedience with which MPs accept the party's ruling are now the very ones to turn on Mr Bercow for rebelling against the party. Which is it we want? People who think for themselves, even if we do not agree with them or loyal party members?

The new Speaker's first pronouncement was perfectly sensible and well within the parameters of his job. Ministers, he said, must announce new policies to the House not the media. Who can disagree with that? The Ministers and their civil servants, that's who.

As Toby Helm, erstwhile Brusssels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, who has now gone to the Observer writes gloatingly in his blog:

So what do ministers do? How do they react to the Bercow edict in this new era of honest politics?

Well, they just carry on as before.

Ahead of a spurt of announcements this week, Whitehall seems to be leaking even more furiously than before Bercow's installation.

Senior ministers show no fear of the Tory they cynically planted in the job to annoy the Conservatives.

That business of Labour putting him there to spite the Conservatives is a media mantra, repeated by Tory bloggers and it may be true. Or maybe not. The Conservative leadership appears to believe it and is threatening to get rid of the Speaker when they are in government (most definitely not in power). Way to go if you want to make the House of Commons important, Mr Cameron and sundry members of the claque.

One can understand why one of the despised media fraternity should be gloating about such behaviour by Ministers, not that anyone is paying the slightest attention to announcements of new policies or new spending allocations or whatever since these announcements have long ago parted company with any semblance of truth.

Should the Conservatives not pay attention to the whole problem, though? We hear much about Parliament losing its importance and whatever respect the electorate may have for the Commons. Restoring ministerial pronouncements to where they belong is not quite restoring legislative powers but it is a small step in the right direction.

Somehow, I do not expect the Conservative front benches to make much of it. Presumably, they are looking forward to a time when they can announce some lie or other a new policy on the Today programme. And, of course, they do not like Mr Bercow. Nothing else could possible matter.

It really doesn't matter what one says

President Obama has shown himself to be a complete neophyte in foreign affairs, which is very amusing since part of his and his acolytes' campaign was the mantra that he was sophisticated internationalist unlike the hicks Bush and McCain and all because in Germany a huge crowd applauded wildly at some of the statements.

One of the things somebody is going to have to explain to the POTUS (maybe the TOTUS can take it upon himself) that out there in the big bad world people do not necessarily react they way they are supposed to and are much more likely to react the way they have always done.

It did not help the President that he pussyfooted round the Iranian events, saying very mild things but not really criticizing until the very end: he has still been attacked by President Ahmadinejad for allegedly interfering in Iranian affairs (because no Iranian could possibly think of such concepts of free and fair elections by himself or, in this case, herself).

It did not help that the State Department kept the invitation to the White House July 4 barbeque, issued to Iranian diplomats open as long as possible, an invitation the diplos in question did not reply to, not knowing whether they would still be in DC by then. (Scott Johnson traces the story on Powerline.) They and the President are still being warned not to interfere or criticize again.

There must be some cries of "why me" and "what did I do" resonating in the White House if the POTUS can tear himself away from the latest Vanity Fair photoshoot long enough to pay attention, that is.

As Jennifer Rubin says on Pajamas Media: "Reality bites, doesn't it Mr President".

An excellent word

Richard Landes, author of Augean Stables has a fascinating posting about a meeting for Arab students at Haifa University. To prevent violence the university authorities excluded Jewish students but one managed to get through and wrote up his account. The blog quotes that account with interesting analysis.

However, what struck me is the word Mr Landes uses: demopath. He defines demopaths "As people who have no respect for the human rights of others, but complain bitterly about others not respecting their human rights". We all know them and very plausible they are, too. That is why it is important to fight them.