Sarah Palin shoots her mouth off again

Apparently, according to the Great Gob that is Sarah Palin, Barack Obama's White House should publish the gruesome pictures of a mutilated Osama Bin Laden because it will "serve as a warning to America's enemies".

Yeah right, Sarah. That should do it. A man leads a worldwide terror campaign using suicide bombers, but the fact that after ten years of sending volunteers to their deaths to further the cause of the Jihad, because his followers see pictures of his dead, mutilated body, shot by members of the US armed forces, they will all cower behind the sofa whimpering and decide to take up stamp collecting instead. All the nasty men will go away and fluffy bunnies will have their tummies tickled on the streets of New York.

Absolutely no chance that this will stoke the fires of terrorism and inflame the sense that America is even more of an enemy then?

Do you think she understands the meaning of the word 'sensitive'? Oh no, I forgot. She likes pictures of dead things, doesn't she? Used a couple of pictures of herself and her poor kid surrounded by dead things in her campaign as I recall. Silly me.

Thank God Obama won that election - that's all I can say. Thank God the USA has a President who understands cause and effect in foreign affairs...

The right person, not the right party.

With the prospect of local elections on Thursday I'd like to bang on another one of my drums.

What place does party politics have in local government? What does it add to what we end up with?

You'll probably guess that I think the answers to those questions are a) none and b) nothing. I think party politics represents a massive, costly and irrelevant distraction to the business of running a town, borough, county or city. We have MPs whom we elect on party lines, understandably, as that election goes towards deciding which set of ideals and policies the nation has chosen to dictate how it is run over the next few years.

But those are largely, if not totally, irrelevant when you're talking about your worries about that dangerous crossing outside your children's primary school, the ugliness of the new street lamps in the park replacing the old Victorian ones, or the fact that fortnightly rubbish collections are a health hazard when the sun shines.

Party politics is lazy electoral shorthand to which we all subscribe. I vote Labour/Liberal/Conservative and therefore I bin, without reading, all the other leaflets as they come through the door and then go out like an obedient sheep on Thursday and put my cross in the appropriate box. I may not even read the leaflet from my chosen candidate - why should I? I know who I'm going to vote for. The candidates don't even have to have any convictions. They don't have to DO anything, because, unless they mess up spectacularly, voters will choose them or fail to choose them according to decisions made in Westminster.

Local politics is where ambitious young politicians cut their teeth. It is in the main a proving ground for tomorrows MPs and MEPs, somewhere they can be spotted and elevated to considerations for Westminster. In the same way as many local journalists are working hard to be spotted for BBC or ITN, young politicians are aiming at somewhere a long way away from their council wards. There are some who are committed to their local area, of course, and they must be utterly frustrated by the status quo.

In fact the party political element of the council inhibits its efficient running. In Bristol, my home town, the council is more often than labelled as "no overall control". The councillors squabble like children, largely unaware of the appalling impression they're making to their electorate. The Conservatives shout a lot and get people on their side so that Labour initiatives don't get through; the Labour concillors get in a huddle and complain that the Liberals aren't talking to them; the Liberals sulk and turn their back on everybody. And all this on issues which matter to the voters and have nothing to do with what's happening nationally.

If it were up to me I'd ban all overt political affiliation in council elections and get everybody to compete as individuals with reference to local issues. They'd have to work harder and we'd have to work harder to select our preferred candidate. The council would have to work harder to sort things out with reasoned and issue-based debate, and the work of our MPs would continue without distractions because parties of dignitaries would no longer need to be shipped out to bolster support in 'marginal' councils and wards.

If Dave would like to give me a call, I'll help him organise the change. But they why would they, when the status quo is so lazily convenient for them, if not for us?

My profile picture

Have you noticed that I haven't changed my profile picture? In about five years? I don't look like that any more. Now I look like this:


Well, that was the plan. This is Mariella Fostrup who, like Joan Bakewell in her day, is 'the thinking man's crumpet'. Not a bad epithet, I think. People used to tell me I looked like her, but she didn't put on a shed-load of weight and start to resemble a slightly run-down semi. She also didn't just have the worst haircut since monks decided it might be a good idea to shave a circle of scalp in the back of their heads.

Dukan diet and a visit to Hobbs and I might one day change that profile picture. Mariella is the only thing keeping me eating protein.

Incidentally here is my idea of the thinking WOMAN's crumpet.


Neil Oliver, historian; looks of Braveheart and a voice like warm Scottish heather honey. Yum.

The monarchy

Funnily enough, the existence of the monarchy is one of the very few subjects about which I do not have strong feelings. To anyone who knows me or who reads me, this will seem odd, given that so many other people can get so incredibly worked up about it.

Generally I look at the Royal family and for some reason, for all their weaknesses, they make me feel pleasantly British, part of something. I can't put my finger on why, because from a logical perspective there's not really much solid argument for monarchy. But I suppose the flip side of that is that republican sentiment, especially when virulently expressed, comes across as so joyless, mean-spirited and cross. It's like people who berate fashion, get annoyed by good news stories becase they're distracting from the serious problems of the day, or complain about those who spend lots of money on their pets. They sound as if they would call the police if they saw someone getting beaten up rather than wading in with their fists and shouting obscenities loudly at the attacker (which is the tactic I have planned, should I ever find myself in that position).

As I explained at probably tedious length here www.stuffstillhappens.blogspot.com/2006/06/democracy-has-its-limits.html , I have a bit of an issue with untempered democracy. I think people have been sold a pup with the whole thing. I don't want to see every position of responsibility and/or power in my country filled with beady-eyed, ambitious, power-hungry people who, once in a post, spend too much of their time holding onto their power and position rather than doing the job we pay them for.

I quite like the Queen and I'm glad she's not a President with an eye on the next election and therefore hungry for popularity. I quite like the fact that she doesn't really have to try, if I'm honest. She has to accept popularity or lack of it and carry on doing her job. If the monarchy looks like it's losing the battle she'll smile, shake hands limply, ask people if they've come far, cut ribbons and wave as if nothing at all is happening.

My generation; Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward; were a bit worthy and dull and then three quarters of them went and mildly astonished us by being interesting enough to have extra-marital affairs and/or ditch their other halves, and the fourth quarter raised eyebrows by turning out probably not to be gay. Who knew? The other slightly limiting factor in my enthusiasm for them as I grew up was that they were sadly plain, however much people tried to convince themselves that Andrew was a looker.

Charles has turned out to be less eccentric than he seemed in earlier life, his talking to plants probably having had more to do with the fact that he and his wildly popular wife couldn't stand each other than any deep-seated pottiness; Anne outgrew her reputation for being rude and difficult, turned out to be quite good at something in her own right, took part in the Olympics and is now the 'hardest-working Royal'; 'handsome' Andrew, well, he has continued being a bit of a buffoon and that's starting to look embarrassing as he continues to exhibit poor judgement into his late forties and fifties, and his ex-wife worse; Edward, bless him, seems... how shall I put this politely?... solid. But they smile and ask people how far they've come and cut ribbons and wave and brighten a lot of people's lives. And frankly I can't think of a job I'd like less, but they didn't really have the option to opt out and for that reason I'm grateful to them.

I suppose I have to mention Diana. She was born at almost exactly the same time as me and I felt great pity for her from the moment she started to be pursued by paparazzi from the nursery where she worked. I wasn't a great admirer of Diana's. I didn't buy in AT ALL to the whole Diana cult, seeing her as a nice and conscientious but rather dim and ordinary woman and, although pretty, not the great beauty she was billed as (bit of Emperor's new clothes going on there, I thought). However, she did a good job as a Princess, especially considering that life at home must have been miserable in the extreme. She was also a good mother and had the backbone to bring up her young sons to be modern royals. I was sad for them when she died, but found the slightly Stalinist demands that we should all bare our souls and make mawkish declarations of personal grief unpleasant and at times threatening. I didn't know her after all.

The next generation seem like a better fit for the future. William and Harry are DOERS. Yes, they are born to a life of privilege but it's a life I wouldn't wish on any young person. They have superficial freedom to pursue a career but then they are reminded that they are not normal joes and there are walls around those freedoms. Harry's frustration at not being able to serve as a soldier with his men on the front line being a prime example. The others are generally likeable and reasonably normal, given the circumstances.

The wedding on Friday was a great spectacle - a chance to get out the heraldry, dust down the carriages, wave a billion plastic Union Jacks and have a massive knees-up. It was about unity and goodwill and FUN.

Electoral events are about discord and disagreement. When they work out how to make the whole country want to party, THEN we'll talk.