Burma 'guilty of inhuman action'

That's what big Gordy says.

Money shot:

Mr Brown told the BBC that a natural disaster had been turned into a "man-made catastrophe" because of the negligence of the ruling generals.

That would be scanned.

The self interest and self preservation of the ruling elite of Burma/Myanmar[*] is causing unecessary pain, suffering and death to hundreds of thousands of people - a crime of enormous size.

But, wait:

Ten years later, the number of undernourished people in the world remains stubbornly high. In 2001–03, FAO estimates there were still 854 million undernourished people worldwide: 820 million in the developing countries, 25 million in the transition countries and 9 million in the industrialized countries.

Sayeth the Food and Agriculture Organisation. EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOUR **MILLION** undernourished folk in the world. Further:

• Over half a million women still die each year from treatable and preventable complications of pregnancy and childbirth. The odds that a woman will die from these causes in sub- Saharan Africa are 1 in 16 over the course of her lifetime, compared to 1 in 3,800 in the developed world.
• If current trends continue, the target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in
Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
• The number of people dying from AIDS worldwide increased to 2.9 million in 2006, and prevention measures are failing to keep pace with the growth of the epidemic. In
2005, more than 15 million children had lost one or both parents to AIDS.
• Half the population of the developing world lack basic sanitation. In order to meet the MDG target, an additional 1.6 billion people will need access to improved sanitation over the period 2005-2015. If trends since 1990 continue, the world is likely to miss the target by almost 600 million people.

According to the Millenium Development Report 2007.Finally, a quote found on Wikipedia

According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006: "In the world, approximately 62 millions people, all causes of death combined, die each year. In 2006, more than 36 millions died of hunger or diseases due to deficiencies in micronutrients"[9]."

All of which is to say, that there is a preventable catastrophe going on daily - a slow background grind, and that the reason we are not mobilising now to end it entirely, is because of the need to preserve the interests of ruling elites, who are prepared to countenance such inhumanity so liong as they're allright Jack.

[*]note: since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw (CIA World Fact Book).

By Special Request

By Special Request

Well, I've been asked my opinion on the Digby Jones situation.

Lets recap. Blair appointed David Sainsbury to his government - gave him a peerage, and a DTI ministery in an area connected with his family business. At least, though, he had given millions, millions, to the Labour Party - so that deal was straightforwardly corrupt.

Brown appoints Jones. That is more interesting, is Brown giving way to the city, or is his absorbing and recuperatign Jones from a position of strength?

Either way, what it illustrates is the semi-Fuedal power of the Prime Minister, the power of office, and that the interests of the office and its holder are3 not necessailly co-terminus with the party.

For Joe Cit the position remains that we are in effective permanent opposition to any Prime Minister, the only choice is between one we reckon we may be able to induce to tack and change to our tune rather than someone else's.

In this story, we are the great clunking fist, and Brown is the natty little gnat who can dodge and weave to avoid a squishing. yes, he's given away some powers, but mostly powers that are inherent in the PM having a parliamentary majority - the chase is on!

Labour in Harmany

Well, it's Harman, I must have been one of those transfers from Cruddas to Harman that got her through past Johnson.

That she won by speaking left more or less only on individual members' votes doesn't bode well for Brown's plan to neuter the unions at conference.

It also shows why he was perhaps right - in his own terms, - not to put his premiership to the vote - it wiould have been unlikely that he could have even got the thumping win his mentor Smith got in '92.
Teh fight is clearly on - I am intrigued to find out what he has in mind when he talks of Citizen's Juries, and how far he'll take the concept.

To butcher a metaphor, we've lost thousands of hours of our lives fighting to move the front a millimetre to the left - but it is a millimetre and we've won it.

Ramsay Brown?

It's the 1930's all over again - slim majorities, divided country, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And Gord Saveus has offered jobs to the Liberal-Satanists - cunnign ploy to divide and weaken them before an election? genuine sympathy for their politics and the grand progressive coalition? The long game preparing for a hung Parliament next time? All of the above?

Gordon Brown is an odd creature, his Wikipedia article seems to suggest he's never had a proper job outside politics, his entire existence seems to have been consumed by politics, and he clearly is a highly cunning political animal - Machiavelli was just the patsy for book Gordon wrote (it was a cunnign ploy involving a time machine, OK?). After all, Paddy "Driller-Killer" Ashdown (Former Dictator of Bosnia-Herzegovina) was approached by Brown after this story broke and offered a Cabinet post. Cabinet.

Maybe, just maybe, Brown's detachment from Labour is something to do with the servile and unchallenged way he got the job - he owes none of the PLP anything, and certainly doesn't have any rival staking a claim to his job and stalking him.

That's where to throw the blame. Tony Benn always used to highlight the power of patronage the Prime Minister has, and Julius Caius Brownsar has proven how effectvie this is in spades - ministerial colleagues can drag a PM down, but it's a grinding game, and at the minute he doesn't have a cabinet to resign from under him and is thus untouchable.

Brown Zedong

Well, to answer Darren's question, below, I would have voted McDonnell - I can't say I agree with him on everything, but at least he tried and he seems a nice personable gadgee.

But, to the ongoing debate - I got some literature from the Brown campaign through my door last night (who paid for that?). It reads like some of the interminable job applications I have to occasionally go through "I have decided to stand as leader of the Labour Party because I want to make a cotnribution to meeting the challenges ahead. I am capable of working under my own initiative and as a member of a team." OK, so I embellished the quote a little, but you get my drift.

The big question is, what sort of historical illiterates are running his campaign, see this picture here:

Look familiar? Well, it ought to, because it is reminiscent of quite a famous photo indeed:


That's right, brutal, tyranous murderous dictator Mao Zedong making himself seem all cuddly and smiley with lots of happy children, of course, he always secured 90% of the votes of the Chinese communist party as well. Maybe Brown really is a sixties child "If you go copying pictures of Chairman Maooo..."

My thoughts on how I will vote, a little later.

p.s. my initial private ey-ish title for this post was "Gordon Brown in paedophila shocker"...