The Spectator.co.uk Alex Massie Blog

Petraeus 2012 Watch

Alex Massie — 2009-11-20T19:15:42+00:00

Previously, I've argued that even if General David Petraeus does have political ambitions there are any number of obstacles that might make it difficult for him to make a successful bid for the Presidency. All those points still stand. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the CENTCOM commander is this year's recipient of the American Enterprise Institute's annual Irving Kristol Award and that he'll be AEI's guest of honour at its annual dinner next year.

As I say, a 2012 run seems most improbable (at the moment!) but 2016? Well, that could, conceivably, be a different story. Consider this award a data point, however.

The flip-side to the award, mind you, is that, notwithstanding Petraeus's merit and achievements there may not have been a deep field of potential honorees this year.

Backroom Deals in Brussels Are No Big Deal

Alex Massie — 2009-11-20T17:43:17+00:00

It's always heads they win, tails you lose with the euro-sceptics isn't it? For instance, they were adamant that they didn't want a high-profile figure such as Tony Blair to become President of the EU Council. No Big Beasts please, we're British! Now it turns-out that they're equally disappointed that an unknown Belgian and a scarcely-known Briton have become President and EU High Representative respectively. There's no pleasing some people...

All this reflects the euro-sceptics belief that nothing that happens in Brussels can't be spun to their advantage. Sure, as Iain Martin says, perhaps the elevation of this pair of nonentities is "a decision so bizarre that satire is temporarily rendered redundant" and, sure, many Spectator readers are unhappy that neither has been elected to their new positions or, in the case of Baroness Ashton, ever been elected to anything. But, since the posts exist, what's the alternative? Direct elections? That would, obviously, make the holders of each post vastly more powerful figures. Addressing this particular aspect of the EU's "democratic deficit" is one way to make Brussels more, not less powerful. Is that what euro-sceptics want?

Actually it probably is. If the EU continues to muddle

Photo of the Day

Alex Massie — 2009-11-20T15:26:35+00:00

The River Ettrick, running high and fast, at 2.45pm this afternoon.

Paul Clarke Update II

Alex Massie — 2009-11-20T12:31:30+00:00

The national newspapers may not be terribly interested in the Paul Clarke case but, happily, legal blogger Jack of Kent is. He's produced a detailed account of the case, and the law, that I highly recommend.

Mr Clarke may not be the ideal poster boy for liberty but it's equally clear that this is of little to no import. What we have here, as Jack of Kent makes clear, is a case that makes a nonsense of a) strict liability offences, b) manadatory minimums, c) the police and d) the CPS. It's possible that e) the judiciary and f) the jury could also be added to this list.

Mr Clarke has not been sentenced yet. He could be discharged. Since no other party has disputed, or even sought to dispute, his account of events one can only hope that he will not, in fact, be locked up for five years for the crime of finding a shotgun and handing it in to the police. Common-sense may yet prevail.

At the very least, however, all parties may agree that this case, and others like it, demonstrate some of the problems with creating strict liability offences

Did Obama Steal the Election?

2009-11-19T20:52:47+00:00

Sure, plenty of Democrats thought George W Bush "stole" the 2000 election (and conservatives would have reacted similarly had Al Gore been pronounced the victor by the Supreme Court) but did Barack Obama steal the 2008 election? Apparently our nutty American cousins believe so:

PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately.

I'd like to say that this poll can't possibly be accurate. But PPP aren't a rogue outfit. And anyway, it's the sort of crazy finding that's entirely consistent with all manner of other crazy findings this year. This is, I assume, why Andrew Sullivan thinks Sarah Palin the most-likely GOP nominee in 2012. I obviously disagree with that but this sort of poll is ammunition for Andrew's side of that forecast, not mine.

On the other hand, it's also a reminder that David Frum is right: conservatives are still stuck in Phase One of Political Denial, believing that, facts be damned, We Didn't Really Lose.

Then again, perhaps it also proves the limitations of polling since, according to

La Main du Match

Alex Massie — 2009-11-19T18:21:13+00:00

Photo: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images

If there were a World Cup for Being Sanctimonious, Ireland would qualify every time. So, mind you, might Scotland. The aftermath of last night's match in Paris has been predictably entertaining. One refereeing blunder (though it's quite pssible the referee was unsighted and so did not, in fact, "bottle" the decision) has provided ample opportunity for cant and humbug. Thus, the Irish demand that the match be replayed. Good idea! Let's have another go at the 1966 World Cup Final while we're at it!

FAI President John Delaney complains:

"There's a team that should be in the World Cup today and that's us. We should be there but we are not there."

And Justice Minister Dermot Ahern* moans:

"They probably won't grant it [a replay] as we are minnows in world football but let's put them on the spot," the minister said. "It's the least we owe the thousands of devastated young fans around the country."

For crying out loud. Even by the standards of the Most Oppressed People Ever this is less than dignified. Indeed, it's weak toast.

It's hardly a surprise that

Trying KSM in NYC

Alex Massie — 2009-11-19T17:36:16+00:00

On the whole I'm sympathetic to the Obama administration's desire to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. That is, dealing with this kind of terrorism is a matter of law-enforcement as well as, in other respects, a military matter. And yet, despite all the talk about how putting KSM on trial is an affirmation of superior, civilised values and all the rest of it, I'm not sure that the trial will be quite the propaganda victory some think it may be.

Ruth Marcus happily spares one the job of dealing with a typically atrocious Michael Gerson column which alleges, ludicrously, that the ACLU is now running the Justice Department and that the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Constitution is, amazingly, some kind of "suicide pact". But in doing so Marcus also, perhaps unwittingly, undermines the case for these civilian trials:

Federal law contains sufficient safeguards to protect sources and methods, and you can be sure that the Justice Department made a careful assessment that it could obtain a conviction without harmful disclosure. The risk of acquittal is negligible, although I think that word may be overstating things. More important, even if Mohammed

Does Obama Need Britain in Afghanistan?

Alex Massie — 2009-11-19T14:42:33+00:00

Since I outlined a modest case for dithering on Afghanstan last month, it probably behoves me to admit that, politicaly though perhaps not militarily, the time for consequence-free dithering seems to be running-out. Con Coughlin's story in this week's magazine damns Obama's approach to the Afghan problem, not least because the President, according to Con, has little interest in consulting his allies:

The astonishing disregard with which Mr Obama treats Britain has been made clear by his deliberations over the Afghan issue. As he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan — a decision which will fundamentally affect the scope of the mission — Britain is reduced to guesswork. The White House does not even pretend to portray this as a joint decision. It is a diplomatic cold-shouldering that stands in contrast not just to the Blair–Bush era, but to the togetherness of the soldiers on the ground.
...But with Obama there are no regular video-conferences bringing Downing Street up to date on the latest White House thinking. No special envoys making secret visits to London to keep the key players informed. Instead we will have to wait, like everyone else, for the puffs of smoke

David Cameron's Immodest Belief in Government

Alex Massie — 2009-11-19T13:30:29+00:00

David Cameron's response to the Queen's Speech was, of course, dictated by both convention and political nit-picking. Nonetheless, I agree with Sunder Katwala that it's rum to see a Conservative leader complaining that the government isn't proposing enough legislation. A useful reminder that whatever else they may be, Dave's Conservatives do not take an especially modest or reatrained view of government. On the contrary: if there is a problem there must be a bill and damn the consequences.

So Cameron, correctly, identified Labour's approach as believing that "The answer to every problem is more big government and spending" at the same time as he demanded that the government do more, not less on a range of issues. Now, sure, this is rhetorical prancing and all the rest of it since there isn't time for much new legislation, mercifully, to be passed before this parliament is put out of its misery. But still...

It was especially amusing to see Cameron criticise the absence of (yet another) NHS bill. Amusing because, of course, Conservative health policy is to hand control of the NHS over to the BMA and assorted other producer interests and hope that no-one will notice the fundamental

Health Care Reform is a Zombie Policy

Alex Massie — 2009-11-17T18:08:45+00:00

Peter Suderman notes that the Democrats' health care plans have to play a finesse: on the one hand they promise that everything will get better; on the other they reassure you that most things will stay just the same. Tricky!

Worse, much worse, for those of us who hope that Congress passes or kills health care reform - either, don't care which, just do it sharpish! - is the terrifying prospect that health care reform is the zombie monster of all policy zombie monsters:

On a note that's scary in a different way, the piece quotes Harvard health policy professor Robert Blendon as saying that even if the bill passes, the health care issue is never going to go away*:

If the bill becomes law, Blendon said, the campaign for maintaining support for health care reform would only just begin. “It is not really over in people’s mind,” he said.

This is one of the side-effects of health care reform I suspect people think about less: Reform won't just mess up our health care system, it will infect our political system; the more our politics and our health care