<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
<title>The Spectator.co.uk Melanie Phillips Blog</title>
<link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/</link>
<description>The Spectator.co.uk Melanie Phillips Blog</description>

<language>en-uk</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2007 Spectator (1828) Ltd.</copyright>




     <item>
       <title>The blue lamp gutters</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/844766/the-blue-lamp-gutters.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="150" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Blue%20lamp.jpg" /><br /> The government&#8217;s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/17/police.localgovernment">plan</a> to give control over local police forces to elected mayors or, in those areas without such a mayor, to directly elected chiefs of local police boards has drawn condemnation from various quarters on the grounds that this would open the way to political control of the police by extremists. The Association of Police authorities has said that there would be a</p> <blockquote> <p>very real danger of extremists and single issue pressure groups targeting these elections for their own ends.</p> </blockquote> <p>Labour local government leaders including three directly elected mayors have echoed such concerns with Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader of the Local Government Association&#8217;s Labour group, warning that</p> <blockquote> <p>the competing mandate of directly elected police boards would devalue the legitimate role of local councils and warned it could open the door to &#8216;populist or extremist candidates&#8217;.</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely right. This is a seriously bad idea. The independence of the police is crucial to maintaining Britain&#8217;s dispassionate tradition of law and order. The fact that that independence has been catastrophically eroded through control by central government does not mean that the remedy is to replace such control]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-18T17:14:04+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>America's Chamberlain?</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/843431/americas-chamberlain.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p>&#160;</p> <img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="100" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/William%20Burns.jpg" /><br /> Some months ago I worried <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/388926/the-thousand-volt-farce.thtml">here</a> that the quiet in Iraq might be at least in part the result of a deal made between America and Iran: in exchange for Tehran&#8217;s calling off the bombers in Iraq to help put another Republican into the White House, the Bush administration would undertake not to attack Iran. Yesterday&#8217;s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran">Guardian story </a>that America is to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and intends to send a senior official, William Burns (pictured above), to discuss Iran&#8217;s nuclear program with Iranian officials can only deepen that fear. Unless this is all an elaborate bluff, the suspicion must be that what the Bush administration is now focused upon is not safeguarding the survival of Israel and the freedom of the world but on winning the presidency for the Republicans. After all, Bush has now effectively stolen Obama&#8217;s line of talking to Iran without preconditions. McCain, of course, has put himself in the opposite camp to Obama over Iran. If he doesn&#8217;t condemn this Bush volte-face in the loudest possible terms, the suspicion can only deepen]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-18T01:01:56+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>Israel's tragic blunder</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/841246/israels-tragic-blunder.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p>&#160;</p> <img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="101" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Israel%20receives%20hostage%20remains.jpg" /> <img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="100" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Hezbollah%20celebrates%20prisoner%20swap.jpg" /> <p>The exchange of a Lebanese terrorist who killed four Israelis for the remains of the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah two years ago is a moral and strategic blunder by Israel. The terrorist, Samir Kuntar, was serving four life sentences for outrages including the vicious kiling of an Israeli family in the coastal town of Nahariya in 1979. He shot Danny Haran in the back in front of his four year-old daughter Einat; then he drowned him; then he bludgeoned Einat to death with his rifle butt and stamped on her skull. Her two year-old sister Yael was accidentally suffocated by her mother who was hiding from the attack with her and tried to stop her from crying.</p> <p>In exchange for releasing this man to a hero&#8217;s welcome in Lebanon, along with four other captured terrorists and the bodies of a hundred others, Israel has been given the remains of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser -- the two soldiers whose kidnap, following hard upon a rocket barrage upon Northern Israel, sparked the 2006 Lebanon war. The deal has thus finally]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-17T02:11:49+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>The BBC's contamination</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/836716/the-bbcs-contamination.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="209" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Broadcasting%20House.jpg" /></p> <p>A reader has sent me the following cri de coeur about the hallucinatory level of prejudice at the BBC:</p> <blockquote> <p>It really is becoming quite a frightening topic. I never used to worry too much about it. As an example, Norman Tebbit had a go while Maggie was in government; but at the time, anyone with a sense of decency could understand and say &#8216;hang on, the government of the day was doing some very radical things and needed to be challenged&#8217; - to be put on the spot if you like. When Norman had his moan, a balanced observer would be able to see why the Beeb &#8216;roughed him up&#8217; and could reasonably think &#8216;he would say that, wouldn't he&#8217;.</p> <p>These days I see a much more sinister agenda, a more subtle use of bias -- not just ear-bashing a right of centre politician with some tough questions, but even in the entertainment we are provided with.</p> <p>There is a new drama series (pretty dire) called Bonekickers. The bad guys this week were posh-speaking Christian fundamentalists; other characters are an upper-class curmudgeon who makes remarks about women&#8217;s breasts (tsk tsk&#160;</blockquote>]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-15T07:43:40+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>Obama and the eclipse of reason</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/836626/obama-and-the-eclipse-of-reason.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="170" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="115" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Obama%20cartoon.jpg" /><br /> I am currently in Los Angeles at the annual convention of Hadassah, the Women&#8217;s Zionist Organisation of America, where I am due to take part in a panel discussion today on the subject of Iran and the Islamist threat to the world. Yesterday, though, I had my first direct exposure to Obamania (the suspension of reason by emotion provoked by the charismatic senator from Illinois). There are two thousand women here, and as far as I can see only a tiny minority are Republicans -- which is what one would expect from American Jews who remain overwhelmingly Democrat voters. Granted the vast majority would rather boil in oil along with the fried fish rather than <i>ever</i> vote Republican (<i>pfui!</i>) it was still unsettling, to put it mildly, to see them categorically dismiss the evidence suggesting that President Obama would not be good for Israel and the Jewish people.</p> <p>In a session devoted to the presidential race, two politicians were put up to represent the case respectively for the two sides: former Senator Rudy Boschwitz for McCain and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Obama. Boschwitz was underpowered, uninspired and inarticulate. Schultz]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-15T02:40:13+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>Levelling the workplace -- to the ground</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/834376/levelling-the-workplace-to-the-ground.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="200" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Father%20with%20baby.jpg" /><br /> For a brief and hallucinatory instant, when I saw the beginning of this <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4327438.ece">story</a> in today&#8217;s Times:</p> <blockquote> <p>The radical extension of maternity leave and parents&#8217; rights is sabotaging women&#8217;s careers, according to the head of the new equalities watchdog. Nicola Brewer said that it was an inconvenient truth that giving women a year off work after the birth of each child - soon to be paid throughout - was making employers think twice before offering a job or promotion.</p> </blockquote> <p>I thought sanity had broken out at last. The equalities commisariat actually seemed to be acknowledging the inconvenient truth that ruinous leave arrangements for women discouraged employers from hiring them. This is hardly news to anyone in the real world; of course employers won&#8217;t hire workers who claim equality but then demand terms which are radically unequal and prohibitively expensive or unworkable. But since when did the Equality and Human Rights Commission inhabit the real world?</p> <p>Not yet, it seems. For a few paragraphs down it became clear that Ms Brewer&#8217;s remedy was to make it prohibitively expensive and unworkable <i>to hire men as well</i>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Ms Brewer said</blockquote>]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-14T02:38:28+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>Between a rock and the hardest of places</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/829026/between-a-rock-and-the-hardest-of-places.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="96" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Iran%20missiles%20photoshopped.jpg" /><br /> The Iranian dance of death continues as time progressively runs out. Iran upped the ante <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000639.html ">today </a>for the second day running by test-firing missiles capable of hitting not just Israel but southern Europe -- having apparently doctored the <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000992.html ">pictures</a> of yesterday&#8217;s firing to conceal the fact that one of its missiles didn&#8217;t work (the picture above showing the photoshopping of this image is from <a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php">Little Green Footballs</a>). Israel has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7500342.stm">responded </a>by warning it will strike Iran if it feels directly threatened and has shown off a spyplane that it says can spy on Iran. Condi Rice<a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQBFiLBz9Bgu9yUepyiRovIiFV0A "> says</a> America will protect its allies if Iran attacks them. Really? How? At what stage? After Tel Aviv lies in flames?</p> <p>There are faint <a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAELzmz6KNOYWPGo1TZ0w_NQ5YXw ">noises off </a>from both presidential candidates. McCain says tougher sanctions are needed. Obama says more talking is needed. Every time he says this &#8211; not to mention the fact that if this man becomes US President American military power will almost certainly be neutralised &#8211; Iran draws greater strength. We&#8217;ve been talking to Iran <i>and</i> imposing sanctions on it for]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-10T21:59:56+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>The 42-days debate</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/826516/the-42days-debate.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p><img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="95" align="top" src="/blogs/media//Image/London%20bombings%20bus%20wreckage.jpg" alt="" />To read today&#8217;s papers, you&#8217;d think that yesterday&#8217;s House of Lords debate on extending the time limit for detention before charge in terrorist cases from 28 to 42 days was a total and humiliating rout of the government&#8217;s position, with Security Minister Lord West&#8217;s lone frigate being blown out of the water by a fleet of destroyers led by the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, and with not even a rowing boat coming to his support. But <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80708-0002.htm#08070843000002">Hansard </a> records an altogether more complex argument, in which despite a blizzard of very serious but nevertheless largely tangential objections or assertions, Lord West&#8217;s main contention was never effectively challenged. This was the problem West outlined that 42 days was intended to address:</p> <blockquote> <p>Two factors are relevant to the issue of pre-charge detention, and to my assessment that there will be exceptional cases where the police will require more than 28 days to frame charges. First, because of the severe consequences of a successful terrorist attack, the police often need to intervene much earlier in terrorist cases. They cannot afford&#8212;and I would not want them to&#8212;to wait until an attack has</blockquote>]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-09T17:53:28+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>A moral revival?</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/824151/a-moral-revival.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p>&#160;</p> <img width="108" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="170" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/David%20Cameron,%20Spectator%20party%202008.jpg" /><br /> David Cameron&#8217;s <a href="http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&amp;obj_id=145626&amp;speeches=1">speech</a> about putting morality back into British life was certainly an event. The Tories have avoided the m-word like the plague since the &#8216;back-to-basics&#8217; debacle under the Major administration. This was a notable decision by Cameron to put his head into the jaws of the alligator. So far he has emerged not only unscathed but with many respectful and admiring noises in reaction. <p>Why has he not fallen victim to the &#8216;back-to-basics' trap? People say it&#8217;s because he has so successfully decontaminated the Tory brand. Because of his touchy-feely-greenery, the Tories can no longer credibly be painted as hatchet-faced bigots who would starve the feckless while kicking them into the gutter. Maybe so; but there are surely other explanations too.</p> <p>&#8216;Back-to-basics&#8217; was a good idea hopelessly sold. Although it was originally supposed to be about education, as I recall, the Tories allowed it to be presented as &#8216;moralising&#8217; about sexual behaviour. Given the serial sexual shenanigans of the then Tory administration along with its alleged animus against lone parents, the party set itself up for the media auto-da-fe which then ensued.</p> <p>Cameron&#8217;s speech steered clear of]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-08T19:30:23+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>



     <item>
       <title>This Britain</title>
       <link>http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/822416/this-britain.thtml</link>
       <description><![CDATA[<p>&#160;</p> <img width="150" vspace="5" hspace="5" height="113" align="top" alt="" src="/blogs/media//Image/Toddler.jpg" /><br /> From today&#8217;s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/2261307/Toddlers-who-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html">Telegraph</a>: <blockquote> Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency. The National Children's Bureau, which receives &#163;12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care. This could include a child of as young as three who says &#8216;yuk&#8217; in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food...Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. </blockquote> <p>&#160;</p>]]></description>
       <author></author>
	   <pubDate>2008-07-07T23:49:54+01:00</pubDate>
     </item>


   </channel>
</rss>
