Well, things are certainly shifting on the political stage of the United Kingdom. Tony Blair and David Cameron being the two main protagonists with Gordon Brown, Blair’s understudy, getting very excited at the imminent prospect of officially remaining in the flat at the top of No 10. Not that Blair is dropping out because he is suffering from an inflicting malady but the rest of the cast of “ Democracy, love’s labour’s lost” is applying pressure that he leaves the stage because he has clearly lost the plot. There is still no justification as to how, within the structure of a parliamentary democracy, Brown can set himself up as heir apparent without a democratic election. The only logic is that Blair, being a mini dictator, believes that the rights of others take second place to his own form of megalomania. Meanwhile, stalwart Ming Campbell maintains a relatively low profile as a political leader although perhaps this is because the press are frightened of breaking the law by discriminating against old age.

Recently we had the drugs revelation straight from the horses mouth although Cameron wont elaborate it, discuss it or clarify it by writing an article in the newspapers. The “gung ho” attitude of George Osborne and others is that it is only what a young blood would normally get up to as an Oxbridge student. The impression his words gave me was that drugs were “de rigeur” for the likes of a certain section of society. True enough but I don’t see Cameron as a young blood prancing around elegantly on a rusty bike with a basket attached to the handle bars. Indubitably there is a certain flabbiness in his expression that defies the belief in his leadership qualities that those surrounding him claim he has. Dave Cameron smoked cannabis at Eton like many university students which no one can hold against a fun seeking undergraduate learning about the facts of life. But hold on, he wasn’t a student but a 15 year old school boy from a privileged back ground (financial although not so sure about the breeding) presumably with responsible parents who gave their son a set of principles and a sense of morality.

Cameron was so privileged that he was a pupil at Eton which, if combined with a degree from Oxford University ( even a lowly PPE) is a green light to whatever occupation a gruaduate wishes to follow. For politics it is certainly a passport or even a career bank note with the implied words “ I promise to give the bearer every available advantage” Even if you don’t acquire a good degree it is often sufficient to simply be able to say that you have been to Oxford or Cambridge, Geoffrey Archer being a prime example.

What I found disquietingly amusing was the attitude of other politicians . “Smoking Cannabis , so what , doesn’t a chap have the right to express himself ?” Yes, I agree. I don’t see why not but, at fifteen, there must have been a weak link in Cameron’s make up to get into drugs. Perhaps his “ no comment” is not so much what he doesn’t wish to talk about when he was an Etonian schoolboy but what he did actually get up to later when he was kicking over the traces as an undergraduate in the heady atmosphere of Oxford University. If the school boy experience had an Oxford follow up, no wonder Cameron doesn’t want to talk about his drug taking activities. He has and will get away with the Eton episode but would he get away with similar activities he might have experienced during his Oxford days ? If the drugs learning curve had Oxford extensions it would certainly explain Cameron’s reluctance to talk about the Eton affair. An old trick of many a crook .Let the courts deal with the lesser dishonesties and hopefully they wont discover the more serious crimes. Then of course there is the attitude of the other MPs. Talk about standing together to protect their moral misdemeanours ! Of course they would justify by claiming triviality if they had done the same thing. In a similar way if there were enough paedophile MPs in power they would want to make safe their activities too.

This government has already closed ranks and created group protection for the erstwhile closet homosexual. The likes of Davies and Hughes only come out when they are no longer able to keep it a secret. Few politicians have the personal moral integrity of Peter Mandelson. etc. and in addition to the ones who come out of the closet, there are numerous other, even higher ranking politicians, whose names are not only suppressed by the people themselves but also the establishment press. Their secrets will always remain secret and become relatively safe as soon as they retire and no longer the target for the ruthless press. Please don’t misunderstand me I am not homophobic. I have some wonderful friends who are gay but a Minister or MP hiding behind a sham family image, showing a false face to the public is not a person I can trust and it’s interesting to note that almost the first thing the Labour came to grips with was Section 28 which speaks for itself.
Tony Blair must hate the restrictions imposed by the democratic structure of British politics and it makes me shiver to even consider what he might get up to if they weren’t in place. He would obviously develop the power obsession of the mini dictator he has become. Power always corrupts mediocrities and Tony Blair’s refusal to listen to the people who vote or even worse the back bone of the labour party, his back benchers, indicates a very dangerous direction. It wouldn’t matter so much if the next party to take over the reins of power were to undo some of the iniquitous legislation but they don’t. Under Michael Howard, the Conservatives promised they would take away the congestions charge if they got in. Even if Howard had become the prime minister, I doubt very much that he would have dismantled hundreds of millions of pounds worth of equipment just to justify an empty electoral promise.
Most politicians will say anything to get into power and stay there, something which both Blair and Cameron have been doing since they became leaders of their parties and if Blair is false, Cameron seems to have the same chameleon quality with specious philosophies and spurious considerations for the man in the street and indeed the world.
Mr Blair is obviously frantic to get the best write up in history and one has to ask, “is he doing this because of extended ego or is he motivated by altruism?” I put my money on the former.

And what of Blair the soldier ? Warmonger or man of peace? What is the truth ? Blair claims to be a world leader advocating universal human rights and promulgating the concept of world peace. Sadly, for the innocent dead, Blair’s truth is a lie. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan , Iraq. Some man of peace for a man who didn’t even wear a Scouts uniform !! Afghanistan and Iraq have extended programmes which will continue to send our boys back in body bags for a long time yet. Not bad for a man who once said that the most important thing is not to send British troops out to trouble spots and have them killed. Now he is making statements about bringing the troops back from Iraq. Genuine concern or is he trying to catch the diminishing votes before the next election. I will leave the reader to answer that.

Would Blair go to war so readily if his sons were in the army ? I doubt it, so why does he ignore the significance of the deaths of young men who have mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives , sons and daughters whose lives are destroyed by the death of their love ones. Both Bush and Tony Blair are playing at soldiers as if this is still the 19th century and both have the essential back up for war, a religious belief that God is on their side and condones their decisions. I am surprised that Bush didn’t see the “Angels of Mons” over the City of Bagdad when he visited Iraq. What is even worse is that today in the 21st century, the real motivation is oil, dissimulated by tanks and mendacious statements which have their roots in fallacious truths.

Is there an alternative ? Yes , long term diplomacy and waiting for the next generation to develop with education and evolve into a more civilised society. China has achieved this and no one dared interfere with Chairman Mao’s appalling cultural revolution which denied people their human rights and killed them in thousands. Even worse was Stalin’s Russia and again no one dared intervene because bullies only attack those who lack the strength and power to fight back.

Iran next ? I sincerely hope not but America’s insistence that no one must have Nuclear power is not a valid argument for the people of the Middle East and one has to understand their interpretation . Seeing what the allies did to Iraq, they must be very worried that the same could happen to them. When will stupid western politicians realise that they cannot control the whole world by imposing their standards on other countries?

Peerages for cash donations or loans, another scandal, obviously instigated by the highest echelons of the labour party perhaps with the same cunning as Henry the V111 when he had Thomas a Becket murdered in Canterbury Cathedral by simply talking to himself in the hearing of certain henchman and saying who “will rid me of this man Becket” No orders as such but very much an unspoken instruction to the unscrupulous courtier thugs who surrounded him. And now we have the Attorney General obtaining an injunction to stop the BBC from discussing the case for public consumption . “ Acting independently” we are told ! Do they take the intelligent public for fools ? Its not as though the case will ever go before a jury so why the injunction? A government enquiry wont be influenced any more than the enquiry into the death of Dr Kelly was by media speculation before the enquiry and with the latest Al Fayed development of the Princess Diana enquiry we might well find a similar situation emerging into with the dawn of justice and truth. Personally I think Tony Blair was the Henry V111 in the peerage scandal and so does most of the general public.

And finally, what is the future of the labour party under the proposed leadership of Gordon Brown if he becomes the next leader and inherits the ultimate job as Prime Minister ? Isn’t that political nepotism ? I would say it was. No one voted him to be Prime Minister and it is wrong to allow an arranged marriage to be solemnised without the consent of both the general public and the elected public representatives. If he becomes Prime minister will Gordon Brown be an objective Prime minister or will he be influenced by his narrow background and his distorted perception of British Society. Only great people rise above their background and rid themselves of their subjective perspectives and Gordon Brown is not great . One has only to look at that smile to realise that he must have been working on it in front of the mirror. It is a smile that doesn’t come from the soul and it actually looks sinister. If Michael Howard had something of the night about his face Gordon Brown has something from the other side of the River Styx.

As I look out of my window, through a mist, three hundred metres away, Parliament’s Union Jack blows in a strong wind and every so often the flag dissolves into invisibility because low black clouds fill the air with driving rain. Thunder reverberates among the roof tops and appears to shake the Victoria Tower as lightening threatens its very existence and I can’t help thinking that perhaps this is some kind of symbolism that represents the future of the British parliament if not the way things will go as the United States of Europe progresses into the 21st century.

Copyright,

Dorian van Braam