I may have to reconsider my position on Syria

I've never been one of the wimps who thinks we should just leave the respective sides in the Syrian conflict to get on with it, partly because Russia and China certainly aren't going to, and partly because the Assad regime is a grotesque insult to decency and partly because I fear if we don't, fundamentalist terrorism will colonise the conflict.

I think this stance has been pretty much justified by developments over the last few years that the conflict has dragged on.  But this gave me pause for thought:

Speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday, Blair said: "We have not intervened in Syria. The consequences are, in my view, terrible and will be a huge problem not just for the Middle East region but for us in the years to come." 

Blair advocated military action against the Assad regime after a sarin gas attack on the Ghouta district, near Damascus, last August killed between 350 and 1,400 people. 

His stance placed him on the same side as David Cameron, who wanted to join the US in launching an attack on the Assad regime, but highlighted differences with Ed Miliband, who was highly sceptical of military intervention. 

Blair, who was speaking on the Today programme to mark the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, made his remarks about the failure to take action in Syria when asked if it might still be right to take military action without domestic support.

Is this one of these rare-if-not-actually-extinct occasions when Blair is correct (like the minimum wage or ... nope, minimum wage is pretty much it), or proof that I've made a terrible blundering in supporting intervention in Syria?

Disgusting corrupt Tories

The heading probably contains several tautologies.

The culture minister, Maria Miller, tried to limit an investigation into her expenses by warning the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, that she was acting outside the law and threatening to refer her to a Commons committee.  

In a sign of Miller's attempts to prevent an investigation into her claims for interest payments on her mortgage, she told Hudson that the commissioner would be acting in a way that was "unwarranted, unfair and contrary to all standards of due process and legality". 

Miller, who was ordered on Thursday to apologise for her conduct towards Hudson and to repay £5,800, even threatened to refer the watchdog to the "supervisory jurisdiction" of the House of Commons standards committee. 

The lengthy and fruitless attempt to limit the investigation emerged in the correspondence between Miller and Hudson over the MP's expenses. 

On Thursday Miller was told by the Commons' standards committee, which issues judgments on the watchdog's report, that she would only need to repay £5,800 – a reduction from the £45,000 Hudson recommended that the minister return for over-claimed allowances on her second home in Wimbledon, south-west London.  

Link

So much for Dave the reformer, the sleazebuster, the new broom. Turns out his lot are as shabby and dishonest and self serving as any other administration; and a bunch of bullies who use their power to threaten and browbeat the people charged with keeping them honest; and when even that fails, look out for their own interests by applying derisory fines instead of proper punishments.

Who would have thought it?

More wailing and gnashing of teeth about the possible Mana / Internet Party linkage

Speaking as a middle class, mortgaged European immigrant, I regard Hone Harawira as a man of honour and integrity. I admire his passion - which sometimes gets him into trouble - and the forthright way he responds to criticism. I wanted him and his values in parliament, which is why I voted for Mana in 2011 (in 2008, I felt unable to vote for any party and submitted a spoiled ballot paper - that's how seriously I take my political choices).

Dotcom, on the other hand, I regard as a self serving parasite who uses his wealth to buy influence to further his own interests. Buying a copy of Mien Kampf signed by Hitler as 'an investment' sums up the man perfectly - he sees the Holocaust as something he can make money out of, so he can have more baubles and buy more politicians.

 I can't see any relationship between the two parties working to the benefit of Mana. It will be tainted by the corrosive .com brand - he can play the loveable rogue only so much, and Mana will be continually question about why it is associating with a multi-millionaire possible criminal serial supporter of the right. It is a disastrous mis-step.

Heed me, Mana

If you form any sort of alliance with Kim Dotcom and his shabby, quasi-mythological 'Internet Party' I shall abjure you.

And as I make up 1.03% of your party vote in Palmerston North (that is, 1/97th) you had better listen to me!

Frankly, I do not understand the way some on the left seem to see Kim Dotcom as a friend or hero.  Yes, he makes John Key and John Banks uncomfortable.  But that does not make him our friend.  It simply shows what a pathetic effort the left have put into rattling the Key government and its revolting hangers on.

But our enemy's enemies are not necessarily our friends.  Some times they are just more enemies.  And feel free to express their enmity towards each other, because they have nothing to fear from us.

Great truths are often spoken in jest

Maybe I'm just a humourless dolt, but I didn't think Scott Yorke's spoof diary entry for Matthew Hooton was terribly funny.  But one line did strike me as being - perhaps unintentionally - very spot on.  Not because of what it says about Hooton, though:

I’m immensely intelligent, and I’m also right-wing. It’s no coincidence. 

So how can someone as well educated as Cunliffe be a leftie? That’s the biggest lie of all.

Maybe I'm just a cynical fool, as well as a humourless dolt, but I'm about as convinced by Cunliffe's leftwingery as I am of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

Foul polling lies from You Gov

Poll the other day suggested Labour only led the Conservatives by a single point.

This is blatant propaganda put about by the forces of reaction. The tinpot fraudsters who commissioned this so-called 'poll' - robably fresh back from the Crimea - are a joke.

Compare the fumbling efforts with a proper company like You Gov, who - just a fortnight ago - were showing a Labour lead of 9 points.

And only sporting instinct, support for the underdog and British fair play stopped them revealing the truth of the matter, which is that the Tories had actually registered a negative level of support and the number expressing support for Ed actually exceeding the number of people polled!

P.S.  I notice a subsequent You Gov poll shows a 2 point lead, which, of course should be described as Might Labour Effortlessly Double Lead Over Hopeless Tories!

And British justice is to become more Islamic (NOT)

I was disappointed to hear BOTH speakers on the National Radio panel getting in a flap about the supposed creeping Sharification of Britain, in this instance the issuing guidelines to lawyers to aid the drawing up of 'Sharia compliant' wills:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. 

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. 

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes. 

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system. Here

Much nonsense has been spouted about this in an impressively short space of time, and not just by the people on the panel. The Telegraph article goes on to quote people claiming "Suffragette's would be spinning in their graves" ans so on, so forth. Others are banging on - as usual - about how this represents yet another concession to MUSLIMS and HALOWED BRITISH TRADITIONS are being ERODED by POLITICAL CORRECTNESS that has of course GONE MAD and so on, so on.

 Of course, they say that about everything when Muslims are involved. Sometimes they might even be correct. But not on this occasion.

As even a moments reflection will reveal, there is no special right being extended to Muslims. the Law Society does not have the power to change laws.

What is actually happening is that lawyers are being asked by clients to draw up wills, and they are doing that. Some of their clients are Muslims and want to draw up their wills in accordance with their own crackpot beliefs. Because most lawyers are not Muslim, doing that is quite difficult.

 So the Law Society has issued some instructions on how to do it.

 But - important bit - no special license or privilege has been extended to Muslims that would not apply to anyone else drawing up a will. If I wanted to exclude my wife from my will, or my sons if they turn out GAY, or leave everything to my cat because I believe her to be a higher being, then I have that right. There is nothing stopping me, apart from the fact that I am mostly sane.

Muslims - like all religious types - are a bit less so, and think nothing odd about settling their affairs as per instructions issued by a warlord 1500 years ago. So be it. We can all do that, and we could all have done that before these guidelines were issued.