It seems that the National Assembly Government for Wales has converted Nick Bourne AM (leader of the Welsh Conservatives).

So what is preventing further empowerment of the organisation? Labour, inaugurated devolution, the Conservatives say that they will now support further devolution, Plaid Cymru is spouting, “Constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales”, as for the Liberal Democrats and Forward Wales I don’t know their position with regard to Welsh Devolution.

But why when there appears to be a consensus among Welsh politicians do we not have any drive towards full parliamentary status for Wales? Is it Rhodri Morgan, is he the impeding any nationalists progress? If not he, then who or what, why is there no progress?

I cannot testify to the authenticity of this sign (pictured) but I can say with all honesty that I would not bat an eye lid if this was a real and unedited photograph.

All I can say is this sum’s up Britain, in ways that I cannot express in writing.

It’s obviously a reaction to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes (22nd July 2005), typically understated and non panicking getting on with business approach that just sums up Britain in a unique way.

I have received a responce from my MP with regard to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, if you remember I asked you all to write (Click Here for relevant post) and now I have a reply. Now the more astute of you will notice that this is from Mark Harper MP (Forest of Dean Constituency) I would like to point out that I live in England and am in Swansea for University and therefore I addressed my home MP with my questions with regard to this act.

________________________________

Well I am sure by now most of you are aware that Plaid Cymru has been having a considerable overhaul, and the general consensus appears to be that it’s not necessarily for the better. The new logo shown here is described as less inspiring than the British Petroleum equivalent; however, as the previous post indicates it did prompt me to change my logo. I’ve been musing for some time that Plaid Cymru needed a face lift, partly because I disliked intently the old logo, but I am yet to be convinced by the new one. I think that there were correct in changing their colour – Plaid Cymru has been persistently dismissed as a rural party which has hindered any significant inroads into Cardiff and the valley’s, victory in which is essential to achieve if any desire to become the party of government is to be plausible.

However, I feel that they could have done better if the had changed to a logo along the like of the Welsh Horse Yeomanry (Raised 1914 – Disbanded 1921) thereby retaining a more clearly linked to Welsh symbolism with Plaid Cymru one word written on each side of the leek.

But there we are a second problem with that Plaid Cymru have dropped Cymru from their name so we have a Welsh nationalist party called “Party”. The association with Communist Regimes will be unwelcome but I suspect that it will be inevitable. Using solely Plaid has its other problems including the fact that Plaid.org, Plaid.com and Plaid.co.uk are sites that appear to be taken by other users so the website will have to remain PlaidCymru.org, apparently it’s not so easy to shed the name.

In the final analysis it will rely on content rather than image, and I hope that is how all political parties are measured, it is noticeable that the there is a slight change in content too, the Plaid party political broadcast (or Party party political broadcast) says the word “Independence” a phrase not yet repeated on the website (the term “To promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining Full National Status for Wales within the European Union.”). If they do manage to make this leap then maybe I will support them.

Today Ken Livingstone was suspended from office for a period of 4 weeks in penalty for comments made to a reporter for the Evening Standard. The morality of these comments is not a debate that I wish to engage in here, I merely wish to register my disbelief that an elected officer can be removed from office by an unelected panel without having breached any law (I’m not aware that there has been any breaches in the law, although I am not an expert in such matters).

As a bystander, viewing from south Wales, it seems an affront to proper democratic process that a panel that is not installed by popular sovereignty or accountable to it can remove the directly elected mayor of London from office. I recognise the need for such panels to ensure high standards from elected representatives, however, the power they are able to wield is in my opinion disproportionate to the task, they should have the power to sanction wages or impose fines, compel representatives to issue apologies etc… but removing elected representatives from office should be beyond their dominion.

The Adjudication Panel for England ruled Ken Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute when he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive" manner (Report available by clicking here). It seems a disproportionately heavy sentence for the incident, especially when you look at other incidents in British politics, i.e., Blair’s 45 minute claim that mislead parliament into voting to war, and the penalties that have subsequently been imposed on the perpetrators of bringing the Prime Ministers office into disrepute, then we can see that this sanction is perhaps a little heavy.

This article for the Times newspapers is a very interesting insight into the direction of the Blair's democracy. So far this corruption of democracy has passed with little dispute, but I call on all that reads this to take action to defend democracy in this country. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21129-2040625,00.html

Blair’s contempt for parliament, has until this moment, been dismissed as party political sniping. However, labour’s proposal for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill effectively stops all arguments and declares in writing Blair is an authoritarian leader who is on the verge of disregarding parliament. Our forbears have fought for parliamentary democracy and it now falls to us to ensure that it survives this attack.

This bill (click for text - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.i-ii.html) gives ministers powers to alter laws once they have been passed by Parliament, thereby forgoing parliamentary control over law, meaning that cabinet meetings my now resemble politburo meetings of Communist countries, meaning that the PM can become all powerful and an effective dictator over this liberal democracy.

I encourage you all to contact your MP and implore you all to do so, websites for this function can be found here - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and direct email’s can be found here http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm. Letters may be sent to your representative’s address found here - http://www.parliament.uk/useful/address.cfm.

Additionally, if you run blog’s or websites please repeat this message on your own site.

Now I will admit upfront that I am vehemently anti-smoking – I have cystic fibrosis, smoking makes my life hell, and what more it upsets me that I struggle for hours a day to keep my chest clear free of infection to try and stop further damage being caused to my lungs while others inflict immeasurable damage to themselves.

But there appears to be some discrepancies in the bill, primarily that the bars in the Parliament Building are exempt from the ban, this is due to the fact that they are Royal Palaces e.g. The Palace of Westminster, and therefore are not subject to the same laws. A disgusting situation as I am positive that we will all agree.

And again twice in two post, the theme – why are elites treated differently from the rest of society.

The rule of law should be all encompassing, why do we permit a society where as Orwell put it, “every one is equal but some are more equal than others”.

Has been in the news for the obvious reasons leading to some very sniping and insulting images including this image that is to be found on Boreme.com

What I am interested in know is what would happen in the unfortunate event that the person shot died, would the vice-president be open to criminal prosecutions? What is the procedure I understand that the president would probably have some impunity while in office but does this extend to the vice-president?

I am fortunate enough to have an American flat mate at the moment and when I posed him this question his sole and instant reply was “he would probably get a pardon” is this justice? Is this defendable in a modern society? Where people can hide behind power, so shirk of responsibility for their actions, there are rumblings in Russia about similar issues, but why when democracy is so important is accountability and the rule of law not extended to the elites in society.

Some would class me as an idealist for such a statement, I am just saddened that that would be the case.

For those new to the blog the Siambr is the debating chamber for the Government of Wales.

While watching the assembly through the very annoying and unhelpful web casting function, I noticed that they are still having IT problems resulting on this occasion with the wrong results being declared to a vote. Now I’m appalled that this could be the case the implications are obvious and disconcerting the fact that it makes the seat of government for Wales look incompetent becomes almost a mute point in that thereafter.

What I can say for definite is that perhaps the old ways are the best, a show of hands or division lobbies as in the commons. The computers do not appear to be of any benefit to any member so far.

Daily Mail
The (real) thick of it
17:02pm 11th February 2006
It's the proof that, when it comes to New Labour, truth is even more cynical than fiction. In a series of episodes that could have come straight out of the biting TV satire The Thick Of It, a former Labour aide today reveals what life is really like on the campaign trail.
He exposes the full extent of the party’s paranoia, manipulation and obsession with stage management – and describes how it treats ordinary voters and even its own members with derision. RICHARD GIBBS was a paid regional organiser for New Labour during the year leading up to the May 2005 General Election.
He was at the heart of its campaign to retain marginal seats and stood himself in local council elections. But Gibbs, 27, has now left the party after witnessing its dirty tricks from the inside. He admits: "It took me four years and much heartache to go from idealistic New Labour recruit to someone thoroughly disillusioned with the party – its alleged values, its ways of working and its attitude to members and the electorate."
Here, in his own words and exclusively for The Mail on Sunday, Gibbs gives a disturbing insight into the New Labour machine.
The Ken Bigley 'problem'
It was on October 7, 2004, that I first visited Labour’s headquarters in Old Queen Street, near Whitehall. It was also the day that terrorists in Iraq murdered British hostage Ken Bigley. There are television sets everywhere in New Labour’s HQ, and as the BBC broke the story I was thinking, like most other ordinary people, of the atrociousness of such a killing and how terrible it must be for Mr Bigley’s family.
But within moments, different sentiments were being expressed by some of Labour’s staff. "What marginal seats are near the Bigleys?" asked one. "If they have a go at Blair, then we could be in trouble."
"You don’t think his brother or any of his relatives will stand, do you?" another commented. "This could be really big. It could be a problem."
Such talk would disgust many ordinary Labour members. But the first thought of many who work for the party was the possible electoral impact of this murder.
In 2001, Jo Moore, a special adviser to Minister Stephen Byers, had stupidly e-mailed colleagues to say the attacks of 9/11 provided a "good day to bury bad news".
At the time, I had assumed that this was simply one woman’s ill-judged opinion. Now I can’t help but think that Jo Moore was more of a symptom of where she worked than the proverbial bad apple in the barrel.
Prescott's blunder bus
I was sent to Newcastle upon Tyne to join the "Yes" campaign for the North East Regional Assembly referendum. This was an initiative of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, but Labour staffers thought it was potentially a white elephant.
Nevertheless, the "Prescott Xpress" battle-bus hit the road. As it rumbled through the narrow streets in Easington, County Durham, it became clear it was heading down a street that led only to an Asda superstore car park.
All the time Prescott was using a public address system to extol the virtues of regional government to bemused shoppers. It took a few moments for him to realise that his campaign had, quite literally, come to a halt.
The Deputy Prime Minister boomed out: "This ain't right. Where are we? Ah, f****** 'ell, it's bloody Asda. I f****** 'ate Asda as well." Only then did one of the campaign 'professionals' decide it would be a good moment to turn off the public address system.
The surestart scam
Often the question arose: How can we get a Cabinet Minister to visit party workers and activists but fix it so the taxpayer picks up the bill?
Surestart, the flagship Government childcare project, provided the answer. Since it was a Whitehall initiative, we could have a Minister transported from London to anywhere in the country. The cost would be paid by the Minister’s department because, strictly speaking, this was Government, rather than Labour Party, business.
After spending ten or 15 minutes at a Surestart scheme, party officials could drive the Minister to a nearby Labour club for a political event.
At the end of the visit, we would reunite the Minister with his Government car and driver and he would be sent back to London, knowing that Labour had not had to pay the transport costs.
Once, in Edgbaston, I rode in the back of a New Labour Rover briefing Alan Milburn en route to a political event while his ministerial car and driver sat outside a Surestart scheme.
It was normal practice on these occasions for us to don earpieces Special Branch-style and to do up our suit jackets to give the impression we were armed, undercover police officers. It was a ludicrous fantasy.
This silly macho culture percolated everything. One staffer responded to every question with the same reply: "We're locked, we're cocked and we're ready to rock" – his right hand forming an imaginary gun.
Trot, Taffy and wacko
In the West Midlands office where I was based, there were some local MPs we liked and others we most certainly did not.
If an MP toed the line we would give support and media coverage. If they were the "revolutionary" sort who put constituents ahead of blind loyalty to the Government, we would rubbish them.
Our two most loyal MPs were Steve McCabe and Gisela Stewart. They were spoken about in positive terms. For those we didn’t like, gone was any sense of respect.
Clare Short became Clare "Trot" in reference to her Left-wing credentials, while Tamworth MP Brian Jenkins became "Taffy" – his Welshness was a term of abuse. He was a hard-working constituency MP, but he did not always "chime with the message", so he was in our awkward squad.
Debra Shipley, then MP for Stourbridge, was considered to be "unhinged" and there were few mentions of her in the office that did not include the words "mad", "loony", "insane" or "wacko".
We even used a particular photo of her that made her eyes look a little wild and crazed. But when, just before the Election campaign began, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and forced to step down, I did feel rather guilty about how we had treated an honourable, good woman.
Junk mail fraud
One of my tasks as a regional organiser was to arrange large mailshots to constituents in marginal seats to find out who were potential Labour supporters.
We would prepare an innocuous letter from an MP about a general subject – anti-social behaviour, street lighting or parking – and attach a voting intention survey.
Since we held MPs' signatures and photos on a digital database, we were able to create these communications without even contacting them. And we would use the Parliamentary postage allowance, which meant the taxpayer picked up the bill. It was a naughty thing to do, since this allowance was intended only for Parliamentary rather than party political business, but we did it all the time.
There was a near disaster after a visit to Newcastle by Cabinet Minister John Reid. Labour’s rent-a-mob was gathering up discarded balloons and leaflets we had been waving for the cameras. Phil Dilks, a veteran Press officer, was carrying a phone in one hand and a large ‘Vote Yes’ board in the other.
But a couple of silly teenage girls began to shout: "Yes, yes, oh yes!" mimicking Meg Ryan’s famous fake orgasm from When Harry Met Sally. Phil didn’t see the funny side. He threw the board to the floor, dropped his phone (showing he had only been pretending to be on a call), sprinted across to one of the girls and delivered a well-aimed boot to her backside.
She landed in a crumpled heap in a shop doorway. Everyone fell silent as he pulled himself together and came back to his abandoned sign and phone. The girl wasn’t seriously hurt, but Phil was fortunate she did not complain to the police about the assault.
Fix it for Blair
A week before polling day, coded messages about a "key campaigner visit" were being muttered. This was New Labour’s way of telling staff that Tony Blair was coming.
The whole event was surrounded in hyper-paranoia. Party members were invited, but in a twist that only New Labour could devise, they were told only the date and the city it was to be in. Members who were thought likely to ask the Prime Minister an awkward question were not invited. Names and photos of ‘undesirables’ were given to door staff.
This was nothing to do with security – it was because the party machine was frightened of allowing the media to see anything other than unquestioning obedience to the leader.
The resultant event had all the hallmarks of a North Korean rally. When I saw Walter Wolfgang’s eviction from the Labour conference later in 2005, I was appalled but not surprised.
Rent a mob
When Michael Howard, or Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy visited our region, we would all be cheered up by the prospect of a day out. Off came the suits and ties and out came the magic markers and sugar-paper so we could make our very own demo with a suitably evocative title such as "No Tory Cuts!"
The plan would be to get near the visiting party leader and begin our "spontaneous" demonstration, complete with helpful factoids that we could yell about the damage their policies would do.
Frankly, it was embarrassing. The press tended to ignore us, so obvious must it have been that we were New Labour stooges. The public looked bemused and appalled at our antics.
In the run up to the general election, Michael Howard paid a visit to Birmingham. We gathered a group of staff together, pretending to be normal members of the public.
Unfortunately, one of Howard’s entourage spotted our flaw — we had used the backs of Labour Party posters for our banners. The sharp-eyed Tory pretended to slip and grabbed at our banner tearing it as he fell.
As the words "Vote Labour" were revealed, it was clear for all to see that we were frauds.
Short, fat and ugly
Image was always important to us. The party had to sound right, feel right — and look right. As Chairman of the Labour Party, Ian McCartney was, in theory, the most senior politician in the party.
During the North East Regional Assembly campaign, McCartney was due to hold a photo call at a Labour Party street stall in Newcastle and the staff were keen to try and garner some positive coverage for our faltering campaign.
The press officers looked carefully at McCartney and began to voice concerns that we might end up with an "ugly picture" at the end of the day. This was before the five foot nothing Cabinet minister had been diagnosed with serious heart problems. By his own recent admission, he was at the time "obese".
One press officer said: "The thing is, if the press get a picture of him from the front, he’ll look short."
"Yeah, but if it’s from the side, he’ll look fat," replied the second.
"Is there a way we can make him look not fat and short?"
It was decided that the best course of action was to steer McCartney into a shop just before we reached the media and keep him talking for a while.
While distracting him, we could get the press to photograph some nice, photogenic Labour students on the other side of the road, suitably prepared with "Vote Yes" badges and banners.
That way, we managed to avoid any ugly pictures, even if it did mean sidelining the Chairman of the Labour Party.
The wife's hair
Back on my home territory of the West Midlands during the General Election campaign, I tried to prevent another Prescott visit — but was not entirely successful.
Back on his battle bus Prezza was on mission to help the marginal seats. But the truth was few of the marginal Labour candidates really wanted his help.
This was starting to become embarrassing for everyone. So, at some point someone in the party decided that the best way to handle things, was simply to tell the constituency when the Prescott Xpress was on his way.
When the warning came of a visit to my patch in Stourbridge, it was tempting though just let him arrive and leave him untended. But I felt that this was probably going too far. We contacted a film crew from the BBC Politics Show who were in the area, and summoned a 'crowd' of Labour Party members pretending to be normal members of the public.
The venue was an open square in the centre of town, but minutes from the appointed time, a call came from Karim Palant on the Prescott Xpress: "Richard, is it raining with you?"
"Well, it’s trying to, but it’s nothing heavy. Why?"
"Er, well, it’s Pauline. Her hair, it could be a problem."
"What are you talking about? And who's Pauline?"
"Prescott’s wife! You remember the whole thing at conference when it was windy? Well if she's gonna get her hair wet, that’s going to screw up the whole visit."
In my time working for New Labour, I had learned that 'security' was a great catch-all phrase to cover other problems.
So I told guests and media, with the gravest expression I could manage: "Look, we’ve got to move to another venue — security concerns." Assuming that I had just been tipped off by Special Branch of a some terrorist threat against Prezza, people nodded seriously and were very compliant.
A Labour Party spokesman said yesterday: "Richard Gibbs applied to continue working for the party in June 2005 but his contract was not renewed. It is disappointing that a disgruntled former employee, who has now joined the Conservative Party, has made these allegations." Mr Gibbs said he was not a Tory member but did not rule out joining the party.

The Western Mail has reported that the Queen’s inaugural address in the Siambr will say “This Senedd building ….” The palace reposts that this is just a draft of the speech and that the only address that is relevant is the one that is delivered on Saint David’s Day.

This is going to be a very interesting speech indeed.

Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odour. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.

Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children-last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."

There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could really mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. that's how canopy beds came into existence.

The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor."

The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they kept adding more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway. Hence the saying a "thresh hold."

Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."

Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock them out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."

.
England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a "bone-house" and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they thought they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift") to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be "saved by the bell" or was considered a "dead ringer."

It was reported yesterday in the Guardian that the Isle of Man is changing its voting franchise to include 16 year olds.

I have to admit that this is a positive move for democracy – I have never fathomed how you can justifiably withhold the vote from people who the government of the country claims to govern.

This is especially so since the 0 – 16 years age range is the most formative of an individual’s life. There are the years when the majority of people rely on the health service the most – until latter life. They are the years when education is vital for the development of the children, its sets them on a course that will guide them for the rest of their life.

However, they are continuously removed from deciding on who formulates the policies that they will impose on minors and which will govern the rest of their lives.

Therefore I am in favour of a reduction of the voting age to 16 and then a further reduction to 0. After all we do not say that people who reach 80 are suddenly excluded from voting so why should there be a barrier to younger people voting.

This entire post is copied from the Shropshire Star.com

____________

.
“I’m sure that Dave will look after my company until Wales beat Scotland on Sunday.”

Well it was the first day in the new play room for the Members of The Senedd and I have to admit that it looks fantastic, (well the chamber at least) but I have a few grumbles.

1) What were photographers doing floating around the rear of the Siambr?
2) Who was zooming in doubled over – I think that it could be technical assistance, shows how good the training was.
3) Please tell me the seating arrangement I haven’t got a clue – Rhodri Morgan seems to be surrounded.
4) Who is that behind the glass to the side is it the media or the translators?
5) Can the Senedd members please tuck in their chair when they are leaving – they make it look untidy
6) Finally, can we have ends to what I suppose is the ministerial bench it annoys me.

Its also quite noticeable is quite how much you can get away with if you speak Welsh, several times I heard the phrase “Senedd” now it was my understanding that the motion to call it Senedd failed in Westminster 38 votes to lots (I cant remember the figure). So why then are they allowed to use the phrase to describe themselves in the chamber?

Now I know that this sounds stupid especially since I would prefer it, but how is it allowed to pass in conversation by the presiding officer?

I’ll look forward to watching plenary sessions – all they Senedd need to do now is have a major overhaul of a difficult and obstructive website.

This post is solely to bring attention to an academic article in a journal by Samuel P. Huntington, a small segment is reproduced below.

As you can see it is very relevant to recent global events (see previous post) the whole article is available through the link (click on the title) full referencing is also available on this site.

I encourage you all to read the whole article, it is very interesting, and as it is considered somewhat a self fulfilling prophecy it is very interesting indeed.

Simple question, A or B?

A) One of the Danish Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
B) A photo of Muslim protests with banners reading “Slay those who insult Islam” and “Europe you will pay your 9/11 is on its way”
.
Now I consider that it is a disgrace that the above cartoon was drawn and would have thought that decency would have prevented it from being published (rather than censorship of the media). But it is not helping the image of Muslims when during protests to campaign against being portrayed as terrorists (an unacceptable generalisation), they threaten to kill and terrorise the West and in particular Europe. Engage in arson attacks on embassies and kill several people in Afghanistan, these are a kind of oxymoron.
.
Now I realise that insulting the symbols of any religion is unacceptable and Islam is likely to gain the greatest protests as we saw when there was alleged disregard for the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. So I am aghast that they were printed simply for decency rulings. (Although I realise the ironic situation of me reproducing it here, and attempt to do so as an academic exercise).
.
But is it right to censor the press to make these things impossible to happen? Does religion deserve protection more than politics, lifestyles etc… I would instinctively say no. However, I think there should be more digression – part of the problem is that I found the cartoon using Google’s image service and therefore I can’t say anything about the context, which I think would probably – in my mind be the defining factor in whether this was appropriate or not.

Well I just sat through that hour long speech by George Bush, it would have been a 30 minute speech if there wasn’t a standing ovation after every sentence – it really wasn’t necessary and at times really hindered the president.

I intend here to give my opinion (as always) on the speech.

Bush stated that his long term aim was to “eradicate tyranny” and do this by engaging with the international community stating that “if we leave these vicious attackers along they would not leave us alone.” And therefore America will not be engaged in another period of isolationism.

At this point I would like to quote from a book entitled “Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938” by Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley (Penguin, 1997)

“In 1939, on the eve of World War II, the United States had an army of 185,000 men with an annual budget of less that $500 million. America had no entangling alliances and no American troops were stationed in any foreign country. The dominant political mood was isolationism. America’s physical security, the sine qua non of foreign policy, seemed assured, not because of the distance between America and any potential enemy.

A half century later the United States had a huge standing Army, Air Force, and Navy. The budget of the Department of Defence was over $300 billion. The United States had military alliances with fifty nations, over a million soldiers, airmen, and sailors stationed in more than 100 countries, and an offensive capability sufficient to destroy the world many times over. It had used military force to intervene in Indochina, Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Central America, and the Persian Gulf, supported an invasion of Cuba, distributed enormous quantities of arms to friendly governments around the world, and fought costly wars in Korea and Vietnam. But despite all the money spent on armaments and no matter how far outward America extended her power, America’s national security was constantly in jeopardy”

Bush has yet to realise that it is America extensive invasion into the culture, markets, and the internal affairs of states etc… around the world has led to the resentment that is now becoming manifest in terrorist actions.

The State of the Union address also alluded to a recognition that mistakes have been made in Iraq, as Bush talked about a “changed approach to reconstruction” he also went on to mention that hindsight was not wisdom, well were the tens-of-thousands of people who marched against the war in Iraq acting in hindsight. It was their interpretation that was vindicated if all is said and done.

He went on to encourage democratic reform across broader Middle East and the development of strong democratic institutions that would be able to withstand an assault on them. He made the concession that “democracies in the middle east will not look like our own” and went on to say that Iranians “have a right to choose their own future”.

I would point out that they did, they had the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and have recently voted in presidential elections. Bush has almost got the point Iran is a democratic country and in the same way that he recognised that they may differ from our own he has to realise that we do not have the veto or final approval in what they look like. Iran is a democratic country as much as Britain is it might not be a liberal country.

Bush obviously thinks that he is indeed on some sort or crusade and is fixed on unilateralism with his determination that the “only alternative to US leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and nervous world” I would argue that UN leadership with strong US support for their actions including full financial backing, as opposed to the US withholding funds, would be a stable and far less contentious alternative to US leadership as there is a chance for all countries to have a say rather than conforming to US dictat.

I’m being very critical of Bush’s international policies and I do not think that I am being overly so. However, I think he has a much better domestic agenda. As he announced massive alternation to the health care systems of the country, but more importantly to the economic and development spheres of the country.

He announced a raft of energy changes after his infamous “addicted to oil” statement. He announced $10 billion to develop cleaner cheaper energy, a 22% increase in clean research. He also announced investment in zero emissions coal plants, solar and wind technology and new nuclear energy facilities. Even though he refuses to sign Kyoto it seems that he is making a start at cutting emissions, additionally announcing development of better battery’s for hybrids, greater use of hydrogen and giving a time scale for the development of ethanol fuel and an economic level.

Although Bush’s aim is not necessary to reduce pollution but rather to ensure fuel security, attempting to replace 75% of oil imports by 2025 it is a step in the right direction and long overdue.

This he intends to couple with a massive investment and promotion of sciences and an research and develop tax credit all of which I wish the British government would introduce, Blair hasn’t cottoned on that if Britain develops it first then we can sell it to the rest of the world recouping the initial outlay.

There was one finial swipe that was not missed, and suggests that Bush is getting annoyed with another branch of the federal government saying that “judges are servants of law and should not legislate from the bench” a possible indication that he is becoming tiresome of some unfavourable rulings from the supreme court.

All in all it’s a mixed report I believe that the domestic elements are a positive for the US but the international elements are poorly thought out, misguided and potentially very dangerous.

I know from my cluster map that some Americans do read this blog and I would be interested if they shared my views or had a different interpretation of the address.