In the Huffington Post Robert Canvar isn't sad to say goodbye to Tony Hayward:

"I'll refrain from calling Hayward a Toffee-Nosed, Yacht-Racing-Snob as others have called him. I'll just continue to hope that without him, BP will at some point have a chance gain a soul and remember the now 26 Americans who have been killed in two BP accidents, 5 years apart. Safe operations and profit are not mutually exclusive. You just need a management who cares enough to make it so."

Rosabeth Moss Kanter says in Harvard Business Review that Tony Hayward's resignation won't be the end of BP's troubles:

"When an executive becomes responsible for the fate of a company, he gets power, privilege, and enormous pay. He is expected to act to enhance the institution, not to undermine it. Of course, his departure will not save BP nor miraculously reverse the damage. But Hayward's departure allows BP to grab a broom for a clean sweep and fresh start."

The Times editorial calls for [subscription required] the BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to resign as well:

"Carl-Henric Svanberg, BP's Swedish chairman, was scarcely visible for much of the crisis. When he eventually arrived on the scene and visited BP's disaster operations in Houston, he did so accompanied by his girlfriend, on his way back from Thailand. He had gone there on holiday while his colleagues worked through the May nights to contain what turned out to be America's worst oil spill.
 
"Mr Svanberg is not paid almost £750,000 a year to be strong and silent. He is paid to take responsibility, to communicate effectively, to manage the board and to back his management in difficult times. His failure to do that has too much resembled an attempt to protect his own reputation. In fact, he has sabotaged it. He has misunderstood the role of chairman: it is more than corporate governance."

Steve LeVine asks in NPR if Tony Hayward's replacement Bob Dudley will be any better:

"BP appears prepared today to answer its very American problem with a very American solution - replacing its decent and gentlemanly, yet deeply British and culturally tin-eared CEO, Tony Hayward, with Bob Dudley, who grew up in Mississippi and is demonstrating a knack with American public relations. That's the strength and also the weakness in the choice of the 54-year-old Dudley - he'll do as well as anyone toward getting BP back on track with Washington, and limiting the political fallout of the April 20th Gulf of Mexico oil spill. But whether he's the type of personality who can turn around Wall Street, and battle successfully for assets around the world, are other matters entirely."

John Sauven argues in the Guardian that the route of BP's mistake is trying to drill in hard-to-reach places:

"The new chief executive needs to learn from Tony Hayward's mistakes and turn his back on deepwater drilling as well as even more risky projects in the untouched Arctic wilderness and the tar sands. Greenpeace is urging Bob Dudley, the company's new CEO - who once worked at BP's solar and wind business - to take the company in a new direction after his predecessor's concentration on high risk, environmentally reckless sources of oil."

Links in full

• Robert Canvar | Huffington Post | Hayward Gets Life Back; American Workers Still Dead
• Rosabeth Moss Kanter | Harvard Business Review | Leadership Tips from Tony Hayward (or Not)
• Times | Failure of Leadership
• Steve LeVine | NPR | Is Dudley Any Better Than Hayward?
• John Sauven | Guardian | BP should end the oil age early

Ex-Conservative MP Paul Goodman says in the Telegraph that David Davis's jibe that this is a "Brokeback coalition" uncovers fear among some on the right of the Tory party that they are being ignored by their leader:

"But there's a real Tory anxiety behind the camp jokes that compare the Prime Minister and his deputy to gay cowboys. After all, it's only a few weeks since Cameron tried to merge the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers with his Ministerial team. He was forced to back down, and the internal elections that followed were a landslide for the Right. The PM recently wooed a mass meeting of Tory MPs, telling them that he will do more to love his party. But they suspect his passions are engaged elsewhere. 'I wish I knew how to quit you,' says one of the Brokeback Mountain lovers to the other. Some Conservatives fear that their leader, too, is gripped by a compulsion he simply can't resist."

Tory blogger Iain Dale thinks the coalition is doing well with working out differences:

"Of course there are differences between coalition parties. Otherwise the two parties would become one. So far any differences have been ironed out very quickly, and the fact that interpersonal relationships are good says a lot about the goodwill between the party leaderships. I actually think that goodwill is reflected in the vast majority of both parliamentary parties and their memberships."

The Guardian editorial says despite positive poll results, the coalition members will still have to do more to convince the public:

"On balance, the public likes parties to co-operate and thinks the coalition is doing a good job. But this could change as the political drumbeat increases in the autumn, Labour elects a new leader and the cuts kick in. Any such change is likely to rattle Lib Dem nerves before it shakes... If they are to avoid party revolts and major disenchantment among well-wishers, Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem ministers are going to have to do a much more active and sensitive job of selling the coalition, and the place of the spending cuts within it, than they have done thus far."

In the Financial Times Philip Stephens looks at how the coalition has been working out for the opposition:

"As it is, Mr Cameron's enforced marriage to Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats has bred a lethal complacency on Westminster's opposition benches.
 
"Savage public spending cuts will soon enough put an end to the coalition's honeymoon, the reasoning goes. All Labour need do is sit tight, denounce each and every cut, and wait for Mr Clegg's party to lose its nerve. Labour, after all, is only 50 seats behind the Tories in the House of Commons. Political professionals call that a one-election margin.
 
"The trouble with this thesis is that there is no iron law of politics that says an electorate fed up with its government will necessarily opt for the alternative. One might have thought that Labour had learnt that lesson during the 1980s. Angry as it will doubtless become with the coalition, the nation is not stupid."

James Forsyth says in the Spectator that once Labour has a new leader, the Liberal Democrats will be in danger:

"Over the summer, the Coalition will have to devote considerable energy to working out how to protect the Lib Dems against the onslaught that is coming from the new Labour leader. Any further erosion in the Lib Dem poll rating could well destabilise the government."

Rachel Sylvester speculates in the Times [subscription required] that the coalition is going so well that there may be further alliance in the next election:

"What is a very real possibility, though, is some sort of electoral pact. Michael Portillo recently predicted that Conservative and Liberal Democrats would stand as 'coalition candidates' in 2015. Another option is for both parties to encourage anti-Labour tactical voting. Yesterday Mark Field, a Tory MP, said he thought that the Conservatives would give Lib Dems a 'free run' or 'hold their fire' in seats where Labour is the main challenge...
 
"The introduction of AV would, of course, make it easier for the two parties to come to an informal arrangement. Mr Cameron could simply urge Conservatives to put Lib Dems as their second choice, and Mr Clegg ask supporters to put the Tory below the Lib Dem. This may be why the Prime Minister is agnostic about a change to the voting system - and why some of his allies are actively promoting the idea of reform."

Links in full

• Paul Goodman | Telegraph | Cameron and Clegg have entered a partnership that's too civil for the Right
• Iain Dale | The BrokeBack Club Should Be Strangled at Birth
• Guardian | British politics: End of the beginning
• Philip Stephens | Financial Times | Labour has fallen victim to electoral success
• James Forsyth | Spectator | Protecting the Coalition's vulnerable party
• Rachel Sylvester | Times | Could the Tories swing a metrosexual merger?

Tunku Varadarajan at the Daily Beast says the leaks show Islamabad is the "Taliban's faithful ally":

"In fact, one might say that the one good thing to come out of this latest leak - a thing so good that it is worth the 'collateral damage' to the US from everything else - is that it could spell the end of Pakistan's repulsive double game. This is a game in which that country takes billions of dollars of our aid money (money paid, in part, in taxes by the kin of American soldiers killed by the Taliban) and then blithely, devilishly, mendaciously stabs us in the back by arming, protecting, financing, hiding, and advising the same forces against whom this country is at war. We pay them money so that they can help our enemies kill us."

The Guardian editorial says the Afghanistan war logs highlight the risk to the US from Pakistan:

"But yesterday's White House response to the claims that elements of the Pakistan army had been so specifically linked to the militants made it plain that the status quo is unacceptable. It said that safe havens for militants within Pakistan continued to pose 'an intolerable threat' to US forces. However you cut it, this is not an Afghanistan that either the US or Britain is about to hand over gift-wrapped with pink ribbons to a sovereign national government in Kabul. Quite the contrary. After nine years of warfare, the chaos threatens to overwhelm. A war fought ostensibly for the hearts and minds of Afghans cannot be won like this."

Blake Hounshell says in Foreign Policy that the war logs don't tell us anything new:

"Otherwise, I'd say that so far the documents confirm what we already know about the war: It's going badly; Pakistan is not the world's greatest ally and is probably playing a double game; coalition forces have been responsible for far too many civilian casualties; and the United States doesn't have very reliable intelligence in Afghanistan...
 
"I do think that the stories will provoke a fresh round of Pakistan-bashing in Congress, and possibly hearings. But the administration seems inclined to continue with its strategy of nudging Pakistan in the right direction, and is sending the message: Move along, nothing to see here."

In the New Yorker Amy Davidson argues against the New York Times' conclusion that overall the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war:

"What does it mean to tell the truth about a war? Is it a lie, technically speaking, for the Administration to say that it has faith in Hamid Karzai's government and regards him as a legitimate leader - or is it just absurd? Is it a lie to say that we have a plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense at all? If you put it that way, each of the WikiLeaks documents - from an account of an armed showdown between the Afghan police and the Afghan Army, to a few lines about an local interdiction official taking seventy-five dollar bribes, to a sad exchange about an aid scam involving orphans - is a pixel in a picture that does, indeed, contradict official accounts of the war, and rather drastically so."

Simon Crowley suggests in Time magazine that even if the leaks don't reveal anything new, they can still have major consequences:

"Sometimes it can be crystallizing to see hard truths articulated not by reporters covering a war but in the real-time reports of the men and women on the ground. Moreover, the media frenzy about the documents--we're already seeing comparisons to the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers - is bound to startle the public and put a further dent in support for the war.
 
"And that's not nothing. In recent months we've seen a steady drumbeat of bad headlines from Afghanistan, from the mixed success of the ballyhooed Marjah offensive to the spectacular flame out of General Stanley McChrystal. The Wikileak dump is certain to accelerate the feeling, both around the country and here in Washington, that the war effort isn't sustainable for much longer. And right now, the biggest secret of all, the one no one is leaking, is whether Barack Obama agrees."

Links in full

• Tunku Varadarajan | Daily Beast | Pakistan's Shameful Double Dealing
• Guardian | Afghanistan war logs: the unvarnished picture
• Blake Hounshell | Foreign Policy | Do the Wikileaks documents tell us anything new?
• Amy Davidson | New Yorker | WikiLeaks and the War
• Michael Crowley | Time | What the Wikileak Means for the Afghanistan War

In the Daily Mail Roy Hattersley calls 24-hour drinking "Labour's ghastly mistake":

"One man's right to drink himself into an aggressive frenzy denies another man the right to walk home safely. Freedom to drink into the small hours is often inconsistent with the freedom to enjoy a good night's sleep without the fear that some hooligan is being sick on the front door step or tearing plants out of the garden...
 
"A society which endorsed round-the-clock drinking is half way to accepting that such conduct, even though undesirable, is unavoidable. I am a very long way from believing that is so. England can do better."

Andrew Gilligan says in the Telegraph that preserving good pubs is the key to responsible drinking:

"Yet pubs are still, I think, the key to responsibility in drinking. They just have to be the right kind of pubs. We need to get back to the idea of drinking as a social activity in ordinary pubs, not getting off our faces in town-centre booze factories, because a sensible social setting is a check on the worst excesses of drinking...
 
"The most important part of the proposals trailed yesterday is not about licensing hours, but the plan to end the sale of shop alcohol at below cost price. That is something we must tackle if we are to save the British pub, and remove alcohol from the pocket-money range of Welsh schoolchildren."

Paul Routledge says in the Mirror that the Tories would be right to ban 24-hour drinking:

"This is one New Labour mistake worth rectifying. It was the brainchild of James Purnell, who has now quit politics, having trashed our public spaces with his daft ideas of 'continental drinking'."

The Independent editorial says reform to the licensing hours which allowed 24-hour drinking was long overdue:

"Reform to licensing hours was overdue. The old fixed drinking times were not a venerable English tradition. They were imposed in the First World War, to herd people home early so that they could rise at dawn and be in the munitions factories on time. It is true that Labour's changes did not lead to a much talked about 'continental' drinking culture taking root here. In retrospect it was foolish to raise such expectations. The British pub, the French cafe and Spanish tapas bar are very different species.
 
"In the meantime, the link drawn between the phenomenon of binge drinking, to which people rightly object, and more flexible licensing hours, needs questioning. A fruitful line of inquiry might explore the connection between excess drinking and the availability of very cheap alcohol in clubs and supermarkets. It might also be worth pondering why so many people in this country feel a need to seek total oblivion from their surroundings through alcohol."

Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers chief executive Nick Bish points out in the pub trade's Morning Advertiser that nothing is decided yet:

"I am appalled by the Daily Mail. They are trying to take ownership of a consultation document and assuming it will all be passed through. Of course, we all know that the majority of places that have 24-hour licences are the supermarkets."

Links in full

• Roy Hattersley | Daily Mail | Labour's ghastly mistake: The introduction of 24-hour drinking was New Labour at its silliest, says this party grandee
• Andrew Gilligan | Telegraph | 24-hour drinking: Preserving good pubs will help our drinking problem
• Paul Routledge | Mirror | Tories are right to ban 24 hour drinking
• Independent | Oblivious to logic
• Ewan Turney | Morning Advertiser | Licensing Act consultation to last six weeks

Ewan Crawford argues in the Guardian that the Scottish decision was based purely on compassion:

"As far as the Libyan agreement is concerned there may well be issues for UK ministers to address, but not for the Scottish government. As a devolved administration it has no access to any BP tax revenues - these flow directly into the Treasury, and it is forbidden from playing a formal role in international affairs. There were no political, economic or diplomatic advantages for the SNP government in releasing Megrahi."

The Telegraph editorial suggests that the decision can be seen as British, rather that Scottish:

"It was patently to the advantage of the Labour government to see Megrahi released. It not only set the seal on the return of Libya into the international community (a wholly desirable development), but also opened the way to potentially lucrative commercial deals, particularly in oil and gas. Yet Gordon Brown remained silent until Megrahi was back in Libya, determined not to attract the inevitable opprobrium; he was more than happy to see his old foes, the Scottish Nationalists, take the flak."

Analysis in the Scotsman of the fallout from the Centre for the Study of Terrorism says there is an advantage forScotland to the release being seen as a British decision:

"Considering even American politicians seem to have missed the distinction between Scotland's role and that of the UK - as calls by Senator Chuck Schumer to restore 'the integrity of the British government' suggest - it seems unlikely the anger against Scotland will be protracted."

The Scotland Herald's editorial calls for a full Lockerbie inquiry:

"Cameron has indicated that if any fresh concerns arise over the release he would consider an inquiry. But it is not the release of Megrahi which is at issue.
 
"The basis of conviction is an entirely different matter. Lockerbie is unfinished business that will not end with Megrahi's death. That can only be achieved by a wide-ranging, independent inquiry with the power to demand all the available documentation. That is what should be assessed."

Alexander Cockburn alleges in the First Post that the basis of Megrahi's conviction "was one of the great judicial scandals of the 20th Century":

"Amid all the bellowing about the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in 1988, all current commentary ignores the hippo in the room - which is the powerful evidence that Megrahi was innocent, framed by the US and British security services and originally found guilty because Scottish judges had their arms brutally twisted by Westminster."

Links in full

• Ewan Crawford | Guardian | Megrahi release was compassionate, not political
• Telegraph | It's time to learn the truth about Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
• Scotsman | Lockerbie affair will have little effect on long-term relations with the US
• Herald | We need a full Lockerbie inquiry
• Alexander Cockburn | First Post | How Megrahi and Libya were framed for Lockerbie

Ben Feller says in Real Clear Politics that David Cameron was "notably defensive" when talking about BP but one subject took over the event:

"Cameron had hoped to use his first visit to the US since taking office 10 weeks ago to build his standing as a statesman and develop his relationship with President Barack Obama.
 
"Instead, the Lockerbie issue overshadowed a broader agenda that Obama and Cameron discussed in the Oval Office and over lunch Tuesday before addressing reporters."

Matt Browne speculates in Politico that the jokes between Obama and Cameron where nothing more than stagecraft:

"On closer inspection, the forced bonhomie between the two looks more like the declarations of love that elderly married couples give publicly to friends and family after a turbulent spell in their relationship. All [the] while they privately negotiate an amicable divorce... Tuesday's meeting between two old allies might give Obama a welcome respite from national politics. But, one cannot help but wonder whether a visit from a more progressive partner might not be more useful to him domestically. Could it be that Obama is missing Brown?"

Before the meeting Lloyd Grove at the Daily Beast suggested that the differences between Gordon Brown and David Cameron would be an advantage:

"The new prime minister, of course, is no Gordon Brown - a dour Scot with no gift for small talk. Cameron is young and charming, and on several previous meetings, he and Obama were very simpatico."

The comparisons continue with Julie Mason in the Washington Examiner looking at how David Cameron's relationship with the US matches up to that of Tony Blair:

"For his part, Cameron hopes to quiet the relentless drumbeat of criticism of BP from Washington, and show constituents that he can manage a relationship with the leader of the free world that improves on former Prime Minister Tony Blair's reputation as America's 'poodle.'
 
"Ahead of his visit, Cameron expressed concern about how the BP oil spill is hurting the company and pension funds invested in the now-troubled oil giant."

David Cameron is not Tony Blair, Helene Cooper at the New York Times agrees, but she thinks the jokes about beer and children's comparative tidiness may have repaired recent damage:

"It was not quite the Tony Blair-Bill Clinton love fest of 1997, but President Obama and the newly minted British prime minister, David Cameron, appeared game to do everything they could on Tuesday to take some of the recent chill out of the relationship between their countries."

Links in full

• Ben Feller | Real Clear Politics | Cameron rebuffs US
• Matt Browne | Politico | Where next for special relationship?
• Lloyd Grove | Daily Beast | America's New Frenemy
• Julie Mason | Washington Examiner | Bomber clouds Obama-Cameron meeting
• Helene Cooper | New York Times | What's Still Special in the U.S.-Britain Relationship

"What was once a 40-strong multinational effort born out of international outrage over the attacks of September 11 2001 has become an American-dominated operation with a fast-disappearing supporting cast. The Netherlands and Canada, both substantial troop-contributing nations in the restive southern provinces, are both pulling out in the next 12 months. The new British coalition government is an uneasy mix of those who are steadfast in their commitment and those who are committed to an early exit...
 
"Now is time to decide which course to follow: Change the way things are run in Afghanistan for good, or get out."

The president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass argues in Newsweek that their not winning so Afghanistan is not worth it:

"Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better."

Richard Barrett suggests in the Guardian that it is possible for the US and UK to exit without admitting defeat:

"Britain and the US will want two things. First, the opportunity to argue that the lives lost and money spent since 2001 have not been wasted, and second, some assurance that al-Qaida will not return. In the UK a new government has scope to change policy, but in the US there will be great sensitivity to any suggestion that the administration has failed to atone for 9/11. Talking to the Taliban is acceptable to US voters, but only if done from a position of strength.
 
"However, it is perfectly reasonable for Nato to declare victory. The aim of the Afghan campaign has always been to defeat al-Qaida and al-Qaida is now barely present. The Taliban insist they have no intention of interfering with the security of any other nation. There seems every reason to put them to the test."

The Economist's Asia view says that no-one at the conference pointed out the compromises involved in leaving Afghanistan:

"Their idea is to trade legitimacy for stability, so as to allow their own troops to go home. The most hard-nosed realists, including some of the diplomats sitting behind their foreign-minister bosses, say that extraordinary compromises will have to be made, particularly on women's rights. Perhaps even the country's territory would have to be traded away: the south handed to the Taliban, the north to a grizzly collection of old warlords, with only a token national government left in Kabul."

The Times editorial says
[subscription required] criticism of the decision should be put in perspective:

"The implications of the new policy, however, are far from subtle. It is inevitable that the shift will be seized upon by our enemies as evidence that we are cutting and running. It should be remembered that if we chose to stay, it would be seized upon as an attempt to impose an empire and suppress its people. We cannot have our strategy dictated by their propaganda."

The Telegraph editorial urges Western governments not to let go of control of aid to Afghanistan:

"He heads the most corrupt regime on the planet: a sickening proportion of the £24 billion in aid that has poured in since 2001 has been siphoned off by politicians and officials, much of it - we learned last week - fuelling a property boom in Dubai. Mr Karzai's request for even more money to be channelled through the government should have been given short shrift, for his latest pledge to root out corruption is, quite simply, worthless.
 
"A more creative use of aid - despite our debt crisis, this country is unfathomably increasing its own contribution by 40 per cent - would be to direct some of it to those Pashtun tribal leaders willing to resist the Taliban."

Links in full

• Greg Mills | Financial Times | Western policy in Afghanistan at a crossroads
• Richard Haass | Newsweek | We're not winning. It's not worth it
• Richard Barrett | Guardian | Taliban put to the test
• Asia view | Economist | What cannot be said in five minutes
• Times | The Endgame Begins
• Telegraph | Afghanistan: We need to defeat the Taliban, not increase aid

Conservative MP and chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Local Democracy Rory Stewart gives his experience in the Times [subscription required] of big society in Cumbria:

"It is not necessarily about charities or even the private sector, both of which are capable of manufacturing jargon as impenetrable and procedures as rigid as the most Byzantine bureaucracy. Nor is it about atomised individuals allowed to do whatever they want.
 
"It's about collective action. We have more common land in Cumbria than anywhere in Britain; stronger co-ops and mutualised banks; we support everything from the air ambulance to mountain rescue. These are not undertaken by grand philanthropists; they are about collective endeavour, be it on planning, financing, building, maintaining or supporting. This is what we mean by local democracy."

Aditya Chakrabortty suggests in the Guardian that voters may not want to be given choice:

"[W]hat ministers have promised time and again over the last couple of weeks is much greater choice in some of the most important aspects of our lives: schools, hospitals, community services. Whenever they describe the sunlit uplands of choice, David Cameron and his men make two linked claims: first, that we are better off shopping around for public services, and second, that the exercising of choice will force headteachers and hospital managers to raise their game. Nor is that solely a Tory belief: Tony Blair (remember him?) used to go on in much the same vein.
 
"Yet the evidence from these studies, and many others, is that those two premises do not stack up - because we're not that skilled at choosing. This doesn't mean that policy-makers should slip into something a little more centrally-planned instead. But it does suggest that ever-proliferating options aren't necessarily helpful or useful."

Phil Hendren in his blog Dizzy Thinks points out some ideas aren't new:

"So, back in 2005, Gordon Brown, as the then Chancellor, said he was going to use money in dormant bank accounts and give it to community projects. The Tories attacked it, quite rightly, on the issue of whether it was even legal to seize the funds from people's dormant bank accounts...
 
"And now, we reach today, 2010, and we have, yes that's right, the proposals for a 'Big Society Bank' which is, in no way whatsoever the same thing as a 'Social Investment Bank', which will use money from dormant bank accounts to fund community projects."

Mike Smithson suggests in his blog Political Betting that voters won't be impressed with helping stable projects compared to new ones:

"The emphasis on philanthropy is a good one but how well will it go down amongst voters who've been brought up to believe that many core provisions are funded by the state?
 
"And having spent the last decade and a half as a professional fund-raiser I can tell [David Cameron] that the toughest giving proposition is to ask someone to provide support to deal with the consequences of government cut-backs. Donors like to fund the new and innovative not to keep sustain things that already exist."

Steve Richards wonders in the Independent what happens if the idea doesn't work:

"The risk for Cameron is that his big idea will not work. Quite often the state can deliver where individuals cannot. Last week the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced cuts to cooling systems on the overheated Tubes, saving a few million pounds. Under the Big Society he would no doubt call on travellers to bring their own personal fans as a more communal and cheaper alternative. Perhaps some would for a time, but in the end most projects in which the state has some connection require investment, expertise and co-ordination."

Links in full

• Aditya Chakrabortty | Guardian | More choice is not helpful to society
• Phil Hendren | Dizzy Thinks | Gordon Cameron's Big Social Investment Society Bank
• Mike Smithson | Political Betting | Is big society too nebulus a concept?
• Anna Coote | Guardian | Cameron's 'big society' will leave the poor and powerless behind
• Rory Stewart | Times | Big Society? It's all about liberating the locals
• Steve Richards | Independent | But what if the Big Society doesn't work?

The Telegraph editorial argues that issues over Afghanistan, the Lockerbie bomber's release from jail and BP all prove that the US-UK relationship is still important, just not necessarily special:

"The fact is that these visits do matter, perhaps no longer to assert a 'special' relationship of the sort defined by Winston Churchill in 1945 but a pragmatic partnership of mutual respect and shared interests. To that end, it always helps if the two leaders get on well."

The Daily Mail editorial urges David Cameron to make sure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber doesn't put him on the back foot in discussions:

"But Mr Cameron, while himself rightly disgusted by Megrahi's release, must not allow this week's official visit to turn into another opportunity for the Obama administration to denigrate this nation and its interests. In particular, there must be no repeat of his initial reluctance to defend BP against continued attacks from Mr Obama and his colleagues. Yes, its response to the Gulf spill was shambolic, but the company remains vital to our economic well-being."

The Times editorial says [subscription required] that the timing is right to redefine the special relationship:

"On both Afghanistan and BP, Mr Obama's position is defensive as his political problems pile up. Mr Cameron, therefore, has the opportunity to be exactly what the special relationship demands: a candid friend. The interests of the two nations remain closely aligned. This is not a moment, such as Harold Wilson's repudiation of the Vietnam conflict in 1966, for a breach in relations. But it is a moment for Britain to exert its position as a confident partner to the nation that, for all the rapid emergence of India, will remain its closest ally for the foreseeable future."

In the Independent David Usborne says despite planned media coverage in the US, the special relationship doesn't matter in the US:

"At least there were some corny TV images when Tony Blair went to George Bush's ranch in Texas - but Obama doesn't have one of those, and Cameron is not a natural for the buddy role. Mr Cameron has said he doesn't want Britain to be 'slavish' in its dealings with the US. But that doesn't mean that he is any less anxious than his recent predecessors to keep alive the narrative of the special relationship. Like the permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it helps Britain look more important than it is. Still, Cameron muddied the myth a little bit by acknowledging in an eve-of-visit interview with Time magazine that Britain is very much the junior in that partnership."

Jackie Ashley says in the Guardian that the trip is a ritual with all substance lost:

"For the US, the most important relationships are with China, the rising Asian countries, the Hispanic nations to the south, and the EU as a trading bloc. Britain is way down the list. Cameron has described us as the junior partner in the relationship, which is obvious; but it is no longer such an important relationship anyway."
 
"What I fear is that the Tories have to burnish their closeness to the US mainly because they cannot acknowledge the reality, which is that we are tied to Europe more strongly than they'd like."

Links in full

• Telegraph | A pragmatic Mr Cameron goes to Washington
• Daily Mail | Mr Cameron must stand up for Britain
• Times | A Candid Friend
• Jackie Ashley | Guardian | The PM's American trip is a ritual with all substance lost
• David Usborne | Independent | The PM will never bring America to a standstill

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_the_special_relatio.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_the_special_relatio.html Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:19:47 +0000 Commentators discuss the Labour leadership contest in the context of revelations about New Labour revealed in Peter Mandelson's memoirs.

The Telegraph editorial urges the Labour leadership candidates to learn from "Labour's ghastly soap opera":

"Lord Mandelson recalls a conversation with that party wiseacre, Sir Gerald Kaufman, who tells him: 'Gordon is what he is... we're stuck with him. What you cannot cure, you endure.' But Labour was not stuck with Mr Brown - they put him in office and then kept him there. Nobody in the Cabinet challenged him for the leadership when Mr Blair resigned, and on at least three occasions the opportunity to remove him from Number 10 was ducked. The four former Cabinet members who are now competing for the Labour leadership should look back on this period and consider how they might have behaved in the public interest, rather than their own. They will have plenty of time in opposition to reflect."

In the Independent, Steve Richards looks at what the conflicts exposed by Peter Mandelson's memoirs mean for the contenders for leadership:

"[T]he biggest lesson from this latest version of the soap opera is that running a party from the very top becomes as destructively intense as one in which virtually every member is consulted in advance on what should be in the Budget. Sometimes, a leader and a Chancellor benefit from being compelled to consult more widely before making policy decisions...
 
"That does not mean giving control back to a party. Parties are too weak to acquire such assertiveness. But there must be a model for party politics that navigates between two extremes in which mad, bad and dangerous becomes an inevitable epitaph. For now New Labour leaves behind a perceived legacy that is almost as dangerous for the party's next leader as the one that a series of leaders faced after it left power in 1979."

In Guido Fawkes' blog, Paul Staines imagines a fake diary entry of Ed Balls' which would deal with Gordon Brown trying to get involved in the campaign:

"Think I have got Gordon off the idea of 'helping' with the campaign. Told him I would be proud to have him sit behind me in the chamber. It dawned on him that he wouldn't be sitting on the front bench. Pretty sure we won't see him in parliament being mocked by the Tories."

In the blog Political Betting, Henry Manson speculates that Ed Miliband is the likely winner of the leadership battle:

"David Miliband is running the most professional campaign by far and I hear whispers he may receive a valued endorsement any day soon. However unless he can considerably pull away from his brother, he will surely be reeled in once transfers kick in on all sections of the college - as the Socialist Health Associate figures so clearly demonstrate.
 
"Despite not knowing for certain how the big unions will fall, I believe Ed Miliband should be evens at most to be the next Labour leader. He remains the clear value bet."

Mehdi Hasan says in the New Statesman that none of the five candidates have "the vision thing":

"The scandal of this contest is not that four of the five candidates are former special advisers and ex-cabinet ministers, or that five out of five of them are Oxbridge graduates, but that all five of this quintet of well-educated, well-informed, elite and wonkish candidates have failed to come up with a Big Idea between them. Instead, there are nudges to the left or the right, on this or that issue; shifts in tone or emphasis that give them room for tactical, if not strategic, manoeuvre."

Links in full

• Telegraph | Labour's ghastly soap opera
• Steve Richards | Independent| Were new labour mad bad and dangerous?
• Paul Staines | Guido Fawkes' blog | Ed Balls Campaign Diary*
• Henry Manson | Political Betting | Henry G says EdM should be evens or tighter
• Daily Mail | If only Tony Blair had stuck to his ambition of being a rock star

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_labour_leadership.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_labour_leadership.html Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:44:52 +0000 Commentators discuss the NHS reform proposals.

• Read the NHS reform White Paper in full

Ex Tory shadow health minister Ann Widdecomne says in the Express that Andrew Landsley is right to restore fundholding to GPs:

"It was one of the biggest successes of the Thatcher administration and, although originally suspicious, the medical profession became so enthusiastic that by the time the Conservatives left office in 1997 almost two thirds of GPs were fundholding or applying to be so. 
"It had never been made compulsory but was simply allowed to sell itself.
Quite simply it means that GPs can refuse to use hospitals where procedures or attitudes are unsatisfactory and buy places elsewhere. Hence block appointments with patients waiting around all morning disappeared and did not creep back until Labour took away doctors' power."

GP Ann Robinson observes in the Guardian that those in her profession may not be the best people to be in control of NHS money:

"At the moment, I attend a commissioning group meeting four times a year. It is dominated by a few individuals who have a strong agenda. Most participants eat their sandwiches in silence, nod off and appear to have little understanding of, or interest in, proceedings. The responsibility involved in commissioning is huge and the training nonexistent. It doesn't appear on the medical school curriculum: I've never been sent on or offered a course and can't read a balance sheet. Why would anyone want me to be responsible for complex budgetary decisions?"

Kevin Maguire argues in the Mirror that the reform is just cloaked privatisation:

"Strip away the management speak and David Cameron's naked policy is to privatise health, to wreck universal free care, to recreate the postcode lottery, to celebrate markets over medical need, to champion profit ahead of patients. Dr Cameron and his junior medic Andrew Lansley are, of course, too scared to tell the truth."

Fraser Nelson warns in the Telegraph that history is repeating itself, but not from the Thatcher years, instead from New Labour:

"Andrew Lansley's White Paper on health, for example, was released yesterday - almost exactly 10 years after Tony Blair's NHS Plan. Rather than being a refutation of the Blair-era health strategy, it looks strikingly like a reprisal. Once again, we see the excellent idea of a full internal market within the NHS. Once again, we are told to look forward to the greatest overhaul since its inception in 1948. And once again, we see a Health Secretary showing almost touching confidence that the NHS bureaucracy will play along and that the Primary Care Trusts will fully co-operate in their own abolition. 
"Ten years ago, Mr Blair and Alan Milburn also believed they could direct reform from Whitehall. But as time went on, they found that they were outmanoeuvred at every level. GPs would simply refuse to inform patients that they had the right to attend a private clinic at the NHS's expense."

John Rentoul suggests in the Independent that the communication strategy surrounding the announcement of reforms has been lamentable:

"It has widely been reported as the biggest reorganisation since Nye Bevan or somebody. People do not want a reorganised health service, they want a better one. What on earth went wrong?"

Links in full

• Ann Widdecombe | Daily Express | NHS reforms are a good move
• Ann Robinson | Guardian | GPs are doctors, not accountants
• Kevin Maguire | Mirror | David Cameron's deadly threat to our NHS
• Fraser Nelson | Telegraph | Can the Coalition triumph on the battlefield where Tony Blair was beaten?
• John Rentoul | Independent | Andrew Lansley's disaster

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_nhs_reform.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_nhs_reform.html Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:27:43 +0000 Commentators discuss the Church of England's decision to allow women bishops.

The Times editorial says [subscription required] the divide in the Church puts Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a difficult position:

"Either he pursues compromise for the health of the wider communion and Christian unity, at the expense of the logic and principles that he surely recognises. Or he postpones the search for unity by causing offence to traditionalists who seek above all an eventual union with Rome. This is a circle that cannot be squared. Dr Williams's attempt to straddle the divide between radically opposed positions will fail and has damaged his authority. The same is true of Dr Sentamu.
 
"It is more in keeping with the Church's principles, and with Dr Williams's own instincts, to right an historic wrong than to cater to the demands of a semi-detached minority."

Bishop of Fulham, Father John Broadhurst, says on the BBC Today programme that he can't accept women bishops and says there will be serious consequences to ignoring the wishes of people like him:

"I think there is a split. The problem we've got that the Church of England promised Parliament that it would make permanent provision for us [those against women bishops] and it is now reneged on that promise and has now saying to us: 'Go away if you won't accept what we want'... It's not a very Christian way for a group to behave. We have serious theological opposition to women bishops...
 
"I think that it is inevitable that people are forced out. We have been dispossessed of our own church. Simple as that.... People have to decide whether they knuckle under, whether they go or whether they defy it."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

The chairman of the organisation Reform which aims to change the Church of England in accordance with scriptures Reverend Rod Thomas said on BBC 5Live Drive that his belief that women shouldn't be bishops isn't to do with equality but is instead about theology:

"It goes back to what we think the Bible teaching about how the Church should organise itself and the way the Church organises itself tells everyone else around something very important about God's relationship with his people. So the role of men in the Church is supposed to tell people something very important about God, about his leadership but also about that fact that he leads by self-sacrifice. It tells everyone around something very important. If you muddle up those roles you no longer can demonstrate what the bible wants us to demonstrate."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

The media officer of campaign group WATCH (Women and the Church) Sally Barnes argues in the Guardian that the women have always been a problem for the Church, which is inconsistent with teachings:

"In this whole debate no one ever seems to bring into the picture Jesus, on whom Christianity is founded, who crossed the cultural boundaries of his time with regard to women. He loved, talked with, taught and healed them when others would have sent them away. He showed by his actions that he did not need any 'protection' from women any more than we do in our time. It was a woman, after all, he charged with telling his followers that he had risen - mind you she was not believed at first either.
 
"The tragic thing is that this whole debate has been a real stumbling block to the mission of the church, especially for our sisters, daughters and granddaughters, who draw inferences about themselves as the faulty half of creation and say, 'No thanks'."

In her blog Reverend Lesley describes herself as a conservative evangelical and says she used to be against women bishops because she was ignorant. She challenges the reasons people give for being against women bishops:

"Jesus was a man, he appointed twelve disciples who were men, and they laid hands on other men who became Bishops and so it went on... Jesus's twelve disciples were men, yes, but they were also Jewish and circumcised, should we insist on this?"

David Virtue says in Virtue Online that women bishops will sink the Church of England as he says they have done in the American Episcopal Church:

"In terms of Average Sunday Attendance and general population growth in those dioceses [run by women], the losses have ranged from 21% (Maine) to 49% in Nevada (former diocese of Jefferts Schori)...
 
"The answer as to what women bishops in The Episcopal Church have achieved is nothing. If they were CEO's of small corporations, they would all have been fired for failure, at the very least, to maintain growth and expand it, that is, show a return (on the plate) for future growth. All these dioceses are contracting with an average parishioner age in the low to mid 60s with the average size congregation now below 70."

Links in full

• Times | Church Unmilitant
• Sally Barnes | Guardian | High time for women bishops
• John Broadhurst | BBC Today Programme
• Reverend Lesley | Why do people not want Women Bishops?
• David Virtue | Virtue Online | Women Bishops Will Sink the Church of England As They Have Done In the Episcopal Church

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_women_bishops.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_women_bishops.html Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:54:36 +0000 Commentators discuss Peter Mandelson's memoir and what it means for the future of the Labour party.

Peter Oborne says in the Daily Mail that Mr Mandelson's book affects the current Labour leadership contest:

"For the fundamental purpose of this book (besides making a huge sum of money for P Mandelson Esq) is to make sure that Gordon Brown gets the personal blame for all the disasters and mistakes of 13 years of Blair government... David Miliband and Andy Burnham are diehard loyalists of Tony Blair, while Ed Balls and Ed Miliband are longstanding courtiers of Gordon Brown.  
"This means Brown and Blair are fighting out a battle for the future of the Labour Party by proxy - hence the urgency of Peter Mandelson's brutal and vindictive assault on Gordon Brown. Mandelson's intention is to ensure that the future of Labour belongs to Tony Blair and his disciples, above all David Miliband."

Paul Staines, who writes under the name Guido Fawkes, says in his blog that if David Miliband wants to win the Labour leadership contest he should use the book to criticise Gordon Brown:

"If David Miliband wants Labour to move on, a frank, uncoded, reflection on the period of Labour brutalism is required. Brown was a disaster for the Labour Party and the country, if Miliband wants a reborn Labour Party he first has to bury Brown in the truth."

Mary Ann Sieghart argues in the Independent that Peter Mandelson is acting out of his own interests and, contrary to what the book says, he is to blame for the extent of Labour's defeat in the last election:

"The man who ensured that Labour would spend five, possibly 10, years out of power now hopes to capitalise on his tales of those torrid years in government. We are told that the book portrays Brown as 'seriously unhinged'. Some gratitude, that. If Mandelson is prepared to betray Brown for money now, perhaps he should have done so for the sake of his party two years ago."

In the blog Political Betting Mike Smithson says the sections he has read are not anything new:

"And the first 'news' is that in the post-election discussions with Labour in May Nick Clegg demanded Brown's scalp as a price for any coalition deal. But couldn't we have guessed that anyway? [...] There will be other tit-bits in the coming days but it needs to be better than this."

Jackie Ashley says in the Guardian that it is worth reserving judgement:

"Mandelson's bank-swelling memoir, The Third Man, seems to have as its cutting edge another assault on Brown, which is - at least as advertised so far - entirely familiar: the rage against Tony Blair, the contemptuous henchpeople tripping up Peter behind the scenes; the moments of self-realisation and sadness too. 
"It would be wrong to give a verdict on a book not yet available to read, but the advertising and the pre-publication interview suggest this is the theme Mandelson wants to be noticed. His book was preceded by the Campbell diaries, with a similar theme; and will be followed by Blair's own tome, which Mandelson seems to have scooped, and by others by former Labour ministers. One day, no doubt, Brown will have his own say and, if he dares to be fully honest, that may be the most fascinating of them all."

Links in full

• Peter Oborne | Daily Mail | Treachery, poison, and the book Peter Mandelson will regret
• Paul Staines | Guido Fawkes | Is this Labour's Khrushchev Moment of Truth?
• Mary Ann Sieghart | Independent | Mandelson's vanity came before the party interest
• Mike Smithson | Political Betting | Mandy: Clegg wanted Brown's scalp as price for coalition
• Jackie Ashley | Guardian | Labour must now stop this self-flagellation and regroup

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_peter_mandelsons_me.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_peter_mandelsons_me.html Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:24:46 +0000 Commentators look at the significance of the Supreme Court ruling that two gay men from Iran and Cameroon have the right to asylum in the UK.

Bernard Keenan says in the Guardian that the judgement highlights the difference between the need to be discreet about homosexuality because of social pressures and to avoid persecution:

"Lord Hope begins by pointing out that the refugee convention was not drafted with sexuality in mind. That it has become such an important issue today is attributed in part to the rise of religiously motivated ideologies - Christian, Muslim or otherwise - in certain countries.
 
"But this understates the point. It is only because of the progress gay rights have made in the west during the last 50 years that the law can now clearly see it as an issue of fundamental human rights. It is only by the distance we have travelled as a society that we are now obliged to offer protection to those who would face prison, rape, torture or death for their sexual identity."

Samuel Muston says in the Independent that the ruling goes against a recent trend against immigration and asylum:

"What increasingly came to characterise the administration was an openly professed illiberalism, presumably designed to suggest a hard-headed modernity.
 
"Nowhere was this more evident than with asylum policy, where ministers seemed unable to make the imaginative leap necessary for sympathy with those fleeing persecution. The results of which - the deportation of children, the humiliating restraining techniques, and the overcrowded detention centres- continue to make front pages.
 
"These were moral lines which no party of the left should have crossed- yet again and again they were crossed. Again and again, morality and compassion were forgotten in a mad rush to outflank those on the far-right.
 
"The case of these two men is the apotheosis of this".

The Daily Mail editorial expresses worry about the implication the ruling has on the number of people in Britain:

"For at this time when our public services are strained beyond endurance, it means Britain must now, in a dramatic reversal of policy, give a home to all gay asylum-seekers who are prevented from displaying their sexuality openly in their home countries. Where are we to draw the line? This is all about numbers and a small island's ability to absorb an ever-increasing population."

Antonia Senior argues in the Times [subscription required] that the risk this ruling brings of an increase in fraudulent asylum claims is worth it:

"Issues of immigration and asylum strike at the heart of who we are as a nation. For every generous impulse to extend a welcome to the oppressed or disadvantaged, there is a miser's urge to protect that $35,200 a head. It's an entirely understandable impulse; sitting in the UK, looking out at a troubled, violent, poverty-stricken world, it is incredibly tempting to put up the gates and, Gollum-like, hug our riches close...
 
"There cannot, however, be a limit on the acceptance of those facing persecution. And if, in our noble quest to accept the genuinely persecuted, we find ourselves letting in the fraudulent, so be it. There are times when the principle outweighs the consequences. It's not just the money that maketh the country. Britain must throw open its liberal arms and give men and women persecuted for their sexuality a great big gay hug."

Ed West argues in the Telegraph that the ruling against homophobia in Cameroon should mean that the country doesn't get aid from the UK either:

"[W]hy does Britain give that country £6.8m a year in foreign aid? In fact why do we give money to so many countries that persecute people for their sexuality? The DfID map shows that British taxpayers give money to some of the most rabidly anti-gay states in the world... If they want our money, they can start embracing our values."

Links in full

• Bernard Keenan |Guardian | Milestone victory for gay refugees
• Daily Mail | Infantile judgment
• Antonia Senior |Times | Man the liberal lifeboats for a big gay hug
• Samuel Muston|Independent | Gay asylum seekers ruling is a good day for justice
• Ed West |Telegraph | Why do we give aid to countries that persecute gays?

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_gay_asylum_ruling.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_gay_asylum_ruling.html Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:07:07 +0000 Commentators look at the Prime Minister David Cameron's announcement of an inquiry into allegations that UK security services were complicit in the torture of terror suspects.

Peter Oborne says in the Daily Mail that David Cameron is to be congratulated for delivering on a promise to carry out this inquiry which he first made in opposition:

"Ever since the formation of the coalition Government, the intelligence services have been in a running battle at Whitehall to force him and Foreign Secretary William Hague to change their minds, and it is immeasurably to the Prime Minister's credit that he has stood firm. Better still, he has awarded the inquiry strong powers to call for documents and demand to see witnesses. It will be a judge-led inquiry, which holds out the prospect that the investigation will be independent and rigorous."

The Telegraph editorial says the inquiry comes with risks:

"Mr Cameron insists that MI5 and MI6 must not be diverted from this essential task - and yet there is a danger that this inquiry, scheduled to last a year, will have just that effect. We have other concerns, too. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the agencies are "paralysed by paperwork" through having to defend themselves in a dozen court cases - both criminal and civil. Since these need to be completed before the judge-led inquiry can properly get under way, the Government proposes to expedite the civil cases by offering compensation to some of those who were detained overseas."

US political blogger Andrew Sullivan applauds the move, which is not being copied in America:

"The rule of law may have been suspended by Bush and retroactively legitimized by Obama - but it is alive and well in Britain, where Tories have the courage the Obama Democrats lack."

In the blog Fire Dog Lake questions are asked about the pressures put on those involved in the inquiry:

"This appears to put pressure on people like Binyam Mohamed to agree to mediation (between whom? between the US and him, mediated by David Cameron's selected mediator?) if he wants to see a more generalized inquiry move forward. And of course, that generalized inquiry would be led by the British government's hand-picked judge - Sir Peter Gibson - and the promises to complete access to the relevant documentation would be nothing more than promises until Mohamed agrees to settle."

In the Guardian Richard Norton-Taylor points out the limitations of the inquiry:

"It will not summon witnesses from foreign countries, such as current or former CIA officers. And it will not be able to compel any individuals to give evidence. Last night, Whitehall officials said that former Labour ministers, including Tony Blair, will not be asked to give evidence, even though the treatment of British citizens and residents under investigation happened on their watch."

Links in full

• Peter Oborne | Daily Mail | Even if it shames Britain, torture inquiry must reveal truth
• Telegraph | Will this inquiry help the war on terror?
• Andrew Sullivan | Atlantic | Conservatives Against Torture, Ctd
• Fire Dog Lake | Is the UK Torture Inquiry an Attempt to Limit Further Disclosure?
• Richard Norton-Taylor | Guardian | Torture inquiry will not lead to any prosecutions

]]> Clare Spencer Clare Spencer https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_torture_inquiry.html https://bbcbreakingnews.pages.dev/blogs/seealso/2010/07/daily_view_torture_inquiry.html Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:02:10 +0000