Cassilis

"Of course, if commitment to virtue was more financially rewarded than commercial acumen, then priests would be paid greater sums than the most successful entrepreneurs – and the Church of England's bishops might be even able to pay for the palaces they only occupy as Grace and Favour mansions." Ouch!
Dominic Lawson in The Independent (link)

And worth quoting at length Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post on 'Ken v Boris':

"The candidates haven't exactly gone out of their way to discourage this kind of commentary, either. Though he's been more staid than usual during the campaign, Boris can't stop telling jokes, whether at the expense of the aforementioned mistress or the people of Portsmouth (a city of " drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs"). Adjectives such as "mop-haired," "blustering" and "old Etonian" appear in just about every profile of him. So does his most famous quotation-- "If you vote for the Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase" -- though that line is misleading, as his sense of humor is usually far more self-deprecating. "Beneath the carefully constructed veneer of a blithering buffoon," he once remarked, "there lurks a blithering buffoon."

Ken, by contrast, isn't funny or self-deprecating. His need to attract attention manifests itself in other ways: the expensive celebration he had planned to commemorate 50 years of Fidel Castro's dictatorial rule, for example, or his public embrace of a Muslim cleric who defends suicide bombing and advocates the death penalty for homosexuals. Like Boris, Ken often offends people, though his insults are less likely to have started out as jokes. He once called the American ambassador to Britain a "chiseling little crook" and informed a Jewish journalist that he was behaving "like a concentration camp guard." I'm told he sometimes makes good decisions about transportation, though traffic in central London still seems pretty bad to me."

Labels: Quotes

Regular readers will now I'm not easily riled or provoked. A commenter once described me as 'irritatingly centrist' and while I'm sure it wasn't intended as a compliment I happily took it as such. Indeed the only thing that does really anger me is blatantly tribal and partisan politics that ignores the issues in favour of baiting and abusing your opponents.

There's a perfect example of that silly adolescent approach to politics over on LC today - Dave Osler takes exception to the news that the left-leaning Smith Institute and the IDS-linked Centre for Social Justice are to publish a joint strategy on how to get children out of poverty. Dave thinks this is evidence of a political 'cartel' and 'further ideological capitulation' on the part of Labour. He seems outraged that anyone might want to address the issue rather than play politics and then gives a wonderful example of insight & wisdom he might bring were he to be invited to the table:

"After all, it is not as if the Tories – who throughout their history have upheld but one unrelenting purpose, namely to represent the minority of wealthy people that control society - have become converted to anything even vaguely resembling social democracy"

Perhaps because I am on the centre-right my frustrations with partisanship are usually with exaggerated Tory claims about the evils of the Blair / Brown years. But my hatred for it cuts both ways and Dave's attack on the Tories is so laughably over the top that I don't know where to begin. I could trot out all the stuff about Tories legislating for trade unions and public health and education projects a generation before the Labour party was formed, I could point out the massive increases in standards of living over the last century during which Tory administration were in office more than 70% of the time. In short I could throw a tonne of statistics his way but there isn't any evidence that Dave is sufficiently open-minded to pay any heed. Red badge good, blue badge bad. He does concede that it's 'legitimate to argue about the relative merits of different anti-poverty approaches' but his ignorance of the fact that free-markets and centre-right politics have made massive in-roads on global poverty over the last 100 years is astonishing. Crucially of course those 100 years have also seen massive improvements in social provision and employement protections etc. and it's the political left we have to thank for that - and yes, often the right were on the wrong side of those arguments.

But the wider point is that economic and social progress is a function of the interaction of different political creeds, not the prediodic victories of one over the other. The irony is that the creed Dave now expounds, Social Democracy (and that's a presumption based on the quote above) is quite a distance from the one he used to favour - Trotskyism. Having been on such an ideological journey of his own you'd think he'd be more understanding of others doing the same thing.

I've been tagged by Tom Freeman with the following meme:

1. Pick up the nearest book
2. Open to page 123
3. Find the fifth sentence
4. Post the next three sentences
5. Tag five people and acknowledge who tagged you

Tom's also already used the one decent gag in response to this which, with a 2 year old around may have been a serious option for me. Still with my copy of The Gruffal0 elsewhere (ahem, sorry - Joseph's copy) I'll have to play this one straight. First one my hand hits is Robert Dallek's 'Nixon & Kissinger: Partners in Power' which I've been struggling through for a few weeks:

"When Nixon and Kissinger told Hoover that the May 9 and earlier leaks "were more than just damaging; they were potentially dangerous to National Security," Hoover began tapping the phons of three Nationl Security Officials identified by Henry - Daniel Davidson, Morton Halperin, and Hal Sonnenfeldt - and one defence department officer, Colonel Robert Pursley, a Laird assistant. Within days, two other NSC staff members came under scrutiny as well: Richard Moose and Richard Sneider. FBI agents also began listening to the conversations of four journalists - Beecher and Hendrick of the Times, an Elnglish correspondent based in Washington, Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times of London, and CBS newsman Marvin Kalb."

Not the most enlightening paragraph in the book but hey rules are rules and I've only got to page 142 anyway.

I'll tag Bob, Chris, Donal, Matt W and Hopi...

Two things I’m finding particularly annoying in all the comment around Thursday’s Mayoral elections.

The first is the ‘Boris deserves a chance’ line of thinking – seen in a few places but most recently by me in Saturday’s Times. This annoys me not because I don’t think he does (see below) but because it’s a dangerously lazy approach to democracy. Either Boris has the character and policies to benefit London or he doesn’t - likewise with Ken. The line of thinking that tries to elevate ‘Time for a change’ (a particularly banal electoral slogan) into a reasoned case for the new guy or against the incumbent is weak and should be resisted whatever man you support.

The other thing I’m getting frustrated with is the partisan nonsense from the left that Boris is somehow dangerous or fundamentally unsuited to high-office. This din is getting louder with each poll suggesting Boris is well-placed to win. I might tolerate it from someone who was equally dismissive of Ken and high-minded about their politics, someone with no tolerance for the rebellious streak both men have in spades. But when advocates for Ken imply that Boris’ gaffes and obvious flaws are somehow more real and alarming than Ken’s you can dismiss it out of hand as partisan rubbish. For those who dispute this I’d draw their attention to a nice sentence in the same Times leader I linked to above:

[Boris Johnson’s] eccentricities are, it should be remembered, basically harmless and inoffensive whereas Mr Livingstone's various attempts to summon up the political spirit of 1968 and cosy up to political thugs and merchants of hate most definitely are not.

Every Monday I'm going to try and do a quick 'Gallery' post - few, if any, words and just a painting or piece of art that has some resonance or link to contemporary events. Given Thursday's events this week has to be one of Monet's magnificent paintings of London - Houses of Parliament, London, 1905.

"What in the name of all the saints has it come to, you wondered in astonishment, when the public school-educated Tory son of a 17th baronet, and heir to a large fortune, goes on telly to defend the poor from a Labour government without making you feel nauseous?"
Matthew Norman (link)

Powerful personalities can save and cripple political parties. Tory dominance in the 80’s was built almost entirely on the strength of Thatcher’s character - their eventual banishment into the electoral wilderness was a function of the same thing, aided and abetted of course by Major’s incompetence. Blair’s similarly dominant character was the key factor in New Labour’s success but his departure before he became a total liability (and I stress total) meant he never quite became as destructive to Labour’s electoral prospects as Thatcher did for the Tories. The events of the last 10 months suggests Gordon Brown is happy to pick up that mantle in his stead.

Brown’s position as No.2 for a decade allowed him to garner a whole range of character traits that were never really put to the test. The stock list of attributes – serious, committed, intellectual, passionate, stubborn etc. – gained ground in part because they contrasted so starkly with his boss. Blair played his own part in this myth-making with his ‘huge clunking fist’ remark, something which wasn’t necessarily the compliment some assumed it to be. We’ve now had 10 months with Gordon at the helm and those attributes have never looked more inappropriate. Where they were once used regularly by critics and supporters alike they’re only ever mentioned now by the most partisan supporter and even then with an almost visible sense of the ridiculous. They’re more likely to crop up in the context of a ‘what happened’ type discussion now. The national consensus on Brown as a serious and competent politician, recognised as a cut above the rest even by opponents is dead. Despite this his personality is still sufficiently powerful in Labour legend to mean he’s unlikely to face a challenge before an election and he’ll fight on whatever the longer term consequences for his party.

When Vince Cable made his ‘Stalin to Mr Bean’ quip it seemed bold and cheeky – it wasn’t entirely misplaced because of the election and data security debacles but neither was it entirely fair. It was PMQ theatrics at their best, a bit over the top and something Cable only got away with it because he was caretaker leader of the 3rd party. Now it seems like an unjustified slight on Mr Bean.

I read lots of things everyday in the press, blogs, think tanks etc. which make me laugh out loud, get mad, sneer, roar in approval etc. When my reaction is worthy enough I might post specifically on them but for the others I intend to just start flagging the interesting quotes as I come across them. Radical Web2.0-type content sharing or lazy piggybacking on other people's wit & stupidity? You decide...

"Britain is getting more and more like Zimbabwe every day.."
Guido Fawkes (link)

"Things are tough on the financial front. Tony Blair bought a £3.6m house a couple of years ago and the Treasury told him that the market was going UP! Lots of job losses in the City: recession is when your neighbour loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Gordon Brown loses his"
Eamonn Butler, ASI (via email newsletter)

"As the Tories discovered in 1955, some people are not temperamentally suited to the top job and that will almost certainly be posterity's verdict on Gordon Brown"
Joan Smith (link)

• Michael Kenny & Guy Lodge at the IPPR on why Gordon Brown should legislate for an elected Mayor in every major town & city in England.
• Joan Smith at Compass on why Gordon Brown is Labour's answer to Anthony Eden.
• ..but Nick Toms has discovered the answer for Labour's problems - it's called socialism.
• Chatham House had a very good paper on whether the current market turbulence is a result of poorly designed or badly implemented economic and regulatory policies.
• A couple of good things from The European Council on Foreign Relations - Andrew Duff on why the rejection of Georgia and Ukraine's bid for NATO membership was the right move for an emerging EU foreign policy.
• On a related note Daniel Korski on making Europe's voice louder on the world stage when it comes to defeating Middle East extremism.
• Talking of extremism Holly Fletcher at he Council on Foreign Relations has a very comprehensive piece on homegrown extremism / terrorism in the US.
• Also on CFR Stephanie Hanson on why African leaders need to be less reluctant to criticise their own if the continent is to solve its many problems.
• Ernest Istook looks at Ethanol's demise in popularity over at the Heritage Foundation.
• Also at HF Ben Lieberman on the good and bad in Bush's recent climate change speech.

Labels: Think Tank Roundups

Something about the '10p tax row' had been niggling away at the back of my mind for a few days now. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was but there was something about it that spoke to fairly fundamental issues of left vs right. Perhaps if I delved into the detail of the short-lived tax band, how it worked and how it affected people all would become clear?

Where to start then? Let's be fair minded and look to some of the better Labour bloggers - here's Donpaskini for example:

"The substantial increase in Working Tax Credit means that all those who earn from £8,612 (30 hours a week on the minimum wage) up to £13,000 (or up to £17,200 joint income if they are in a couple) are better off. Even if you don't have kids, you can claim working tax credit.... A large group of single childless people earning £225 to £245 a week are able to claim tax credits for the first time. This includes, for example, thousands of retail workers in Tesco, Sainsburys and M&S working a standard week for around £228 a week..... Some people have lost out. People who cannot claim Working Tax Credit because they work less than 30 hours a week or are under 25 years old and who do not have dependent children will be worse off from the abolition of the 10p band. A small group of single childless people who earn between £13,000 and £15,000 a year will lose out by a small amount – less than £1 a week."

OK - I'll take your word for that Don. Or how about Hopi Sen's spoof email (which I initially fell for) from Labour HQ to help MP's explain the issue better:

"A tax credit sytem is far more effective at targeting resources at those who need them most [b]ecause large numbers of those in the low tax band are in fact second incomes in reasonably prosperous households, whether earners living at home, second incomes or supplemental part time jobs. Looked at on a household, rather than an individual basis, the 10p tax band does not noticeably help low income households in ways that can’t be done better through other methods"

It's becoming clearer but isn't quite in focus yet. Perhaps I should go to the horses' mouth and see what's being said in Parliament - here's Chief Secretary to the Treasury Yvette Cooper opening yesterdays debate:

"It is hard in any one Budget to help everyone, and those who lose in any one year may have benefited in previous years or may also benefit in the next"

Eh... OK. And finally, I thought, let's have a look at the HMRC site and the official details on the tax credits which are supposed to offset the impact of removing the 10p band for most people. But where do I start - there are 42 pages of notes and that's just one of the forms available. There's a helpline but I wouldn't even know what question to ask....!

Anyway I didn't need anymore help because by now I was clear on what had been niggling me about this whole thing. It may not be the most eloquent way of making my point but if the above extracts from the mountains of explanations and excuses available show anything it's this - Why the hell aren't we simply letting people keep more of their own earnings up front?

The introduction of a complex tax credit system (which obviously costs to administer) whose sole purpose seems to be to check that people are indeed entitled to keep their own money is gloriously New Labour. The Hopi Sen extract above gives a small clue to the justification that might be advanced (simply changing rates or allowances won't catch the 'low earner' who's actually married to a company director etc.) but as an overall explanation this won't wash since these are extreme examples.

When governments insist on taking money from deserving people and then ask them to fill out a 20+ page application form (and that's if they're lucky) to prove they're deserving enough to get it back they get themselves and some very vulnerable people into a right mess.

I find it hard to get too worked up about who wins the London Mayoralty on 1 May. I live c.600 miles away on the beautiful Ayrshire coast so I don’t have a vote and I’ve read very little about this election that actually references what either man would do for London. I like both men because I'm always drawn to the rebellious eccentrics in politics and have a theory that whatever their flaws both would make a better fist of things than more traditional politicians. All the press comment seems to be proxy Labour v Tory debates and character assassinations of both men (which, given their history, doesn’t call for a particularly accurate shot). Yasmin Alibhai-Brown provides a perfect example in today’s Independent – “Londoners would be mad to vote for Boris”

Yasmin’s piece will be familiar to anyone who’s been following this race – its part of the ‘OK, he’s an amusing buffoon but don’t be taken in, he’d destroy London’ canon that many commentators on the left are now contributing to. All the references are there, his suspect race references, slips and gaffes at every turn and the wider shift in political fortunes his victory might herald. And of course Ken’s happy familiarity with homophobic misogynistic Muslim clerics, off-the-cuff anti-Semitic quips and Olympic proportioned cronyism don’t merit a mention. To be fair Yasmin does acknowledge the deep flaws in both men but she never quite offers up a robust explanation for why Londoners would be ‘more’ mad to vote for Boris – but then again that’s not strictly what her headline says!

Being a lazy blogger-type rather than a seasoned journalist I haven’t researched this but I’ll bet the precedent here is probably pieces warning about the disaster Ken would become in the first Mayoral election in 2000 and urging Londoners to support the official Labour candidate Frank Dobson. The maverick tag sat as comfortably on Ken in the late 90’s as it does now Boris and even Blair once predicted Ken would be ‘an absolute disaster’ as Mayor. In reality there’s been some good and some not-so-good but surely only a partisan fool would describe his eight-year tenure as a disaster? Given the parallels here the anti-Boris mob will need to do far more to persuade Londoners that ‘disaster’ is anymore a likelihood here.

So no lengthy expositions of the merits of any candidate from me – just a plea that the rules in assessing each candidate’s worthiness of office are applied the same across the field.

Courtesy of the excellent FP blog a game to remind me how misplaced my smug 'I know quite a lot about the world' attitude is. You drop NATO members /partners flags & capitals on their right place on the map, you're timed and on completion you get a NATO certificate (even if you're in Georgia or Ukraine). And you don't need Russian permission to play it...!

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO PLAY

Dan Schnur, the 'Toby Ziegler' in John McCain's 2000 campaign has a fascinating article in yesterday's New York Times on the real error in thinking behind Obama's 'cling to guns and religion' row (or 'bittergate' as it now appears to be known).

If you can, make time for the full thing but worth quoting at length anyway because the reflexive value judgements about peoples politics it highlights are equally common in the UK:

"By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days... [That] Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans and their colleagues in other states into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions

For many people, that’s certainly true. But there are plenty of other voters who don’t necessarily base their votes solely on jobs and taxes, and many of them are quite financially successful. They have determined their political affiliations largely as a result of the same continuing battles over abortion, guns and same-sex marriage that have drawn so many working-class voters to Republican candidates over the years. The only difference is the side of the fight they’ve chosen. It’s hard to argue that a wealthy pro-choice Democrat is any less of a values voter than a pro-life construction worker who votes Republican.

The mistake that Senator Obama and Mr. Frank both make is that they assume that only the values of culturally conservative voters require justification. An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception. This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections: rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based."

In the UK the landmarks might be different - guns for the obvious reason and religion because Rowan Williams and Jerry Falwell are chalk & cheese - but the journey is a similar one. The BBC's 'White' season is the most recent example of the left/liberal readiness to dismiss any political flirtation with the hard right as misplaced frustration at economic hardship. 'White working class' is usually the give away phrase, followed by words like 'lost' or 'forgotten'. You could rewrite the key sentence in Schnur's last paragraph above with a UK slant:

'An environmentally conscious, pro-immigration leftist who votes Labour is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A unemployed bulldog-owning, tattooed young man from northern England who supports the BNP, on the other hand, is frustrated by his economic plight and simply needs decent liberal values explained better'

Perhaps. Or maybe he just supports what the BNP stands for? The problem is that anyone who advances that latter, simpler explanation is assumed to have somehow legitimised the views being discussed - 'for heavens sake, he can't possibly just be a bigot so there must be a more nuanced explanation, don't encourage him'.

That's a dangerous line of thinking and it lies behind the argument often heard from the left that we should somehow moderate our language to an excessive degree when discussing things like immigration and race. It's a tricky path to follow of course because some on the mainstream right do stray too far into language that's provocative and unhelpful. But Schnur's article is a useful reminder that it's equally dangerous to drift too far in the opposite extreme - constantly dismissing these views as a proxy for something else and refusing to engage with them head on.

Despite a weeks break a rather slim selection for this weeks Roundup:

• Anthony Barnett at Compass on how the internet can strengthen democracy.
• Also on Compass Gavin Hayes and Zoe Gannon on the Brown Minister the left have loathed since day 1 – Digby Jones and why he should go now.
• Toni Johnson from the Council on Foreign Relations picks up on the inevitable tensions between addressing climate change and economic growth – tensions the next US President will have to resolve.
• Also at CFR Robert McMahon on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the US.
• And finally, worth another mention is the report I highlighted yesterday from Robin Simcox at the Henry Jackson Society on the laughable activities of the UNHRC.

From next week I'm going to expand this a bit - as you can see I've dropped the habit of adding a little commentary of my own against each highlight and so I'm hoping to be able to flag more output worth reading.

Everyone knows that politicians avoid awkward questions. And when they can't they usually rely on verbal creativity to dodge any unwelcome headlines. The daily jousts with Paxman, Humphries and co. are part of our political culture and most of us, regardless of our politics, accept that this is just what politicians do. We see through it and don't like it - but, because it's so common and they all do it to a broadly similar degree we don't judge anyone too harshly on it.

Given that context it's quite astonishing then that Gordon Brown has still managed to garner a reputation (and not just among critics) for failing to answer the simplest of questions. That the most senior politician in the country should be so poor at something so basic and fundamental to his profession (responding to tough questions) is quite remarkable. Have a look at the Jon Snow interview below, about 8mins in, when Brown is tackled on scrapping the 10p tax band:


Jon's trying to get him to acknowledge that some people (perhaps as many as 5m) lose out financially as a consequence of scrapping the 10p rate, regardless of any other changes or tax credits available. They do battle on this topic for almost 4mins and even as someone not well disposed to Brown I was screaming at the TV on the simple, straightforward way to 'answer' the question and kill the issue:

"Of course not everybody benefits from every change we make Jon - the tax & benefit system is complex and these decisions require trade offs and priorities. So yes, this particular change might not make everyone better off and I'm more than happy to work with my backbenchers to look at what more we can do. But I'm confident people will judge my government in the round and over 11 years we've introduced tax credits, increased pensions and benefits.. blah...blah..."

Brown is essentially trying to make this same point (and in political terms he broadly right) but he does so in such a tortured and clumsy way that the exchange goes on for far too long and the impartial, apolitical observer would leave with the impression that he's really struggling here and Snow managed to skewer him on something. This happens again and again with Brown and there are plenty of examples since he took office - calling off the election, the Lisbon Treaty, going to the Olympics etc. - all slightly awkward questions that any politician worth their pay would've been able to parry and diffuse easily but Brown seems to trip on these all the time.

Brown's supporters have a standard device they use to dismiss this - we're told Gordon's not a '24 hour news' politician, he's 'serious' and 'intellectual' and the skill we're talking about here isn't anything noble but a slippy, PR-type thing that Brown even deserves credit for not doing. But this is nonsense - at best it's a basic political skill that the lowliest MP should have at their disposal so there's no excusing it's absence in the Prime Minister. At worst (and this is where my money is) it's a legacy of his years at Number 11 stalking Blair (who, ironically, was probably the best communicator of his generation). It's as though the reluctance to be defined or pinned down on anything that he needed to observe for those 10 years is now so ingrained and reflexive that he can't bring himself to be straight with anyone (and I mean 'straight' even by normal political standards) lest he trip himself up.

I'm among those who think the media storm of the last few days has been overdone and Brown is certainly not the 'utter disaster' his more manic critics claim. And it's certainly not the case that there's an overwhelming public view that Cameron would make a better fist of running the country yet. But Brown really needs to watch this habit and address the reputation he's getting for blatantly ignoring awkward questions. It might be a function of language, mannerisms or his political history but whatever prompts it it's seriously undermining his integrity and whatever store of public trust remains.

One of the things that always irritates me when people discuss international politics is the elevation of the UN beyond politics. It’s frequently held up as some sort of moral arbiter, incapable of getting anything wrong because, well, if the UN declare it to be so then ‘it must be so’ (echoes here of Nixon’s protestations that ‘if the President does it it must be legal’). This attitude was to the fore in arguments over the legality of the Iraq war – Kofi Annan declared the invasion legal so that’s that surely? This idea that the UN is the final word in what’s legitimate and what’s not or that it’s somehow ‘above politics’ is a dangerous one and there’s a couple of related things worth bringing to your attention today which illustrate why.

In today’s Times David Aaronovitch has a glorious pop at the UNHRC – the successor body to the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights. The appointment of a 9/11 conspiracy nut, Princeton Professor International Law Richard Falk, would simply be bizarre were it not for the fact that Mr Falk is also a fierce critic of Israel & the US, comparing the former to Nazi Germany and employing verbal gymnastics in support of suicide bombers. It’s suddenly very clear what appealed to the UNHRC about Professor Falk.

Also worth a read is a piece from Robin Simcox at Henry Jackson Society. Robin has yet more on the appointment of Falk as well as Jean Ziegler, also recently appointed to the Council’s advisory committee. As with Falk, Ziegler’s qualification for the job appear rooted in his anti-US credentials rather than any strong commitment to human rights. In fact his praise for Mugabe, Gadafi, Castro et al suggest he’s actually willing to turn a blind eye to the suppression of human rights rather than fight for the extension of them. A curious appointment.

A quick glance at some of the member countries due to take a seat on the UNHRC illustrate the point Aaronovitch and Simcox are making - Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe. As Simcox points out this year Britain takes its place on the Council and it could surely do more to highlight the incongruity of the Saudis or the Chinese sitting in judgement of anyone’s human rights record?

So the next time someone starts bleating on about the international ‘rule of law’ or the importance of resolving things via the UN and it’s associated bodies (usually from the hard left) it might be worth reminding them of these absurdities. Yes, the US, UK and other countries occasionally play fast and loose with the rules when it suits but when the UN themselves have such scant regard for the high ideals they loudly proclaim then perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised when member countries follow suit…

..as the cliché goes. Spend the week deep in a Cumbrian forest with little or no news, politics or blogs to sustain you and anything could happen. Sleeping political giants like the Honourable member for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath could suddenly have found his purpose & resolve. He could've seen the folly of ID cards or robbing poor, childless people to cut income taxes for higher earners, openly challenged Bush on Guantanamo and announced an independent inquiry into Iraq, introduced legislation to reign in city excesses and take more tax from the rich - any number of things oft promised or hoped for by his army of admirers. In short he could've grabbed his administration by the scruff of the neck, started to display that towering intellect and passion for social justice long promised and changed the political landscape.

To save me wading through the weeks press anyone care to enlighten me....?

.. Debate climate change on Newsnight:

1. Some scientists think think the whole human spieces is at risk & want us to change how we live.

2. Other scientists disagree and say very little needs to change.

Now, if we can't resolve this scientific dispute one way or another, given the proposition in 1, what sort of nihlist errs on the side of 2?

On holiday now so things will be quiet till next week...

Caitlin Moran in yesterday's Times on Gok Wan, presenter of C4's 'How to Look Good Naked':

"For now we have the vote, and equal rights legislation, it might well be that Gok Wan, star of How to Look Good Naked, is the most significant person in the lives of 21st-century women. For those who have never seen Gok's show the premise is simple - [h]e wishes to get the nation's women to stop loathing themselves, put a comb through their hair and wear exciting, red shoes. Within ten minutes of the show starting, I can feel my body neuroses sweating out of me, like toxins in a sauna. Christ, I think - in a possibly unsisterly, but ultimately beneficial, way. I'm not half as bad as some of these freaks. I need to ease up on myself a bit"

On reading this my wife (and I) were in whole-hearted agreement with Caitlin. A quick thought occurs though – Gok wan is simply explaining how most ordinary straight men really feel about women’s bodies.

The sort of female body image on display in the likes of FHM & Nuts should never be taken as the barometer of sexual aesthetics for men - at least not men who've cleared the hormone threshold of 17. The 'hard plastic breasts, perfect arses', as Caitlin describes them, simply aren't what most men like, certainly not exclusively. Those images are for male consumption and not in the obvious sense - they allow the viewer, more often than not in the company of other men, to affect a suitably bloke-ish attitude and indulge lazy misogynistic bragging – it’s about peer approval.

I can’t recall the source but I remember reading about a survey of sexual interests based not on questionnaires but traffic to pornographic websites – since in most cases these were the sites men visited alone, with nothing but a packet of tissues for company you’d struggle to find a more genuine indicator of what men really liked when it came to base sexual gratification. And what sort of sites do you think came out top in these surveys? By a large margin it was ‘readers wives / girl next door / voyeuristic’ type sites – sites which contain many more size 16, cellulite-laden 40-something women as they do size 8 17 year-olds. Now, before anyone objects I’m certainly not trying to impart any noble motives to the men that visit these sites. When it comes to the objectification of women and the links between pornography and sexual violence there are very sounds reasons to be appalled by the existence of these sites. I’m just pointing out that when you take peer pressure and cultural norms out of the equation, let men self-select in terms of the body image that arouses them then they aren’t that interested in the sort of shape most women feel under tremendous pressure to attain.

If it takes a gay 'camp Anglo-Chinese stylist' to explain that in such a way that women believe us so be it.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest President Bush compares Nicolas Sarkozy with Elvis Presley. So this lazy blogger who should really be writing something serious & earnest about NATO's future opts instead for puerile fun with a few more pop star / politician comparisons:

• Gordon Brown - slightly overweight, gifted but grumpy celt with a massive chip on his shoulder, uncommunicative and distrustful of the press. Van Morrison.
• David Cameron - painfully upper-middle class (despite herculean efforts to appear otherwise), fondness for wearing his heart on his sleeve, preaching to his audience at every turn and riding his bike whenever possible. Chris Martin.
• Nick Clegg. Steve Tyler. Need I say why...?

I'm sure there's someone for Ken & Boris but it's escaping me at the moment - I may revisit later unless someone gets there before me in the comments. All other suggestions welcome....

Welcome to this weeks Think Tank Roundup - a day late on my usual schedule and I'm lucky to find time even for that so things will be brief today. As ever anything worthy you think I might have missed...

The Institute for Public Policy Research

• Short paper by Rick Muir on the nature of the contemporary challenges to community cohesion in London and sets out how local actors have responded to them.
• Continuing a theme from last week the IPPR tackles the generational divide between young people and their parents in approaches to the internet and media literacy.
• And reprinted, I think, from CiF Danny Sriskandarajah mourns the fact that the Lords report on migration fell prey to the same demons that devour any attempt at sensibly discussing that topic.

Compass

• A collective piece from various Compass associates urging 'real & radical change' if the Scottish left is to survive and renew itself following losing to the Nationalists last May.

Elsewhere of interest:

• Chatham House report on a speech by David Cameron urging China to be more proactive on African issues.
• Henry Jackson Society on the often overlooked last dictatorship in Europe Belarus.
• Following the row a couple of weeks back about citizenship Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a good paper on how effectively citizens from different communities and neighbourhoods can participate in local government.

That's it for this week. I'm on holiday next week so the brevity will be compensated for by a larger round-up in a couple of weeks.

Labels: Think Tank Roundups

I haven’t posted on the Lords report on The Economic Impact of Immigration because I haven’t actually read it yet (radical eh? Do I know nothing about blogging?). Others have obviously digested all 84 pages and joined the battle along depressingly predictable lines.

If I have anything worthwhile to add I will but I was moved to post having just read Philippe Legrain’s hatchet job. As I understand it the report is specifically addressing the significant increases in net immigration in recent years and the economic impact of that – it’s not a general discussion on immigration and GDP. If I’m right then this seems to have escaped Legrain’s attention since he offers a generalised defence of immigration, something the Lords wouldn’t necessarily disagree with. One sentence particularly irritated me though:

“Ultimately, migration is about creating an open, dynamic and progressive society, rather than a closed, stagnant and reactionary one.”

I couldn’t agree more. Which is why when well meaning and intelligent people express reservations about the immigration they deserve a hearing and a detailed and balanced rebuttal. I’m not sure Legrain’s piece meets that bar.

For a more nuanced response (in my view) see Danny F in today’s Times.

Anyone who reads my weekly think-tank roundups* will be familiar with the Henry Jackson Society. The sometimes comically hawkish group was formed in honour of the Democratic Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson and favours “a robust foreign policy based on clear universal principles such as the global promotion of the rule of law, liberal democracy, civil rights, environmental responsibility and the market economy”. Formally they deny any affinity with neo-conservatism but some of the US Republicans closely associated with the Bush administration (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) were once Democrats and close aides to Jackson who quickly tired of the left of the Democratic party and the Carter administration – in that sense the ideological overlaps are clear.

Anyway, all this by way of highlighting the latest offering from HSJ – a trenchant criticism of Gordon Brown’s handling of the ‘special relationship’ and a plea for David Cameron to restore it to rude health.

According to the Times this morning Gordon Brown has surprised politicos and art critics alike by revealing he commissioned a portrait by the Irish figurative painter Francis Bacon in the early 90's. Famed for h