Let's return to the environment as it has been quite a topical theme this week, but today I'm going to focus on something a lot closer to British interests.

A couple of days ago, my house here in Buckinghamshire suffered a power cut for about an hour. That's not much, and there are billions of people around the world who would love to have electricity for one hour, let alone spend just one hour without it, but the effect it had on me was surprising. At first I only noticed because the screen on my laptop dimmed slightly as it switched to battery power - I fiddled with the power cable and started to curse the laptop manufacturer, until I realised that my digital clock and bedside light had cut out. I'd been planning to switch on the TV to what a programme in a few minutes, but suddenly I couldn't. I went downstairs to fix up some food whilst I waited, but then thought twice about opening the fridge because it would let out whatever cold air was still left in there and the food would start thawing even faster. I was going to call my Dad at work to see if it had affected the whole area, but I couldn't because the digital phone system was down. Hmmm. One short power cut therefore took out my ability to store food, my ability to communicate, my ability to tell the time (well, yes, there are other clocks in the house) and the life force of most suburban households, the TV. Had it been dark, I would have been in real trouble because I have no idea where there is a torch in this house, or indeed even a candle. I was also well aware that the laptop had about an hour's battery left on it, and once that went, I would be forced to (gasp) read something to keep myself occupied.

It needs a power cut every once in a while to make us appreciate the magic of electricity, but we could experience a lot more than that in the near future. I spent a good few years of my life being told by various science textbooks that our fossil fuel resources were going to run out some time, but I did not expect to start suffering gas shortages within two years. A report quoted in that article calls our government's attitude 'hopelessly unrealistic' where energy is concerned, and estimates that by 2020 we will have to import all the gas we need.

That wouldn't be quite so bad on its own - we all knew that fossil fuels were slowly on the way out, and it should shake the government into doing something like pressing on with nuclear fuels or natural renewable resources. But recently, British Nuclear Fuels announced that after 50 years of mismanagement of nuclear waste, the nuclear industry is now effectively bankrupt. So far from being free to plan an expansion to cope with rising demand in the face of the declining fossil fuel industry, our nuclear output is stalled at best and most probably staring down the barrel of the gun. Now BNFL has asked the government to bail it out, but if Blair agrees then where does that money come from? The fossil fuel industry can't stand to lose any cash, so surely what funding and plans exist for renewable sources of energy will be axed to make way for a nuclear rescue plan. That then binds the government inextricably to a policy of propping up a nuclear economy. Is that a wise idea?

On a related note, the USA may have more trouble defending its stance on the environment (see earlier posts by myself) now that Ford has axed its electric car plans. The reason? Lack of US government support for environmentally friendly cars.

As far as a rating goes, today was the fifth anniversary of the death of Princess Diana, and Blair appeared to subtly ease himself into a pro-American position regarding Iraq. I give it a 4.2.

He looks pretty pissed. I would be, too.

It's a job that had to be done. A job that came through the family. SKG Dreamworks (this would be their kind of thing) presents: Gulf War 2: Revenge. Starring George W. Bush as Winston Churchill.

Dear God, I can not believe that someone at the White House thought that comparing Bush's position to Churchill's would ever be a good idea. This is the kind of thing that, had anyone apart from an American hawk been in the room, would have been laughed off the table. I know there are bright people in the US, and working in the Bush administration - even if he may not be one of them. But they expect us to believe this comparison on the basis that Bush has no support, and that Churchill didn't have any either before Munich? Riiiiight.

Let's compare them a bit more. Because, according to the White House, we should just accept the comparison as is - plus I'm a historian, so I need the practice. Churchill had championed the need for re-armament througout the 1930's, when Hitler became a threat towards Europe, let alone Britain. Bush spent the same time as Governor of Texas, where I'm sure the policies of Saddam Hussein were of the utmost importance to him. Hitler lead a country of nearly 100m people that was industrialised and well armed and trained that could - and did - prove a serious threat to the UK. Iraq is the other side of the world to the US, and is a country starving and underdeveloped that has a minimal threat to the US and only a slight threat to US interests through the oil supply. The case for NBC weapons was substantial and accurate concerning Hitler; the proof for Iraq is still shaky. I can accept that they have biological weapons - albeit crude - but I doubt that they have a reliable nuclear weapon, and much less a suitable platform with which to launch it from. Most importantly, I think, Churchill was an outsider during his time of isolation, whilst Bush is the most powerful man in the world. It's almost as if he's looking for excuses because he knows his position is so weak. Such a comparison, therefore, becomes a nonsense.

It wouldn't have happened with Sam and Toby working there.

Rating: 2.5 - we're near the end of the silly season, but Somerset lost today, hence the extra.

Well, it's going to be a rush tonight to get this posted before the clock flicks over to Saturday, so here goes...

Today, the USA came out fighting over its environmental record, which has of course been the subject of serious scrutiny since the Summit in Johannesburg began. Following on from earlier posts of mine, I'm going to take a look at what life must look like from the USA's point of view right now.

Certainly, if I was an American leader, environmental official, diplomat etc I would probably be feeling a little wounded and indignant. As the only remaining superpower, rather than go off on a domineering conquest of the globe (though some would argue they've done exactly that, albeit subtly and commercially), the USA has tried to broker world peace. Whenever they have sent a diplomatic peacekeeping mission (they rarely use force for these things, always the suits first) into a pretty dangerous situation, be it Africa, Israel, Asia or even on their own doorstep in South America, they find themselves harangued by sections of the media that consider it an unspeakable violation of all sorts of unwritten rules. To them. the United States is a behemoth of a nation that has become too big for its boots and seeks to impose its will on all forms of society across the globe. Hang on, what were you expecting them to do? The isolationist period ended with Pearl Harbour, and the USA is not going to sit back and quietly indulge itself in its riches whilst people elsewhere in the world are shooting each other for fun, then slowly but surely turning against the US. America is simply trying to put the world to rights as the only force (come on, the UN is going nowhere) able to do so.

But wait - is it possible that by setting off around the world, clutching a little white dove and riding on a wing and a prayer, that the USA has caused a sizeable amount of this conflict? Certainly, as I discussed yesterday, it would probably have far fewer enemies if its top officials could just keep their mouths shut. In an attempt to drag nations wrought with civil war and corruption into the 21st Century, the USA often makes the mistake of treating them as though they should damn well already be civilised shining examples. Thus, the name-calling and immediate mad rush for the moral high ground only serves to heighten the opposition of nations like North Korea and the Arab states, rather than making them realise they should know better. If America wound down the maternal scolding it issues to delinquent countries, then started issuing more aid and fewer threats, we might go places a little faster.

Iraq obviously feels the US is not going to learn any time soon, and that if they want a war of words as a prelude they are welcome to one. Iraqi vice-president Yassin Ramadan told reporters that the US has one crucial disadvantage that it avoided with Afghanistan - there is no Iraqi opposition movement. That could be a big blow if a full-scale war erupts. For now, Friday is a 3.6, but the US seems to be trying to push that up daily. Phew... I think I made it in time.

Numismatists beware.

Note: the following link may require registration; if not then please don't screw up may account!

There was a brief period three or four years ago in the UK when fly-on-the-wall documentaries were all the rage; a fad that reached its peak, I think, with Driving School. Imagine my surprise this morning when I was flicking through the Telegraph to find this - choice quote from Ollie - "I wanted a world revolution. He wanted to be a Tory MP. We kind of met in the middle." To be honest, I wasn't particularly surprised, because at the end of the day it was just another news article, which one would expect from a newspaper, as opposed, say, to an edible puppy, which would have surprised me. Anyway, I was interested for two reasons. Firstly, I'm heading off to Oxford in 6 weeks or so, and the article was an interesting view on how some students spent their time, and my cousin graduated from St Hilda's, so I spent a good few minutes laughing at the idea of Anne prancing around in pyjamas at 8am (sorry Annie).

Secondly, I couldn't believe that we were back into the world of reality/fly television again. I mean, why? Surely our need for looking at how other people live or work was satisfied with Airport, Airline, Vets in Practice etc. the last time. By the end of that era, I thought programming was moving on to a better time. Quality shows - the West Wing, ER, Scrapheap Challenge, Return to River Cottage, 24 - were being made, and some oldies like Friends, Frasier and the X-Files were returning to form again. For the last couple of years, I've been inundated with TV I want to watch because it's so good, not because it's the new fad. So who decided it would be a good idea for this reality TV to come back? Well I blame Ozzy - The Osbournes, on MTV seem to have been the catalyst. But I'm pretty sure that when he came up with the idea of doing it, it was the result of a drunken bet (Tony Hawks and Arthur Smith - I'm looking at you). However, he still must be held responsible for the follow-through; the copy cats, and well, in general, Anna Nicole. I hope that the Anna Nicole Show is this era's Driving School, and that someone kills the idea of reality television so that it NEVER comes back (and so I can carrying on pretending to speak like Kiefer).

Rating: a 2; nothing really caught my eye.

Having seen OJ's ruminations for today, I feel I should explain for people that don't follow US politics much - members of their equivalent of parliament represent either the Republicans or the Democrats (the Americans, wisely, eliminated their take on the Liberal Democrats a long, long time ago). They also represent a state (we have the MP for Little Spangleton West, they have one person representing Texas). As a result, where OJ writes 'R-AZ', he's not listing their number plate, it means McCain is the Republican member for Arizona.

Also, I have no idea where the comments have gone. If you want to comment, email me (ollie@gprem.com) and I'll post your comments for you.

So, where will Thursday 29th August stand in the ratings?

Well, the media are often easily diverted by the Next Big Thing (recently, war with Iraq), and they leave behind the old burning issues that they had been harping on about for ages beforehand. This is no bad thing, as the blanket coverage usually bores the public pretty quickly - it certainly does me. But now I find myself drawn to one old story, and one new story.

Firstly to Israel, where Palestinian sources say an Israeli tank shell killed a mother and her two sons, along with another victim, when it hit their home by accident. I am continually sickened by both parties in this dispute - of course no one can condone suicide bombing (not even the 'they've been forced to sink that low' argument, which is pathetic), but then, Israel should be far more ashame of themselves. They are in a position where they have barged in on the surrounding area and displaced thousands of people, religion or not, and I would love to see Ken Livingstone's reaction if a religious group announced its claim on their ancient sacred site of Westminster and drafted a proposal to move in. There has been enough controversy over the construction of Britain's first Jewish eruv, 'imposing the community's values on other groups', let alone an entire nation moving in. The Palestinian sentiments are understandable, even if their actions are not. Israel's disgraceful behaviour and hypocritical condemnation of the Palestinians, especially when in the superior position, backed as they are by an America which should seriously reconsider its own actions here, is deplorable. There can of course be no resolution to this conflict whilst both sides continue to wear their prejudiced blinkers, but how can we lift them? I cannot see an answer and, like Northern Ireland, I do not expect this conflict to ever end.

And secondly to North Korea, where the US diplomatic machine has launched into another ill-conceived outburst against the next nation down on its list of 'Axis of Evil' member states. It's not that I'm anti-American (although you could be forgiven for thinking so), but I wish they would go about being the world's only superpower with a little more tact and aforethought. This time, Undersecretary of State John Bolton has denounced North Korea as 'an evil regime... peddling missiles', which is exactly what you would want him to say with the US already losing Arab supporters against Iraq left, right and centre (see the end of my rating for Tuesday). The USA has for a long time appeared entirely unconcerned about the rest of the world - Bush, and to a greater extent Cheney have no problem with launching a war without the support of the UN, Europe or even Britain, and the nation has shunned this week's Johannesberg environmental conference. Now, with much of Europe sceptical, many Arab nations fuming and North Korea given fresh reason to oppose the US, America may soon find herself embroiled in a Third World War where the majority of nations oppose her. All well and good, but where does this leave Britain? Blair has been fostering the Special Relationship ever since he rode into power in 1997, but right now he is faced with a pretty tough choice. Does he back a winner with the US, or make a moral stand with the rest of the world? Ultimately, the fate of the nation may depend on it. Thursday receives a 3.4 because America may have begun the process of accumulating more enemies than it can handle.

I ain't bad, just stupid and greedy.

American politics is something that I enjoy. When you can't find me on Slate, you'll find me watching the West Wing. So here is an interesting article on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which is part of an ongoing "series" (previous arguments are referred to in the introduction) on the possibility of him running for President in 2004 on a Democratic, or Indepedent ticket.

Now, although I enjoy American politics, I am in no way an expert in them. I'm used to people swapping parties - both here and in the US, but to run for President from the opposition camp? That is something that, were I a voter, I would not be totally sure about. As the article says, McCain's record is almost Democratic, but he is, officially, Republican. Just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. Amongst the reasons why I would be suspicious, this comes to the fore of my mind; should McCain win the Democratic ticket, then it means that the Democratic party, since the 2000 elections, has been unable to find a leader that Democrats (and eventually Americans) support - and without that it suggests that their opposition has been little more than a farce. Sound familiar?

Rating: certainly a 3 - will be an interesting one to watch.

(This is Wednesday's post, which was a fraction delayed (around a day or so) as I was out most of Wednesday itself.)

Me Turok. You less stupid.

Well, it's another day where little if anything happened that would force me to crank up the rating unnecessarily. Meanwhile, over at the International Olympic Committee, there are changes afoot that could incense the Americans even more than a rogue Arab nation or twelve - they want to drop baseball from the Games.

Hooray, I say. For how long have the Americans shamelessly played out a 'World Series' that involved teams from no nation other than theirs? Aside from the Japanese, who care more about football now anyway, they are the only nation that bothers playing it to any real extent. Holding an Olympic equivalent was surely an insane move because the Americans would always win it. Not true, it turns out - when it became a medal sport in 1992, the Americans didn't even sneak a bronze. Why? Because no one in the USA cares about it. None of the Major League players can be bothered because the competition simply isn't there, so they lost first time out. But by 2000, despite sending a team of Minor League players (which is roughly the same as sending Peterborough United to compete in the World Cup), they still won the event. Their opposition? Cuba and Korea, true baseball giants. The first time baseball played a part in the Olympics, as a demonstration sport in 1912, the USA took on Sweden in the inaugural game and despite loaning them a pitcher and a catcher won 13-3. Then, in 1936, the US were the only team that showed up. They therefore split into two teams and, in front of 125,000 people, managed to scrape the gold.

And yet some Americans are distraught that the IOC wants rid of a sport (along with softball) that has become an Olympic farce, open as it is to very few nations with a remote chance of gaining a medal. Paul Seiler, executive director of USA Baseball, went as far as accusing the IOC of ignorance - 'Maybe there's not enough understanding of the sport among IOC circles,' he told USA Today.

The replacement? Golf. Now there may be a pretty large percentage of Americans (in fact it's probably a majority over the rest of the world) in the world rankings, but let's face it, there's a vastly improved chance of someone from somewhere else winning it. There are golf courses occupying every possible patch of green space the world over, and even ones implanted into the middle of deserts by absurdly rich Sheikhs - it is very easy to find a course, practice, and get to an Olympic standard if you start early enough. By contrast, I have absolutely no idea where the nearest baseball field to me is. I've never seen one in this country. I'm not saying I don't like baseball - I follow the Chicago Cubs and it's one of the most relaxing games to watch I know (you spend more time eating than they do playing), but golf is a far more popular worldwide. The Olympics are a participation event after all, and surely the goal is to give more people more of chance to participate in more sports. My vote is with golf, even if Tiger gets to call it another Major under his belt.

Greco-Roman wrestling and modern pentathlon are also earmarked for the chop - want to know more? Click here. Wednesday, by the way, receives a 2.5.

Ollie has already posted on the topic of of the World Summit in Jo'burg; here's my take.

I'm idealistic in my belief that we should all recycle; we should all make an effort to help the environment out. However, like everyone else who hears this at age 11 (suitably accompanied by Captain Planet or whichever superhero the govt. expects to work this decade) I promptly went home and ignored it. And...I still do. Honest, when I get to uni, or get a place on my own maybe I'll start to be more like Mr Cutts (my old Maths teacher) who had a box for scrap paper. It doesn't stop me wanting the environment to be better though.

The problem - too many people like me and too few like Mr Cutts. The govt. could do a lot more to promote and encourage recycling at the moment - the tax on plastic bags from supermarkets looks like a good start (and one which, from my vast knowledge of A-level Economics, is a tax on a demerit good in order to correct or internalise the externality. Yessir, I even did case studies on stuff like this.) Moreover, I suspect we will only see a real increase in recycling in 20 to 40 years time, with a new generation (or two) who will have to take the issue more seriously; certainly more seriously than the summit in Jo'burg.

The link - an online poll on the environment that will be collated and published in time for the end of the summit. Give it a go!

Rating - certainly a 4; it will be interesting to see how this develops over the next few weeks.

I don't often drift off into the heady realms of politics, let alone anything emanating from politicians across the pond. Frankly, as I outlined yesterday, politics has become boring, and I'll continue that theme today.

Yesterday, I illustrated the ways in which the media portrayal, and public opinion of politicians was discouraging younger people to go into politics and suggested that we would soon suffer a shortfall of MPs. Now, fresh from the USA, comes evidence that not only are we not seeing enough new politicians, but all the good old politicans are going too. All the old, wacky, outspoken members of Congress are being kicked out - understandably in some cases as most of them had lived for years in complete disregard for the laws they passed, but even so. Take Jim Traficant, who quoted Star Trek in his speeches, or Dick Armey, who always wore cowboy boots and didn't hide his liking of country music in front of the nation. These are just two of the cases outlined in that article by CNN, and it is mirrored in Britain. We don't have many politicans that are truly enjoyable to watch or listen to any more - no Churchills with their grandiose mannerisms, no controversial Thatcher, not even William Hague, who at least brought his fiery attitude to PMQs to the job. Instead, about the most exciting MP we have is John Prescott, and only because he punches constituents and needs a Jaguar to go 200 yards.

That's depressing, because politics without a bit of panache and eccentricity is just not interesting. You cannot dress up the Removal of Domestic Waste from Septic Tanks (1994) Bill as riveting stuff. It needs someone to come out of leftfield with something equally odd but relevant to liven it up. Prescott isn't going to do that, even if he drowns a constituent in a tank.

Of course, the reason for this is obvious - non-conformist politicians, those that won't cling rigidly to the party line and won't hold back their own opinion, are being systematically weeded out by the forces of political correctness and spin. The politically correct brigade, which once forced Birmingham City Council to rename Christmas as 'Winterval' to satisfy religious minorities in the area, has long been derided and frequently goes quite clearly overboard. Sadly, it seems this is only evident to the ordinary people not in power, and these vigilante pedants wield tremendous power. Anyone who voices an opinion that isn't on their list of 'normal' thinking gets branded all sorts of things and sacked. Only last week, a nurse had to resign after simply quoting the old title of an Agatha Christie novel, 'Ten Little Niggers'. I'm half-expecting a complaint from the PC patrol simply for saying it here. In an age where individuality and personal liberties are more achievable than ever before, at least in the Western world, we are being pegged back by this insane institution. Political correctness is, fundamentally, politically incorrect - it discriminates against all sane-minded people.

Again, I have taken the time to write a piece about a topical issue that has no real bearing on the day's rating, because again, it was quite a slow day. I'm not going to be dragged into dissecting Iraq day in day out, but suffice to say that the Egyptian premier's statement that no Arab countries will back the US is important enough to warrant a 3.4.

Another unnoteworthy news day. Or so I thought...

Bwah!

Ha!

Whaddyamean they aren't serious?

Rating: 5 for sheer comedy value. Usually I'm lucky to see one a day; two is just great!

I should make it clear that the post below is for Monday, not Tuesday. Serves me right for taking so long over it again.

Every now and again a story comes along that would have been a Far Side cartoon in another life.

Now, it's your 18th birthday. You're damn excited, you're an adult now! What will the surprise present be... cash? A new car? A new PC? No... it's a birthday message from the Conservatives. Well, isn't that nice. Seriously now, it comes over as yet another hare-brained scheme from Tory HQ to win back at least one voter in the entire nation, seeing as they are close contenders for most ineffective opposition in the history of parliament. So why not try and collar every new voter? It does actually make sense. Let's face it, precious few, if any young people give a monkeys about politics - the media portray every politician as thick (getting education ministers to get sums wrong), sleazy (how many examples do you want?), greedy (Two Jags) or scum of the earth (Two Jabs). The public confidence in the political system is not just low, it's non-existent - politicians are figures of public ridicule, not the proud leaders of a nation. No one cares about them, and no one has a good word to say. And then, after five years of relentless criticism and finger-pointing, the media accuse the nation of apathy when the turn-out at the general election is down. Well, I wonder why that happened.

Jeremy Clarkson made a good observation (if one made before) in his newspaper column on Sunday - if everyone got A-levels and went off to university, there'd be no plumbers and the country would be up the spout. Well, hey, if there's no politicians there's no government - do you know anyone who wants to be an MP? Thought not. No one wants a job where no one likes you for a career.

Today gets a 2.4 from me as not much happened again. However, the day the government runs out of ministers that rating will be a lot bigger.

Until the funeral of Diana, I'd never experienced a Royal death, or a change in the family. The ensuing demonstrations of grief were almost something of a novelty. Since then, the Queen Mother has also died. And now - the Pope is becoming more ill. Again, I've lived in a period of relative stability, and the notion of white smoke coming from the chimney is something that has only been useful in quizzes, or seen in The Godfather: Part III. As this report, and the numerous ones over the last few years have testified, the Pope is in failing health and even he seems acknowledge that his time is near. Religiously, I don't have much interest in this; as an Anglican I was more interested in the new Archbishop of Canterbury, however I am interested in the ways in which the new Pope will be eventually elected, and what this will mean for Catholics to whom it will matter a great deal. To me, the Pope has been a background character - not of much interest, but always there. I anticipate an interesting turnaround period when he does eventually pass away.

Rating: Eventually this will be around 10; until then it certainly merits a 4.

The remains of two Oregon teenage girls have been found. Parallels with another recent story making headlines in Britain are clear.
Sunday's rating is in this post - Saturday's is below, apologies for being late with it.

However, on with the rating, and the only story worth discussing is the World Summit on Sustainable Development, being held in Johannesburg. Frankly, as the media have been telling us, this summit is already doomed to failure with the USA happy to look after number one, and let number one look after the oil and logging industries. Litttle more needs to be said - this should be big news for the world at large, as it offers a way forward for society, the environment and the future of the entire planet. Now, I don't condemn the USA much, and I've fought Bush's corner innumerable times, but this is just wrong. Badly, badly wrong. It is depressing and frustrating that the short-term concerns of a dying industry are the priority, ahead of the long-term concerns of a dying world.

Sunday receives a 3.9 from me. It's not important because we've lost the chance to change anything - and that's why it is important.

First of all, apologies for missing Saturday, which was due to my strenuous work schedule and a little celebration of Manchester City's drubbing of Newcastle United, 1-0.

I will therefore start with Saturday, which will not take long as the only news of any real consequence was Faustino Asprilla signing for Darlington. I appreciate that I am football mad and that this may explain my inclusion of this article, but it is the one piece of news that may have an effect elsewhere. Everyone accepts that football is in financial crisis - clubs are struggling even to pay the wages of players, and several top notch footballers are playing at lower division clubs for nothing as they can't get contracts elsewhere and want to stay fit. Clubs desperate to sell players to raise funds cannot do so, as the players do not want to lose the massive wages they signed on for three or four years ago in favour of a much lower deal somewhere else, but with first team football tacked on.

Asprilla's decision to join Darlington is symptomatic of this. A few years ago he was plying his trade in the Premiership and was hailed as a wizard on the ball, a true genius. Now, he is keeping himself busy back in his native Columbia - financially decrepit in the first place - and is desperate to resurrect his career with Darlington. If Asprilla is reduced to this, what next? Football is the lifeblood of much of the nation, and as it spirals into financial oblivion, what effect will this have on the rest of the country? Will the Beautiful Game lead us into economic chaos?

Of course, this is all wild speculation. Therefore, the day receives a paltry 1.8.

I wish I was an official wizard.

Third and final point on Zimbabwe, and since it's a Sunday I'll make it quick. Another of the biggest shocks to me is the fact that many of the attacks on whites are based purely on a racial basis. I missed the mid-80's in the UK and US - since I was just working out how to walk - and with it the major anti-racism intiatives. Consequently, much like HIV, I have not really considered it a problem, as acceptance of others is widespread and now common knowledge - much like, I suppose, they hoped. Of course there are still many racist attacks. But the sheer brutality and hatred of whites by some blacks - those in power, it seems - in Zimbabwe, is quite the wake up.

Rating: 2.1 to push the average up.

Again, we're in the summer duldroms. Nothing much happened today. Although this did catch my eye; Tuesday Morning Quarterback will be back soon, along with Megababes and Haiku! Excellent.

Continuing on from yesterday's Zimbabwe discussion, this is the second point that came up from the JY discussion (remember, I did say firstly.) The focus was on British intervention. Although the the British press are divided over how to deal with Zimbabwe, they all assume that we a) have to and b) will. One assumes this is because of some relic of colonialism; the Commenwealth ingratiated in deepest Fleet Street. Fine. Use that as a reason, if you want, to intervene in this case - but what of the precedent. As Serria Leone showed, British intervention can be useful and successful. However, many, particularly in Africa, would see British intervention in Zimbabwe a result only of public uproar against the deaths of white expats. And they're right. Where were we when the elections in Zambia - corrupt and fixed - were happening? Because we didn't hear any reports on the news, or because there are no pictures in The Mail of a dog curled up by his dead master's body, everything must be alright, yes? Most likely because of this reasoning, it is unlikely that we will see any intervention by Blair in Zimbabwe - too big a risk for too little reward. And certainly it won't be the beginning of a new era of British foreign policy; a time perhaps, when we begin to take our responsibilities seriously.

Rating: sticking with a 2; no doubt Mugabe will be in the news again soon.

PS: The Telegraph reported yesterday's story as "Mugabe Sacks his Cabinet." Maybe the BBC were beign too generous in giving him the benefit of the doubt of his own constitution.

Well, this appears to be my first proper post, now Ollie has finished setting most of this up.

This is just another story to come out from Zimbabwe. Anyone who reads the international papers for the last 2 years, especially if you're a Briton, would have had to be foolish to have missed the whole Zimbabwe problem. It even was the first thing discussed on today's Jimmy Young program on Radio 2, which says something. Within the discussion - which involved Michael Ancram, Shadow Foreign Secretary and some other guy - there were raised a number of interesting points that I hadn't really considered. Firstly, the final question was what is the worst case scenario if the international community, and in particular the UK, just left Zimbabwe alone and stopped intervening? The answer - mass starvation for at least 6 million. Granted, starvation is nothing new in Africa. But what really made a difference to me this time, rather than the bi-annual ritual of Comic Relief, was the fact that I remember Zimbabwe as being a shining example of African independence. The fall from a country that provided and exported its own crops to one facing starvation in such a short time is shocking; moreso because much of it is down to one man - Robert Mugabe. Today he's dissolving his cabinet. Tomorrow?

Rating: just a 2 for the moment, but with expectations of a solid rise over time concerning this story.

Friday, 23rd August receives a 3.5 from me.

The ongoing conflict over Kashmir, which returned to the headlines with accusations of an Indian attack in the region (remember to hold down shift when you click the link), is the main basis for this. I consider the India/Pakistan dispute over Kashmir to be by far the most likely setting for a new major war, and Pakistan has now accused India of launching a large attack on an army post in the region. India has dismissed the event as 'routine' scuffling. With the US now sending in its usual (or, alternatively, useless) 'special envoy' to try to clear the air, the threat of all-out war could escalate back to its ugly worst.
Cadbury's have done little to help matters. Their misguided advertising campaign, which tried to sell Dairy Milk by comparing it to Kashmir - both 'too good to share' - was roundly criticised by all parties.

Thursday, 22nd August receives a 2.8 from me.

This is largely based on this article, from the BBC, which details the death threat made to Northern Irish footballer Neil Lennon. Sectarian violence has recently been kept off the media agenda by a sequence of events starting in September last year, but as we near the anniversary of that month's horrific terrorist acts, so another form rears its ugly head. The spread of sectarianism to the 'beautiful game' that is, or was, football, may well herald a renewed effort at peace in Northern Ireland at a time when the world had largely forgotten about the conflict. Thus I place today somewhere around a 3 - minor domestic importance in that it could be a turning point for the Irish conflict, but not quite a 3 as it may well be a false dawn yet again.

One final point - open links we post in a new window by holding down the shift key when you click on them, or right-clicking and selecting 'Open in New Window'. That way they won't appear cramped in this tiny frame.

The link didn't work first time round, my fault. Google Search: "Dayorama". Hope that does the trick.

I'm using the cunning right-click method of Blogging from any page to write this. Click on this link: - and be amazed that NO ONE ELSE has ever used the phrase Dayorama! It's ours! All ours! And it's now copyright so keep your mitts off, everyone else. Have a nice day :-).

This second post is purely to establish where the 'Comments' button will appear. Dayorama is slowly reaching operational status. (Ollie)

Welcome to OJ's ratings. This is Ollie writing to make sure we are ready for a little Dayoramatisation...

Welcome to Ollie's Dayorama Ratings. Here, I'll be giving my rating (and an explanation) of the day gone by. I'll be using BBC News and CNN as background for many of my posts, and will try to include links where possible or relevant.