Politicians do come out with the most senseless sound bites, meant I suppose to sound erudite. That multi-millionaire socialist Tony Blair playing the elder statesman whose New Labour brought Britain virtually to its knees has entered the debate about the riots. Writing in the Observer, (I’m truly surprised it wsn’t The Gaurdian) he warned that "muddle-headed analysis" of the riots may result in wrong policy responses. A guarded ye-es? In a rare comment on British politics since standing down as prime minister in 2007, Mr. Blair said the riots were "an absolutely specific problem that requires a deeply specific solution. Another guarded ye-es? Well do carry on from there Mister Blair don’t leave us in suspense."
Meanwhile back at the ranch David Cameron pledged a fight back against the “bureaucratic nonsense and destructive culture” which led to current problems. Okay, Mister Cameron can you take that a step further please and tell us in detail exactly what has to be done?
Blair also said that towards the end of his term in office he realised that society needed an "intervention family by family, a reform of criminal justice around anti-social behaviour, organised crime, persistent offenders and gangs". Well, haven’t we heard that all before, time after time after time? And just how do you go about it, family by family? And is Cameron not saying exactly the same thing now? The prime minister also said that his commitment to tackling the "greed and thuggery" seen during the riots and episodes of looting would be backed up by "the full force of the law. We need a stronger police presence on the streets, deterring crime and catching criminals instead of filling in forms or wasting time on phoney targets," he said. And just how many times have we heard that one? Is it any wonder that one becomes a cynic as far as politicians are concerned?
Still on the subject of politicians, that three-ring circus the Republican primaries has come to town and is in full swing and will continue with brass bands and razzamatazz for a full year I believe. Is it the best way to choose the person who, if the Republicans are returned to power, will be the most powerful politician (I won’t say statesman, it’s a long time since the world saw one of those) in the world? It seems anyone can enter the race providing they have enough money and of the original eight there have already been some drop-outs. That very odd-bod Donald Trump is a contender no more, neither is Tim Pawlenty and it’s even Stevens Newt Gingrich might fall at the next hurdle. But that leaves, horror of horrors, awful people like Michele Bachman. How close is she, people are asking, to right wing Christian fundamentalist philosophy known as Dominionism, one proponent of which argues for the death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers. Now this is really going to cause the most gigantic problem as it will entail the deaths literally of thousands so how do these Christian bigots suggest the state manages it, especially as the companies who make the drugs currently used in executions have suddenly gone all hoity-toity, po-faced, mounted their moralistic high horses and stated they will no longer supply those drugs if they are to be used for that purpose?
Oh, dear! Life really does throw up some weird creatures and even weirder problems.