Go Ahead, Justify

The Iraq Enquiry.

I simply had to touch on this at some point. By now we've had a number of the big guns speak, or justify, whatsoever you believe they're attempting to do.

Their are flaws to this procedure, and many people have been complaining.

1. It's not a legal enquiry, just a political one (alth0ugh that's hardly unusual in domestic situations)
2. Our politico's are under no oath whatsoever
3. The documents being published as a result are being limited

However, Sir John Chilcot, the chair of the Inquiry, has stated that he will attempt to publish as much information as possible, and as much as human beings are cynical by nature what's to say he cannot be believed on this one? It's a matter of opinion after all, and a vast improvement on the politicians that called for almost all of the documents related to the military interference in Iraq by the British (and America as our ally) to be shielded from the public gaze and, more importantly, scrutiny.

There have certainly been some interesting quotes emerge as a result of politicians more offering, as always, their opinions on events as opposed to factual accounts. These include Jack Straw asserting apparently wrongly that weapons inspectors could not access various Iraqi sites in 2002, Blair saying he would "do it all again" and Claire Short going on an angry vent, defending the honour of Gordon Brown as she went, a man she described as "very unhappy and marginalised (by Blair)". Overall, this is rather thrilling stuff, and it will be interesting to discover what the highly charged testimonies of some of our most senior politicians will produce in the form a report, made by some of the most prominent civil servants of the last few decades.

Finally, there's a little point that the press have continually, but quietly, made in relation to the enquiry and all the complaints surrounding it; the Americans have yet to have a public inquiry into any aspect of the Iraq War, whereas in the UK the Kelly Inquiry already took place years before this current enquiry. Although our politicians aren't being called to legal account, opinions are certainly being formed as a result of their own testimonies, and this must surely reflect a degree of both democracy and military accountability within the UK today.

Hedge Your Funds

In England our campaign process lasts a few short weeks, where our trusted representatives kiss babies, use technical jargon and generally over-populate the centre so as to gain a vote which in the end endorses a party not a person.

In the US it's kinda different. Big corporate bucks are used to try to sway the votes, although up until this week past those could not be used to directly influence the outcome for a specific candidate. That's all changed, though, when the current Supreme Court ruled that the century-old rules limiting US corporate expenditure on campaigns were unconstitutional based on the First Amendment that gives all US citizens freedom of speech.

Ok so you may wonder what the big deal is? Well, big business has traditionally been a machine that definitely leans toward the right. As a result the fear is that the Democrats, already suffering from the loss of Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts recently, will have a significantly lower degree of campaign finance than the Republicans for the mid-terms coming up this summer. This comes on top of the fact that 12 Democratic Representatives are not fighting for their seats again come this electoral cycle. And although the battle for Obama's old Senate seat isn't that close, the party must still attempt to focus a lot of effort on this embattled state.

The pressure is on for the Democrats in 2010. Obama's support is sliding and their hold on both houses is definitely loosening up. But there is hope for the party yet: this is politics after all and as Scott Brown (and his Cosmo!) proved the battle ain't over 'til it's over. This is going to be one interesting fight.

What's The Problem With Massachusetts?

In the last year the presidency of Barack Obama, one of the most anticipated in history, came full bloom with the honeymoon of his election ending and his actions being judged based upon what they were. He certainly scored high when coping with the financial crisis, and he even received a Nobel Peace Prize (what for no-one knows -details, details). However, the ride hasn't exactly been smooth either. He's done the whole troop resurgence thing, not closed Guantanamo as of yet and his healthcare reform has been what many would call highly controversial. So after all that could a small time, middle of the term, state election really have an effect on how his presidency is viewed?

A whole lot.

The election in Massachusetts, to replace Teddy Kennedy in his stoically held Senate seat, was essential because it marked the first big election since the defeats in other states just a few months ago. Since people tend to vote for the party that, when considering all elements associated with it, they most like then if they're voting for the party that a president isn't a member of it kinda implies that he isn't, well, like. So if a President was to lose a seat that had belonged to his party consistently historically then the outlook is kinda gloomy. The loss of the Massachusetts for Obama therefore kinda sucks. All of this just a few days before Obama's 1 year of presidency anniversary - the course of true electorate love never did run smooth.

Old Sport

My favourite political quote of 2009 came from David Cameron and he only just managed to squeeze it in their! Cam called for a "good clean fight" in the elections that will come up - at some point March, June, who knows? - at some point in the first half of 2010. I think the greatest achievement of this particular soundbite of loveliness is that CamCam has managed to be both hypocritical and ironic. Because let's face it when was politics ever 'clean'? The point of a representative democracy is that our politicians do the dirty work for us! We like it dirty! Plus for many voters the more competitive - read dirty - the fight is the more likely they are going to come out to the polls, something that the British voting levels are starting to need.

And I personally think Cameron needs to focus his words slightly closer to home. From the NHS/American Healthcare/Daniel Hannan drama in August, to the Tories latest 'attack' over Mobiles being smuggled into prisons, the Tories have been doing a whole lot of dirty fighting themselves.

On a serious level though I think that there may be some real truths hidden deep down in Cameron's words. Since politics became less about policies and more about personalities it seems that much of the public have lost their respect for politicians, and their desire to participate. So maybe a well fought battle would be enough to inspire more people to vote. And as long as it stays a battle it would still be just as fun for those who just love to watch!