I am a great admirer of India. It is a nation that I have travelled in and done business with for a number of years. Their only problem is bureaucracy, which believe it or not, is worse than ours. I suppose they did get it from us after all. I once remember being on a train where I had bought the right ticket but had not paid my cancellation fee, even though I did not cancel the ticket. The attendant then proceeded to fill out a form as long as my arm that asked for questions such as my Mother’s maiden name; all for 30 rps (about 50p).
So, it is with great sadness that I hear of the devastation around the Bay of Bengal, especially near Chennai (Madras). I had a warehouse and office at Parrys Corner just across the road from the beach and have no idea whether it has been flattened or whether those I know have perished.
There is however an indomitable spirit about those who live in Asia. Despite glaring poverty there is obvious wealth and as the world’s fifth richest nation I know India will survive and take little aid to do so.
But what was Blair thinking of? I have heard Jack Straw trying to defend his decision to stay in Egypt and not return home. The excuse went something like he is in constant contact and there is no need for him to return. The problem is this is not about whether the Government can run with or without him? This is about showing solidarity with the nation he leads who at the time of him sunning himself was embarrassingly outbidding his Government in the amount of aid that they are giving to what is such a worthwhile cause.
I think 2004 has demonstrated, if nothing else, that like all Prime Ministers, Blair is slowly losing touch with reality and the people he serves.
4 comments:
Contrary to what Michael Howard and the Conservatives seem to think, the financial donations made by members of the public were not some sort of 'bidding war' against the Government. It is ugly and awful of the Conservatives to treat the disaster in this way. Anything to try and score a 'point' isn't it? People have given what they can because they want to do so. The Government has also contributed some of the money we pay in taxes on our behalf. It isn't some silly competition and there is no embarassment if the public donate more than its Government donates.
It may not have been a bidding war on the part of the people but it sure as hell looked like one from the Government. If it wasn't what was all that nonsense that the Government Minister went on about how the Government had been the thrid most generous nation in the world? Kevin's point is well made though that Blair let us down.
Er, so how come Michael Howard was so prominent in lambasting the Government for not donating as much as the 'public'? Howard tried to make political capital out of the situation, and in my book that's sordid. From the Conservative website: 30th Dec: Conservative leader Michael Howard has challenged the British public to match the £15 million of Government aid to help the victims of the tsunami disaster. Mr Howard said something could be done "at all levels". He said he has himself donated £250 to the appeal fund." Later he said "I asked the British people to match the government. Now it is a question of asking the government to match the generosity of the British people."
The last comment has nothing to do woith Kevin's comments. Michael Howard was quite right as was Charlie Kennedy who also critiscised the amount the Government had raised in comparison to the public.
I think the point Kevin made is a good one...that Blair was sunning himself whilst the public was embarassing his Government into giving more. The point made by the 652 anon is that the Government seemed to be in a bidding war with other nations; whether our Government started it or not!
Post a Comment