Keep Your Nose Out!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8361987.stm

I'd never vote for this person in a million years (and as a Calder Valley voter I had the chance to do so in 2005 had I wished). But that's because she's a Tory. I disagree with her politics. I couldn't care less who she's been sleeping with.

Ms Truss has been defending herself by saying that the affair has been public knowledge for some time and that she informed the national party about it ahead of the selection. I'm deeply uncomfortable with this:

Firstly, why should she have to defend what she does in her private life? As long as she's not breaking any laws then it's hardly anyone else's business.

Secondly, would she be subject to the same scrutiny by Norfolk Tories if she was a bloke? I suspect not.

Might I therefore suggest a different defence she could offer the local association? It goes like this: "My personal life has got nothing to do with you. Keep your nose out".

Hillary 2016?

I know it's far too early to get into all this, but: http://www.politickerny.com/2412/hillary-2016 The only cautionary remarks are: * there's a danger that, if she stays for a while, she could become inextricably linked with an Obama administration which might - just might - not enjoy eternal popularity (John McCain was about as far away from Bush as humanly possible but was still tarred with the administration's brush during the 2008 campaign). * the unpredictability of international relations makes the job a risky one for a presidential aspirant. Hmmm...

Clarke Inherits Howe's Mantle

If anyone deserves to inherit Geoffrey Howe's infamous mantle - dished out by then-Chancellor Denis Healey in 1978 - as parliament's Dead-Sheep-In-Chief it simply must be the walking irrelevance that is Charles Clarke. Clarke is, to put it plainly, deluded. Since being removed as Home Secretary - largely due to gross incompetence in dealing with foreign prisoners - he's tried to position himself, utterly ludicrously, as a party kingmaker and elder statesman. First, he decried Gordon Brown's coronation as Labour leader in 2007, insisting that a Brown accession was "not inevitable" and forming the painfully-badly-disguised anti-Gordon website 'The 2020 Vision'. But he didn't find the guts to stand himself. He instead agreed, ever-so graciously, to give Brown his "conditional" support. I'm sure Gordon was able to sleep more easily after that, Charles! Then, a year later, after the Great Leader's spectacular drop in the polls following a series of balls-ups and crises, he declared that he was "very sceptical personally about his capacity to pull in round and therefore I do think he probably should stand down". Quite an ironic statement coming from a bloke who criticised Tony Blair's decision to drop him from the government in 2006 on the grounds that he wanted more time to sort out the mess he'd presided over at the Home Office! And did he challenge for the leadership? Of course not. That'd take guts. But his latest salvo leaves me, quite simply, incredulous, telling a BBC interview that "I've worked half my life to get Labour into a position where it could be a good government and I do see that fading away". What?! I mean, the odd bit of screaming-from-the-sidelines criticism is one thing, but setting himself up as a father of New Labour? Are you having a laugh, Charlie? John Prescott - a genuine Labour heavyweight - had the right idea when he branded Clarke a "bitter-ite" in a Politics Show debate last September. He didn't have the guts to put up for the leadership in 2007. He didn't have the guts to challenge Brown in 2008. And now he's portraying himself as the founder of the modern Labour Party. Please, Charles, I'm begging you: shut up and go away.

False Hope for Zimbabwe

If Morgan Tsvangirai's capitulation to Robert Mugabe augured well for a revival of the decimated Zimbabwean economy and a reduction of the factional violence gripping the country then his decision to share power with his arch-nemesis could be easily accepted as the selfless action of a true statesman. But it doesn't. If Prime Minister Tsvangirai thinks that 'President' Mugabe will allow him to govern effectively then, at best, he is a hopeless optimist and, at worst, a deluded Charlie Brown-figure to Mugabe's Lucy. Mr Mugabe's pitifully-concealed attempt to rig the mid-2008 presidential election - inciting and overseeing violence and brutality against MDC voters until their leader had the good sense to withdraw - demonstrates powerfully his intent to remain in power at all costs. It was only a few years ago when a visibly bruised and battered Tsvangirai was being ruthlessly persecuted by Mugabe's regime and only a few months ago when his supporters were being terrorised by 'The Dear Old Man's' Zanu-PF thugs. Mugabe was condemned across the world for his reprehensible behaviour but despite the indignation of the West - and in a striking example of the toothlessness and futility of international law - his grip on power remains absolute. Britain's Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, described Mugabe's rule as "Sadism" in June 2008 and stated, quite unequivocally, that "the Mugabe regime is not a legitimate representation of the will of the people of Zimbabwe". Yet he has now been persuaded to remark that "Morgan Tsvangirai's appointment offers the possibility of a change for the better". Surely he understands that in supporting Tsvangirai's accession under an illegitimate president he undermines the force of his scathing comments about Mugabe? And surely he understands that Tsvangirai cannot possibly deliver change to Zimbabwe whilst the key ministries are in the hands of Zanu-PF and the economy is being crippled by UN sanctions (which, quite rightly, will not be lifted until Mugabe is out of the picture). Tsvangirai's acceptance of the Prime Ministership and the West's acquiescence to his doing so represents at least a tacit acceptance of Mugabe's legitimacy. With this acceptance disappears the solitary piece of authority Tsvangirai's cause had: moral authority.