Questions Of The Day (Politics)

[Mick Harper]

What fascinating points can we glean from the news story currently transfixing the world, the Russian bounty for offing Yank soldiers? First, how important in absolute terms? Such are the numbers of western soldiers in Afghanistan (apparently we're all targeted) and such is their visibility that discussion centres over whether one GI might have been affected by such a policy, but probably wasn't.

Second, what diff? Are you telling me the Taliban need paying to kill our boys? Why weren't we told this when we first arrived? We could have paid them not to. And what's in it for the Russians? OK, they may have killed a GI, that's on the plus side; on the other hand they've earned worldwide obloquy. You've got to balance these things up.

And finally, how strong is the intelligence? Well, we're not going to get the truth from the horse's mouth any time soon so what about the horse's arse's mouth? I would think there are several million Afghans with a reasonable interest in spreading the story -- not to mention millions more non-Afghans -- so I expect it will reach the president's daily intelligence briefing notes at some stage.

My money's on rogue elements in the GRU since we went through all this with Salisbury. Putin probably initialled it, 'Yeah, WTF' when it appeared in his daily intelligence briefing notes. He reads them, unlike some presidents I know.

[Mick Harper]

Memo from Putin

Can you tell them to check the identification of the soldiers before killing them. We don't want Australia, Georgia, Jordan, Italy, France and what have you, hammering on our door. No, wait, France is OK, they can go on the list. Not Germany until further notice. Dear God, it's hard work being the pariah's pariah.

[Mick Harper]

If the Russians want my advice about their constitutional referendum tomorrow, I'd tell 'em to vote to keep Putin for as long as they can. I'm not saying he's perfect, but I do say he's perfect for Russia.

[Mick Harper]

As the world's leading fraudist I was professionally interested when President Trump identified the Russian Bounty story as a 'hoax by the newspapers and the Democrats'. Hoaxes, of their nature, have to come from a single source and they have to be amplified by other sources so by 'newspapers', he must mean The New York Times. They certainly have an interest in making up the story to increase their circulation. By 'the Democrats' he must mean Democratic Party HQ or individual Democrats acting in caucus, and they too have a clear interest in making up the story.

It could have been either but it couldn't have been both. So, Prez, ya gotta choose. The FBI will want to know just for starters.

[Mick Harper]

A clear distinction must be drawn between Russia and China, between Presidents Putin and Xi. Both countries, both presidents, are not very nice but they are not very nice in quite different ways. Russia is very unstable and has enough nuclear weapons to finish us all off so it is best to have a corrupt nationalist in charge. Corrupt people just want to keep what they've got and nationalists are always popular, so he'll be allowed to keep what he's got by his own people so long as we let him have a few nationalistic triumphs to keep him popular. A nuisance but no more than that.

The important thing to bear in mind is that he is marginally better than what went before and almost certainly better than anyone else on the horizon. Better, that is, in terms of a stable Russia. Any replacement couldn't be worse as a person and you've all seen them, nice liberals the lot of them. The ones the western media are always interviewing -- and that includes oligarchs. Businessmen are liberals too. God save Russia from being ruled by a nice person, that always ends in tears.

China and Xi ... now that's quite different.

[Mick Harper]

Thirteen tons of Uighur hair seized by US customs rather sums up President Xi’s China. Not quite lampshades but worse than anything else in the world today by way of state-sponsored racism. The Han Chinese have always been racist – not so much towards their own minorities as to the whole world, but President Xi has embarked on the dangerous course of not caring what the world thinks. This has always been Russia’s policy but China is a trading nation as Russia never will be.

Xi is the first Chinese leader since Mao who has adopted the Emperor model of “It’s me, for life, get used to it.” There are advantages to this, both for ruler and ruled, but Communist parties have been careful to provide a politburo who have in theory – and in practice – the power to remove the leader. So long as the Great Leader – and the Great Leader’s relatives in the case of Cuba and North Korea – is both orthodox at home and successful abroad, he can keep the job for life. Xi has removed this safeguard and is slightly running amok. The real question is to what extent the party and the people are behind him in this.

We have seen with Erdogan and Putin that foreign successes mean you can be cut some slack despite domestic failings but it does mean lots of balls have to be kept in the air. Is Xi a Great Man or a Great Bureaucrat? We know he's a Complete Bastard but that doesn't answer the question.

[Mick Harper]

Britain vs China

All this gesture politics on our part is very feel-good but constantly runs into a structural barrier: China is important to us, we aren't important to China. But if we're going to indulge in it, we might as well get it right. For a start, this China-bashing over Hong Kong is entirely misconceived.

The two-system solution was trundling along quite happily, as it has been ever since 1997, but then Beijing made a maladroit move and all kinds of mayhem was launched. The students (not the majority of the Hong Kong people) were so relentless in their protests that they drove the Chinese into a corner! What the hell else could they do, they've got a whole country to run by other means? The two-system solution cuts both ways, remember.

So then Britain gives a way out for several million Hong Kong people (though not the students). Fair enough, but let's not forget why they couldn't come before. It was because Britain was terrified that several million Hong Kongers would turn up on our doorstep. All right, only a few of them will come, China won't allow many to come and we could quite do with as many Hong Kongers as are available right now but even so, if you're holding a gun to somebody's head, try to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. We'll be shooting the other foot with Huawei any day now.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Owen Jones has decided Labour's real struggle is not left v right – it is to keep young and minority voters. Bless him, the boy Owen isn't old enough to realise that it's always about left v right.

[Mick Harper]

The Conservatives becoming the party of financial recklessness is going to mean fun and games further down that street. When the gnomes raise interest rates because we're no long AAA rated.

They can't tax the rich, there's no money in it; they can't tax the middle class, there's too many of their votes in it; they can't tax the poor, there's no money in it. The public services are already cut to the bone. That leaves Big Business and the Dead. And letting Scotland and Northern Ireland go would save a few bob. It's not traditional Tory though, is it?

Let them go, Boris, and concentrate on your heartland in the northern mill towns. All the pies they can eat.

[Mick Harper]

I must say I was greatly relieved that Roger Stone escaped chokey. Not just because I have always liked him but because his crimes were essentially political. Fined $50,000 for technical infractions, something like that.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

The way the courts are dealing with the famous -- not just Stone & co, but all the celebrity sex-pests -- means there ought to be a law for the rich and a law for the rest of us.

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]