Saturday, 26 February 2011

Our government seems to have been slow off the mark

Our government seems to have been slow off the mark in getting our people out of Libya. Peter Brookes of The Times brilliantly illustrates the point in today's paper.

I just love Peter Brookes. I am less enthusiastic about our government.

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Good news in the Cambridge News - crush 'em all!

Here's the picture that pleases and here's the link to the good news in the Cambridge News:

As a follow-up, I have sent the following letter to the Cambridge News:

ALL hare coursing is illegal!

Dear Editor,

Congratulations and thanks to our Cambridgeshire police for catching hare coursers and to our Ely magistrates for ordering their vehicle to be crushed.

However, your headline, 'Illegal hare coursers find it's a crushing experience,' has the potential to mislead. Thanks to the Hunting Act 2004 (which was passed with support from all parties), ALL hare coursing is now illegal, as are other so-called 'sports' such as fox hunting and stag hunting.

I write this as a farmer and as a born-and-bred countryman and I know that there are millions like me who do not wish to see re-legalised these loathsome practices.

Keep it up, Cambridgeshire police and magistrates: crush 'em all!

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Woollard.

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Facebook asks, 'What's on your mind?' Afghanistan!

I belong to Facebook. The Facebook system asks subscribers what's on their minds. Here is my answer posted just now:

"What's on my mind? Why, Afghanistan, of course. News has come via the BBC that two more of our brave soldiers have been killed in that hell-hole today. The total of British deaths is now 354. The killing must stop. Bring our boys home now."

I wrote to my M.P., Mr James Paice, on the 9th of June, 2008 (by which date 100 British soldiers had died 'over there'), as follows:

"The news from Afghanistan of three more British deaths is profoundly saddening and worrying. I recall President Bush (the idiot who can’t even pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ properly) declaring, after what the Americans call "9/11," that he/they/we were ‘gonna smoke him [Osama bin Laden] out.’ I supported the intention of doing that but bin Laden hasn’t been found, let alone been ‘smoked out,’ after nearly seven years. It appears to me that the time has come for us to draw a line under a disaster and to tell Mr Bush that one hundred British lives lost is enough. The British Empire (which I still hanker for) failed to tame the Afghans, the Soviet Empire admitted defeat at their hands and still we think that we can succeed where others failed and fell. If I thought that there was still a possibility of ‘smoking out’ Mr bin Laden, I would support as stoutly as anyone the continuing sacrifices of ourselves and the Americans. But I can’t help thinking that ‘special forces’ might have more success than our armies and that the latter should be withdrawn forthwith."

I wasted my time, for nothing has changed, except that we have lost 254 more of our brave British service-men during the past two and a half-plus years.

This war must be ended and I don't care how it is ended. We and our American allies are on to a loser.

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Amazon review - 'Supermac' - I gave it four stars only

I love reading. I never liked Harold Macmillan. I reckon that buying [£14.75 from Amazon] and reading Supermac was an exercise in masochism. Nevertheless, the book provided a very good read and I am grateful to Richard Thorpe for writing what Vernon Bogdanor has described as "the best biography of a post-war British Prime Minister yet written."

For all I know, Thorpe and Bogdanor believe that Macmillan was the best post-war Prime Minister we British had. I beg to disagree. I believe that 'Supermac' was a myth as to his nickname and a fraud and, thankfully, though the book is sympathetic to 'Uncle Harold,' much of the evidence for my verdict on the man is there in print, hundreds of pages of it.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding the Soviet Union. This seems to have stemmed from his first visit to Stalin's 'Evil Empire' in 1932. Some suspected him of being sympathetic to the Soviets for the rest of his life. Thorpe sets out the main facts that are known and exonerates his subject. I still have doubts.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding the Cossacks and the White Russians in 1945. As to how much 'in the wrong,' we shall never know, but he was an important figure at the time and the Cossacks and the White Russians suffered and died. Again, Thorpe sets out what he sees as the main facts. Readers must judge. I recommend them to do so.

Macmillan was in the wrong in placing faith in Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles at the time of Suez. The Americans were working to a different agenda and, though both Ike and Dulles subsequently realised their mistakes, the damage was done and we have been paying for it ever since.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding the pace of change in Africa. He and his chosen ministers - Butler, Macleod, Maudling, etc. - pushed for a typhoon-type 'wind of change' and the subsequent history of many former component parts of the British Empire in Africa casts doubt on the judgement of the prime pushers.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding the British economy and 'Keynesianism.' It is clear that his admiration and affection for John Maynard Keynes warped his judgement with dire economic consequences for Great Britain and its standing in the world. (His much later ridiculing of Margaret Thatcher over 'the family silver' was in the same vein, and wrong again).

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding our relations with Europe and the British Empire. In retrospect, it is easy to see that, whilst it was important for political reasons for the European Union to succeed, Macmillan's policies were expensive for the Empire and unsuccessful.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding the weaknesses of his Cabinet. In his aloof and patrician style - itself something of an act - he couldn't see - or didn't want to see - that the behaviour of such as John Profumo was a gift to the satirists. Indeed, Macmillan himself was a gift to the satirists.

Macmillan was in the wrong regarding President Kennedy and 'Camelot.' Like Ike, Jack Kennedy was working to a different agenda from Macmillan's and, though he was 'family' and regarded 'Uncle Harold' highly, they were in reality as chalk and cheese.

Where Harold Macmillan was in the right was in his going, for Richard Thorpe has set out clearly the key documentation, created at the behest of Macmillan from his hospital bed, that led to the succession in 1963 of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as leader of the Conservative Party and as Prime Minister. Though by no means perfect, Douglas-Home was the very best of a dubious bunch and I, for one, recall well my satisfaction at 'Rab' Butler being 'dished' yet again.

Despite my dislike for Macmillan, I would have given this book five stars were it not, first, for the too-extensive notes - 150 pages of them - some of which might more usefully have been edited or omitted and some incorporated into the text or inserted as footnotes on the relevant pages. The latter type is easier to take in than turning frequently to the notes section. And, second, the errors. Books with errors that I can spot myself - the most egregious being reference to Sir Harry Pilkington (later Lord Pilkington) being 'Chairman of the Federation of the Bank of England' when he was president of Federation of British Industries - worry me, for if I can spot some errors, those who are more expert and knowledgeable than I must be able to spot more and, if there are more errors, how does the average reader know what to take as fact?

Finally, I found myself cheering 'Supermac' when I read the following:

'Rule one in politics, he [Macmillan] often declared, was NEVER INVADE AFGHANISTAN [in capital letters]' (page 605). Intriguingly, I have not been able to find any reference to Mr Macmillan having said this. If he did, good for him: if he didn't, Richard Thorpe has made another mistake and has been a naughty boy.

So, good read, yes. Admirable subject, no. Overall, four stars.