Quite.

Annoyingly up the arse of Gordon Brown as it currently is, The Guardian’s at least had the good sense to employ Zoe Williams.

Here she is on the removal of British Asian world champion boxer Prince Hamed Naseem’s MBE:

There is honour among (white) criminals

Zoe Williams

Friday January 5, 2007

The Guardian

Some reasons why Naseem Hamed might have been stripped of his MBE for speeding, where acknowledged wrong ‘uns Jeffrey Archer, Shirley Porter and Mark Thatcher kept their honours. First, he was speeding. This might encourage other titled Britons to speed. Conversely, most lords are unlikely to organise an African coup, or any Porteresque vote-rigging, on account of how their chamber is unelected, so votes hold no appeal for them. Two, Naseem is not a real prince, and awarded himself the title gratis. This irked many peers, who paid good money for their meaningless titles. Three, he is not white. Almost all interiors of public offices were designed to match white people. Four, non-respectable behaviour is only accepted from the respectable classes. You wouldn’t expect a boxer to understand.

Read more: UK Media, UK Politics, UK Honours system, UK+racism

Freeping The Beeb

Looks like that troop of earnest, twittering Tory ladies from the shires who visited their Republican counterparts at Concerned Women For America last year learnt something about using ‘process’:

Row as ‘Today’ programme’s poll is won by fox-hunting alliance

By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent

Published: 02 January 2007

It should have been a bit of festive fun with a slightly serious political edge. But the Radio 4 Today programme’s annual Christmas survey instead led to a row after listeners voted to repeal the ban on fox-hunting.

The poll, which has a long history of producing questionable results, caused more controversy this year, with claims that the Countryside Alliance had orchestrated calls to abolish the 2004 Hunting Act.

The Alliance dismissed the claims as “sour grapes”.

[…]

Anti-hunt Tory MP Ann Widdecombe, a member of the panel which chose the shortlist of Acts for the “Christmas Repeal”, also suggested organised forces may have been at work. “We did hesitate on the panel to put this one forward because there was already evidence of links from the Countryside Alliance – encouragement etc – and of course we had the Boxing Day meets, when just about everybody who actively supports hunting would have been out and could have been reminded.”
The League Against Cruel Sports even urged its members to write to the BBC to complain and accused the Alliance of running a “strategic campaign” to get the Act top of the BBC poll. A spokesman for the league said: “This continues the Today tradition of orchestrated polls.”

[…]

In 1996 the programme’s vote for a man or woman of the year voting had to be stopped early after it emerged that Labour was trying to organise a mass vote for Tony Blair.

Let’s hope this means no more dumbassed novelty phone-ins on the Today programme: using something so easily subverted as a phone poll to divine the will of the listeners is a completely pointless exercise. And while we’re at it, can we get rid of Today’s bloody annoying guest editors as well? I really do not give a rat’s ass about what Yoko Ono or some bloody bishop thinks newsworthy. Enough.

Read more: UK Media,Radio BBC, Radio 4, News, Today, Polls, Guest Editors

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

It’s about this time of year when the financial excesses of the previous year start to catch up with us. It’s a long old stretch till the end of the month and the post brings nothing good from New Year right through until spring. The pipers must be paid.

So when you read the bad news that’s piling up for Blair one might almost not blame Tony & Cherie for doing the prime ministerial equivalent of sticking the red bills in the drawer and escaping reality by running off to sleb it up with a permatanned, flourescent-toothed aging former pop star and his occasionally lesbian druidess wife in sunny south Florida.

They should enjoy it while they can; the storm clouds are looming and looming big. Knacker of the Yard, in the person of strong-jawed, resolute and newly promoted Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police John Yates, is breathing very clsoely down Blair’s neck and it’s also being reported that one of Blair’s personal staff, Ruth Turner, is about to spill all and has engaged her own counsel rather than use a government lawyer.

Uh-oh.

The Labour Party is also dangerously close to defaulting on some party-busting loans, according to the indispensable Guido Fawkes:

Monday, December 18, 2006
Labour Due to Re-Pay 6,725,000 pound of “Commercial” Loans

This month and next month some major “commercial” loans are due to repaid:

Unity Trust Bank ?2,000,000.00 Unity rate + 2.00% 13/12/06

Co-operative Bank ?3,500,000.00 Base + 2.00% 31/12/06

Co-operative Bank ?1,225,000.00 Co-op rate + 2.00% 20/01/07

In the case of the small union controlled Unity Trust Bank the Financial Services Authority has put the bank on notice that it must report the risky Labour party loan situation monthly. If the loan is re-scheduled instead of repaid the FSA may have to take a closer look at the situation.

See here, here and here for more details.

Blairwise for 2007 I predict heavy smarm and legacy-talk from January (and the release of Bush’s Iraq ‘plan’) onwards, slipping into another PR blitz around early March and deepening to full-blown, shrieking tabloid-induced pychosis by late April as the arrests get ever closer to No. 10.

I shall enjoy every minute, not least because even if Inspector Knacker doesn’t get his man, the banks most assuredly will.

Read more: UK politics, Blair, Labour Party loans, Cash for honours,

How Unlike The Home Life Of Our Own Dear PM

The UK media is reporting that party nazi, alleged art ‘A ‘level faker and 3rd in line to the throne Prince Harry, who was recently commissioned as an army officer, is to be posted to Basra, Iraq by next May:

Prince Harry preparing to lead troops in Basra

PRINCE Harry is set to go to one of Iraq’s most dangerous areas next year, it emerged today.

Defence sources disclosed that he will be a troop commander and is likely to patrol the hazardous border with Iran.

The third in line to the throne is to join the Army’s 1st Mechanised Brigade which will be deployed in Basra and the surrounding area in May 2007. The prince has told colleagues that he is determined, like his uncle Prince Andrew in the Falklands, to go out on operations and be treated normally.

He does not wish to be kept out of danger and as a Cornet – the equivalent of a second lieutenant – in the Blues and Royals he will be in charge of 11 men and four light tanks.

The Reconnaissance formation will go on ten-day patrols along the lengthy border with Iran.

Defence chiefs will have to devise plans that will ensure his life and those of his troops is not put in any greater danger because of his identity.

Stupid, but gutsy.

Although I consider myself politically a republican, having just spent time with my own potentially army-age sons ( who are US citizens and thus potentially liable for any future draft) I can’t help but empathise with 2nd Lt. Wales’ family, as I can as with any other parent or relative whose child is in a war zone, however voluntarily they went there. Once they’re adults, they make their own decisions, no matter how painful it may be : all family can do is wait, watch and worry.

Despite their unwarranted wealth and position the royal family are still human beings and by all accounts the Queen is as fond of her grandsons as any other proud grandmother, which must make Harry’s posting all the more excruciating. Given Her Maj’s exalted position, imagine how tempting it must be to use her power as Commander in Chief to prevent her grandsons from being put in direct physical danger. However voluntarily the child undertakes danger no parent ot grandparent would think twice. If you could, with a stroke of a pen, take your offspring out of the path of a bomb or a bullet or a kidnapping, wouldn’t you do it and to hell with any consequences?

But the Queen hasn’t yet and I have to wonder why: is it an attempt at expiation? Seeing the criminally tragic results of the invasion of Iraq on television daily, does she feel guilt? Does she look back on those pre-2003 weekly audiences with Blair and wish she had stopped him? Does she feel terrible for not having done enough to prevent her government from perpetrating this illegal and immoral war – and is she willing to sacrifice a member of her own family to atone for that?

If that’s what’s happening (and I do admit it’s pure speculation on my part ) then despite my deeply-held anti-monarchical views, I’d have to admire the woman. It would mean that she’s aware that for her family’s position she has to pay a price, for all her immense power and wealth; one that’s paid in actual blood. Unlike some other heads of state ( say, President of the United States, to use a serendipitous example), to this monarch at least being Queen appears to mean voluntarily putting your family’s privileged lives on the line for what’s done in your name.

I ‘d love to be a fly on the wall at the next Blair/Queen weekly audience. – will the newly tangoed and relaxed Blair feel any shame at all that not one of his own enlistment-age family – currently living it up on a freebie with Dad at a Bee Gee’s mansion in South Florida – is volunteering to join up?

I think we know the answer to that question.

Read more: UK politics, Iraq War, Prince Harry, Blair, Queen, Monarchy Blair florida holiday