Tag Archives: Prime Minister

A Congressional Gold Medal Don't Come For Free

3 Replies
Sunday - 7 February 2010

Now, this is just hilarious: former Spanish PM (and generally, like, my #1 favourite guy), José María Aznar, is under investigation after a group of lawyers alleged that his government spent public money lobbying for him to be awarded the USA Congress's Gold Medal. The allegation has been around for about four years but only now is the Spanish judiciary really looking into it.

Aznar's quest for gold failed, incidentally. He did, however, manage to arrange for the Spanish people to pay for his daughter's wedding. Well, someone had to, I suppose.

Is Israel exempt from international law?

2 Replies
Thursday - 17 December 2009

This week has seen a startling series of events redefine the way the UK acts on international law, and the way British governments understand the power of the courts. Under the principal of Universal Jurisdiction, an arrest warrant was issued by Westminster magistrates court for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, accused of war crimes during the most recent invasion of Gaza. As soon as this information reached the Israel, its government reacted furiously (which was to be expected). Israel's ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, said in a statement:

"The current situation is absurd and unacceptable in equal measure. Israelis cannot continually be held hostage by fringe groups of anti-Israel extremists, preventing politicians, businessmen and officers from visiting the UK."

While Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu described the situation as an "absurdity".

What happened next was that the British government leaped into action, apologising to Israel and promising to better control the way international law is applied to Israeli officials in Britain. Gordon Brown and David Miliband both rushed to condemn the warrant, assuring Israel that it'll never happen again.

So why is it that a senior Israeli politician can't be arrested in the UK for alleged war crimes? The answer, as usual, is that British government ministers have acted entirely out of personal self interest. The precedent that would be set by arresting Livni would make it far more likely that British officials could be arrested for their own war crimes. And that just wouldn't do.

The way international law is applied currently suggests that the only people who can ever face it are either (a) a few of the operators in the Yugoslavian war of the 90s and (b) Africans. Israeli and British and other 'western' government officers are effectively exempt not because of any weakness in the law, but because every single time an arrest warrant is issued, or an arrest is attempted, the move will be swiftly quashed by politicians. Who aren't supposed to have that much sway when it comes to the courts.

One of Livni's statements was particularly telling:

"I have no problem with the world wanting to judge Israel. A problem arises the moment [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are compared to terrorists."

By 'terrorists', she's obviously referring to Hamas (the political organisation of which, the UK does not designate to be a terrorist group). Well I don't have such a problem with that comparison, Ms. Livni. But it seems that as ever, uniformed soldiers are seen by Britain as being naturally better than rag-tag freedom fighters. Unless they're our rag-tag freedom fighters, of course.

Less than 30% turnout in today's Catalan independence 'consultations'

8 Replies
Sunday - 13 December 2009

TV3 is reporting that of the 700,000 people eligible to vote in today's referendum/consultations, 200,000 voted. If that number is correct, the turnout stands at just under 30%.

What does this mean for Catalonia? There are several points to take into consideration (which affect any interpretation of events in various ways):

  • The consultations were non-official and therefore certainly not taken as seriously as an official referendum would be. This means that the approx. 30% who did take part probably come from more politicised parts of Catalan society. I suspect that pro-independence elements will have voted more strongly (based on the fact that only the pro-independence movements seemed to be drumming up any support for the ballots). The other 70% of the population would likely include far more anti-independence voters than today's result will indicate.
  • The consultations were carried out in largely rural towns and villages, which traditionally demonstrate a much stronger level of support for Catalan independence. Barcelona and its suburbs, along with Tarragona and environs have large numbers of voters, including many with a more Spain-centric (and sometimes right-wing nationalist) point of view than will likely be seen in today's results.
  • The consultations seemed to go without mention at all on TVE 1 this morning. For an official referendum, we can imagine that their coverage would have been different.
  • The consultations allowed votes from anyone over 16 and registered in the municipality concerned. An official referendum would likely follow Spanish/European electoral law and limit the electorate to Spanish citizens aged over 18. I'll add that I'd like it if 16-18 year olds, and non-Spanish citizens were allowed to vote in elections. But they're not.
  • The consultations have happened at a time when general support for Spanish PM Zapatero is very low (as was possibly intended). A PM from the Partido Popular would likely increase the pro-independence vote. A more popular Zapatero (or alternative) might well reduce it.

It remains to be seen what effect these consultations in the form of a referendum will have on Catalonia's political future. My bet is that whatever the result, ERC, CUP and the CdC will claim it as a vote in favour for an official referendum within the next two or three years.

Barcelona, if it ever manages to hold a similar consultation, will always be the decider.

Is Thailand on the brink of revolution?

2 Replies
Sunday - 12 April 2009

The prime minister of Thailand declared that the country is in a state of emergency today, in response to widespread (and at times humiliating) protests against the current government (the third, if I recall correctly, since the military coup d'etat in 2007). Former PM, Thaksin Shinawatra, who the protestors apparently claim to see as their leader, has suggested that this might be the beginning of a revolution in Thailand.

When Shinawatra refers to a 'revolution', he probably means another coup, and though I lean towards Shinawatra's version of Thai democracy rather than that of the urban middle classes, I feel that Thailand needs to achieve a revolution which no one talks about: abolishing the monarchy. A truly socialist anti-king revolution in Bangkok would probably fix a lot of the problems that Thailand now faces.

Chances of that happening: ZERO

Yes, Zapatero, you will go to the ball!

4 Replies
Sunday - 9 November 2008

Spanish PM Jose Rodriguez Zapatero will attend the global financial shindig, to be held next week in Washington D.C. Spain's presence has been made possible by French President Sarkozy's offer to allow Zapatero to have one of the two seats he had to fill, in his capacity as EU President.

The last-minute success for Zapatero will be considered a real coup for the PSOE leader, who had staked his reputation on getting an invite to the summit, which President Bush had done much to prevent. Bush, in a classic display of the shallow vindictiveness that has marked his disatrous eight year presidency, seemed determined to stop Spain from attending because he and Zapatero have a strong mutual animosity, based on differing opinions on democracy and illegal war (Zapatero supports the first but opposes the second, a point of view Bush seems to find sickening).

Whether Zapatero's presence means anything for Spain other than yet another lost chance for the PP to win some political points (they don't have actual policies so they tend to thrive on mocking the PM's world standing), remains to be seen. I see little chance that the summit will come up with anything different to "more of the same", given that all the attendant parties are committed to the global capitalist system. It would have been nice if the organisers could have invited members of labour organisations but they probably wouldn't even have made it through immigration controls.

McCain: them Spanish names all sound the damn same!

7 Replies
Thursday - 18 September 2008

Poor old John McCain. Yes, he of the strange shape. Yes, he of the hilarious "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" song. I'm not writing about the US presidential elections for various reasons, but given that this is a Spain-related story, I couldn't resist.

Republican presidential candidate, John McCain was being interviewed recently about how he'd manage relations with the various leaders of Latin American countries upon which the US wreaks havoc at will who don't have great relations with the United States. As if in training for another GenericOff, McCain muttered about standing up to America's enemies etc…. But when the interviewer asked him about Spanish PM, Zapatero, McCain allegedly went blank and blustered for a bit, clearly clueless about exactly who this Zapatero guy is.

Now there will be some out there who see this as a surefire sign that Zapatero's a loser who has taken Spain 'off the world stage' where it was put by prince Ansar. That's the wrong tack, I reckon. The truth is that these days, politicians (and especially presidential candidates) have to answer so many questions about so many things that all they can really do is bluster banal generalities, hoping that they don't mess it up. McCain's an old man (which makes this sort of thing that much harder) and clearly suffers from some psychological problems, along with cancer, so I think people should just cut the man some slack and leave him be.

Yes, he's a dangerous fool; yes, he probably will be president (and potentially an even worse one than GWB); yes, he called his own wife a cunt; yes, he will probably die in office, leaving the the "ugliest hottie ever" to manage the world's only superpower in the style of a hockey mom…. but you know, there are a hell of a lot of things that McCain doesn't know, many of them far more important than the PM of Spain's name.

"The bus is full"

1 Reply
Sunday - 14 September 2008

Noel Edmonds has made a new play in his "biggest wanker ever" campaign. Now neck and neck with Jeremy Clarkson (no relation), Edmonds has called for immigrants to be thrown out and the UK's borders closed. According to the News Of The World:

“We can all go down the pub and go, ‘Oh it’s terrible, all these immigrants.’ But what are we going to do in Britain to change this toxic culture if we don’t say, ‘Enough is enough.’

“If I was Prime Minister for a day the first thing I would do would be to close the border.

“Then we could work out how many people we’ve got here.

“Then you get people out who have committed crimes and you look at others who shouldn’t be here. Nobody knows how many people we’ve got here.”

Indeed. I avoided the boycott of TeleCinco for their anti-Catalan stance because I'm not that keen on boycotts. But Noel "cunt" Edmonds has made me rethink my position. "Noel's HQ", the wanker's new vehicle, will be avoided at all costs. Well, it would have been anyway, but now I won't even tune in to see if he kills another guest.

Shock, horror: UK government uses state broadcaster to broadcast propaganda

1 Reply
Wednesday - 27 August 2008

This story, which The Guardian broke yesterday, whill no doubt fill all freedom lovers with fear. Could it really be true that the British government, the PM of which has openly called for more resources to be dedicated to 'propaganda' in the media, the same government which sacked the entire board of directors of the BBC after the Corporation had the temerity to suggest they'd misled the public, would really use the state broadcasting service to broadcast specifically anti-Al Qaeda propaganda? Surely not!?!

As any fule know, the BBC has been used for this purpose for decades (since forever, basically). In many ways, there's not much wrong with it: anti-Al Qaeda messages are hardly harmful. But intentionally misleading people (like when they promoted the idea of Al Qaeda as some sort of cogent, identifiable enemy), is.

The BBC deny that this edition of Analysis was influenced by the government. So where, exactly, does 'security correspondent' Frank Gardner get his information from? I bet you a tenner that when he's talking about people as difficult to meet and assess as Al Qaeda, his mates at SIS or FCO give him a pretty good briefing. And why not? It's not like he's going to go to Waziristan himself to ask Osama if he's on hist last legs.

But it's not just the 'war on terror' which the British government operates via the BBC. Most official foreign policy positions are mirrored in BBC coverage. While it is fashionable to call the BBC 'biased' (normally because they report the deaths of Palestininan women and children, the bloody Trots!), in fact the Corporation is inherently tied to the establishment, and particularly when it comes to foreign policy. This is why the headline on Radio 4's PM programme yesterday wasn't "Is Russia redrawing the world map?" but "Russia redraws the world map" – exactly the UK's official line, and a far stronger headline than employed by The Guardian or Channel 4.

That anyone at the BBC or the UK government would try to deny what is an obvious, even understandable, state of affairs is hilarious. Almost as much as anyone thinking this is news.

UPDATED: Zapatero wins Spanish election

7 Replies
Sunday - 9 March 2008

UPDATED 0001 hrs

PSOE win with  169 seats – the original projection was overly optimistic. PP: 154

CiU: 10

PNV: 6

IU:2

ERC: 3

To me, this looks like a victory for the right in Spain. The PSOE have maintained their government but IU have practically disappeared, as have ERC.

Information about the political parties contending these elections.

So Zapatero is returned as PM. It's unlikely that they'll have the 176 they're hoping for.

ERC have dropped by half. I was asked the other day what was the cause of this drop and I answered: abstention and dissatisfaction. I'll add that their posters were crap too.
Actually it's looking like a rout for ERC.

PP: A poor result. Rajoy will probably be out. This will bring about the completion of the right-wing's victory in the party. Esperanza Aguirre looks to be the PP's new star in parliament.

__

Updated:

Ciudad Real goes from PSOE to PP

Balearic Islands go from PP to PSOE (… or maybe not)

Almería goes from PP to PSOE

Canary Islands  go from PP to PSOE

–  I couldn't really keep up with this bit. Apparently, Andalucia has gone to the PSOE, again.

Zapatero and the PSOE have won the Spanish elections.

Rajoy has given his thank you speech.

Llamazares, leader of Izquierda Unida has resigned. What about Rajoy?

Izquierda Unida down to 2 seats.

Blair to step down; Brown to be new PM today

Leave a reply
Wednesday - 27 June 2007

It's democracy in action! Yesterday, Tory MP Quentin Davies defected to Labour and wrote an unusually vicious letter of resignation to David Cameron, claiming that under his leadership, the Conservatives have 'ceased to believe in anything'. In short, even if you disagree with Brown's vision for Britain, at least he actually has one. Cameron is learning the hard way that you can' just smile and get through: anyone who thinks that this is what New Labour did is gravely mistaken.

Cameron's response to Davies consisted of three main points: (1) we knew that you were going; (2) the fact that you're going shows that you don't care about the environment; and (3) we don't really care that you're leaving. The last of those claims is the only one which might be remotely true – Davies has always been seen as something of a maverick. He also represents the biggest problem for Conservatives, one which they've been pretending doesn't exist anymore. Europe. It doesn't look like the Tories will ever be able to get over that issue without a major schism occurring.

So anyway, Quentin Davies's defection is naturally a big boost to Brown, who apparently engineered it to occur the day before he takes over the country. That's right: at sometime today (just before lunch time?), Tony Blair will travel to Buckingham Palace to resign and Brown will follow hot on his heels to 'be invited to form Her Majesty's Government'. It's just a bit rich that there can be a new PM without any votes being cast by anyone, but more so that he has to kiss the hands of an old lady who thinks she's God's representative on Earth. Worth noting that the removal vans are already outside No. 10.

Expect major policy announcements on health and education in the days to come. There will probably also be an initial declaration 'restoring power to Parliament', with a promise that major issues will not be decided on by the PM alone. This is Brown's way of promising that Iraq won't happen again… or that if it does, it will be everyone's fault.

==

For some Spanish politics, don't miss Graeme's latest post at South Of Watford. He talks about the morally corrupt PP regional government in Madrid. I think it's fair to say that South Of Watford is the best written and most interesting of Spain's English-language political blogs. Eschewing the nasty, unconsidered tone of other writers, it's essential reading for anyone interested by Spanish politics.

In other news, I have been nominated to become president of the world. By 'Lineman' on the Guardian's Music Blog. I'm not ruling anything out just yet, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy the pressure.

As it's summer time, there'll be even less blogging than usual going on around here. Spain in general comes to a complete halt for about two months from mid-July to mid-September. We've got a 'proper' summer holiday to look forward to this year, as well as two more weddings in England.

Feral media, what feral media?

3 Replies
Tuesday - 12 June 2007

Tony Blair today gave one of his last speeches as PM and used it to criticise the media. The speech, which took place at a special Reuters event for journalists (heh heh) attacked the current style of political reporting:

…[it has] sapped the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions and above all else it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions in the right spirit for our future

In many ways, he's right. But though he admits that Labour are 'partly' to blame, I don't think he truly recognises the impact of characters like Charlie Whelan and Alastair Campbell on the culture of political journalism in Westminster. In many ways, all that has changed is that newspapers are now more willing to publish details of incidents which twenty years ago would never have left the fancy dining rooms of Belgravia. The fact that Labour abandoned ideology in order to gain power – and the fact that the Conservatives look likely to follow suit in response – say a lot more about the way that Britain has lost any true sense of self-assessment.

Then again, perhaps there's something in it. Yesterday, the world's most odious columnist, Richard Littlejohn, published a humorous column in which he claimed that Blair, Brown, Labour, the BBC and everyone else he doesn't like are "the main recruiters for the BNP". Stuff and nonsense, of course. Look at the fabric of Littlejohn's pathetic articles and you can see what sentiments they are designed to elicit. He constantly claims that Labour are forcing people to join the BNP because of their abandonment of the 'white working class' (in favour of those nasty black people from overseas). In almost every article he writes, he posits the problem and the solution that 'many people are choosing'. The problem is Labour and, to a certain extent, David Cameron. The solution people choose is joining the BNP. He never offers any other solution to the 'problems' of mainstream politics and thus, though he may claim that he dislikes the fascists, he presents them as the only realistic option for white, working class Britons.

Littlejohn represents everything that is nasty about Britain. Small-minded, ignorant, bigoted, puffed up, parochial, demagogic, fallacious and race-proud: he is the number one recruiter for that gang of thugs, the BNP. Not, in case you didn't guess, Gordon Brown.

Our new Prime Minister

1 Reply
Thursday - 17 May 2007

SHOCK EXCLUSIVE: Gordon Brown is now officially Prime Minister Elect (or rather, In Waiting), after the left wing or Labour failed to nominate any candidates to challenge him.

Brown will probably be a pretty good PM. He's fiercely intelligent, tough, sensible and policy oriented. Having him in office should help Labour swing back out of the apathy they've been suffering from for two years while they've waited for this change to happen. He's not as good as having a socialist in power, but he's a hundred times better than a Cameron or a Campbell, neither of whom seem to have an ounce of conviction. Though there are rumours that Dave could have been convicted for an ounce… but that's a separate issue.

Those who criticise Brown for being a 'dour Scot' are just repeating the same stupid myth that people used to say about John Smith: it's a dismissive claim which has its roots in a mixture of 'personality politics' and jingoism.

Those who complain that Brown hasn't been elected to the job, have a point. However, they also have amnesia as anybody who voted Labour in the last election was 100% aware that Blair would step down during this Parliament.

After more than a year of Conservative non-policy announcements, I'm seriously optimistic for Labour again.

Politics around the world

Leave a reply
Wednesday - 9 May 2007

Biggest story: Tony Blair will announce he's stepping down tomorrow at noon as Labour party leader. Cue 7-8 weeks of leadership-non-competition, followed by election by Labour MPs of the new PM, Gordon Brown. Blair should be remembered as: not a bad PM but not a good man either. He's done some good for the country but a lot of harm to British politics.

Catalonia: Generalitat delegate in Madrid sacked for saying ex-Pres Maragall is "physically and psychologically unwell". This is because Maragall basically admitted that the new Estatut is toothless and that the whole enterprise was a bit of a waste of time, if it didn't happen at the same time as Spanish Constitutional amendments. ERC claim he's now agreeing with them… and possibly he is, but they always say stuff like that.

USA: Romney, a candidate for the Republican party nomination said that he couldn't think of anything he dislikes about America. Fair enough… it's a tough question, I guess, for a man applying for the job of leading a nation. Maybe he doesn't like the 'bigotry' people who are suggesting that a Mormon might not be the best candidate for US President? If you ask me, anyone who believes in any kind of hocus pocus makes a bad candidate… but the people will have their way.

Little Johnny Howard tells it like it is

1 Reply
Monday - 12 February 2007

Australian PM, 'little' John Howard (so called because he's a short-arse), has hit out against US presidential candidate, Barack Obama, more or less claiming that a vote for Obama is a vote for Osama. This isn't the first time someone's made this odious ad hominem attack on an opponent of the dreadful war in Iraq. Obama gave as good as he got, however, and retorted pretty strongly:

I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced. I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops on the ground now, and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400, so if he is (ready) to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. [BBC News]

Yeah, John. What's the deal with that? Don't you hate terror enough to send more tough Aussie ockers out there? Yer pansy. I'm not sure that the ADF even has 20,000 troops but we'll ignore that for the moment.

A coup is a transition

1 Reply
Thursday - 7 September 2006

There's a lot of interesting spin coming out of the PM's office and the Treasury at the moment. Blair's supporters are blaming Gordon Brown for orchestrating a 'coup' and have appeared on the BBC in their droves insisting that forcing Blair out now will be 'damaging to the party' and that Brown wouldn't want to inherit that, now would he?

I take issue with the main argument here: that removing Blair ASAP will damage the Labour party, whereas allowing Blair to hang on for eight months will strengthen it. Is it not true that the single most unattractive thing about Labour is Tony Blair himself? Is it really worth hurting the party even more than it has been hurt over the last decade, just so that Blair can get his jubilee?

It looks to me as if Blair is now committed to preventing Gordon Brown from becoming leader. The eight month wait is ample time for John Reid or another loyal Blairite to establish himself as a successor to the great leader.

I wouldn't say that Brown deserves to be PM in any way. But someone needs to take over pretty quickly if Labour is to slow – and reverse – its sliding in the polls. Besides, where's the categorical difference between a coup and a transition? A coup is a transition… much quicker, of course, and sometimes bloodless.

(Oh, and by the way: anyone referring to Blair as 'Bliar' in these pages will have their IP address blocked.)