Eldon-Online

Hard Labour, Darling?

Is Gordon Brown facing the first signs of "the final revolt" within his UK Labour Party?

It has been noticeable in recent weeks that beleaguered British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been looking for party support, which has indeed been coming from at least some of the party faithful. But it has not been convincing to an outside observer, as rather wooden stock-phrases have been trotted out about supporting the best man for the job. Reminiscent of the sort of language used by government and company chiefs when a trusted lieutenant is found embroiled in a scandal - and whose resignation is subsequently, and "reluctantly", accepted. 

The end of last week saw the person generally portrayed as the "grey man" of British politics, Alistair Darling the Chancellor of the Exchequer, don the mantle of honest politician (an oxymoron to some), and tell the British public that they have never had it so bad - economically.

In fact, he said, this is the worst slump in 60 years. And he basically said he needed to tell it straight, and make people aware of the difficulties ahead. All of which seems to suggest that Brown is unwilling to give the bad news himself - and why might that be? 

Clearly bad news is not good for his own tarnished image, or that of a party battered in the by-elections and showing poorly in all the opinion polls. (All forgotten briefly by the news of Britain's Olympic successes, and shadowed for a few days by the interminable reporting on the US elections). But might such news not also reflect rather badly on the performance of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer who was, of course - Gordon Brown.

The move by Alistair Darling is a brave one. It puts him - at present - alone in his concerns at least within the party. Even Gordon Brown himself said the other day that the economy was "resilient". But it seems to suggest, given his previous non-confrontational history, that he either has very quietly harboured deep-seated ambitions to become Prime Minister himself, or he is "fronting" for a group of disgruntled Labour Party MPs who believe that their only hope to avert a total disaster at the next General Election is to do so with a new leader at their head.

The Labour Party now refers to Mr. Darling's comments as a "gaffe" - not a view shared by Mr "Daring" himself it seems. Somehow I get a sense there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Is this the real beginning of Mr Brown's demise?

Pride of Place

The British author and TV Presenter, Jeremy Paxman, summed up the English (specifically) as being "... polite, unexcitable, reserved, and who had hot-water bottles instead of a sex-life". A summing up that could, perhaps, apply to the British generally although we Scots have been known on occasion to thump our chests, albeit usually prematurely, having scored the first points in a Six Nations rugby against the "Auld Enemy", from which we go on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!

Britons have usually been more apologetic than proud of their country and its achievements - at least since they lost the Empire! Rare sightings are seen of anything other than a stiff upper lip, and competitiveness on a school sports field seems to have been banned because it disadvantages the less talented. Not so, it seems in the world of art, where a dead sheep suspended in a tank of formaldehyde is considered worthy of rapturous outpourings. Thank goodness art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Abroad, the average Brit will not open his or her mouth in a foreign language unless there is a high degree of confidence that, mentally at least before utterance, the words and the sentence construction are correct; (and I did say "average" before my own children who are at least bi-lingual and in most cases tri-lingual, take me to task!). We tend not to stand out in a crowd in case we stand at the wrong time. We are self-effacing to the extent that you realise we would have been just as happy with getting a second place. A jolly good show!

That was until two weeks ago.

The usually staid "Daily Telegraph" newspaper headline for 20 August read "A Great British Olympics". Since I arrived a few days ago, I have seen a level of pride rising in Britain in a way I have not seen before. A pride in being British, even. Not an arrogant, huffing and puffing, chest-out pride of course, (let's not go overboard!) but just a genuine pleasure in seeing British athletes in all disciplines bringing home medals many were not expected to win. And even taking a good natured "dig" at the Australians for a change, to whom we seem to lose at so many other things.

But the point is this. Success is infectious. It has been the wettest August in Britain for many years, maybe since records began - and we are only just over half way through the month, but you wouldn't know it, from the glow of the Olympic successes. There is an attitude of mind that is positive, and it has been achieved in a short space of time. A real feel good factor. And it brought me back to thinking about Hong Kong.

Thinking about how, so often, we look for the negatives even in a positive environment - or an environment that is least better than that elsewhere. If attitude of mind is the key, then we need to be highlighting those events that should make us feel proud of Hong Kong. Start with our part in the Olympics - a successful equestrian event, thanks to the Jockey Club in large part. Continue by promoting democracy, and electing people to Legco next month whose interests are in the future prosperity of Hong Kong. 

I feel the world is watching us rather more closely than we might think, and a positive attitude will demonstrate that we are awake, alive and not suffering from complacency. We must be proud of who we are and what we have achieved. If the British can do it - so can we!

Right Choice - Convicts Not Wanted

The decision by the Hong Kong Government, according to the latest news I have heard, not to permit convicted British paedophile Paul Gadd, (better known to an older generation perhaps as Gary Glitter) to enter Hong Kong is rational, sane and should be applauded. I just hope hope that no one changes the Government's mind!

But the decision will be met with dismay by at least one British Member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom, who is the UK Independence Party's representative for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

I heard Mr Bloom today on Britain's Radio 2 advocating strongly that Glitter should be permitted to stay in Singapore or Hong Kong if that is what he wants to do. After all, Mr Bloom says, "why would we want a paedophile brought back to Britain, at the taxpayers expense, just so Britain can keep an eye on him?" He went on to say that as Glitter had served his time for his recent conviction, and as he had made his strong desire known that he did not want to return to Britain but preferred to stay in South East Asia, he should be allowed - even encouraged - to do so. 

I must admit to a heart-sinking feeling when I heard that Glitter was, indeed, on his way to Hong Kong, in First Class, but good sense it seems has prevailed.

The laws in Britain covering people convicted of paedophilia are much more stringent than they would seem to be in Asia generally. A register of persons convicted of this most heinous of crimes is maintained, and the physical movement of paedophiles is monitored carefully, to the extent of taking away a person's ability to travel. Sadly, few Asian countries monitor such activities as carefully, leaving young children down as young as babies at serious risk from these sick people. No wonder Gary Glitter doesn't want to return to Britain, as his activities will be severely curtailed - and he might even be the target of some unpleasant abuse.

And, Mr. Bloom, I am sure you don't want Mr Gadd returning to his home country particularly if you have young grandchildren who might be at risk as a result, but don't try and foist this disgusting specimen of the human race onto us in Hong Kong.

Oh! What a Night.

You had to be there, right? I know it will not have impressed everyone and, guess what, there were some logistical problems. The media who will have been hunting for the bad rather than the good, will have found plenty of glitches; the handful of protestors will have found loopholes even if they were never seen. It was horribly hot - and I thought it might be better to watch it on television. But I was wrong. Courtesy of some wonderful people who invited me to join them I was there, and I was in awe.

The opening ceremony of the the XXIXth Olympiad in Beijing was everything this observer could have imagined - and plenty of things that could not have been imagined. Whether or not Steven Spielberg was ever going to provide some technical assistance, I am glad he didn't. They managed just fine without him. And whoever must have been watching from the London Olympic Committee should have been chewing their nails by the end, wondering how they were going to top that - and they haven't seen the closing yet!

From the opening drum beats to the final lighting of the flame, this was a triumphant procession of China's contributions to the world over a 5,000 year time span - done subtly and spectacularly in an entrancing programme. The entrance of the athletes from the huge continents to representatives from the tiniest of nations, all putting sport where it belongs on this occasion, above the politics that seem to have been never far from the surface with these particular games. Athletes with smiles as wide as the stadium, happy to be there and part of an event that for many will be their chance of a lifetime, their dream. The cheers that erupted from the whole stadium to welcome the arrival of the team from Chinese Taipei must have warmed the hearts of those who seek closer cooperation between the two places, as much as the cheers for the Iraq team must have made President Bush wonder if his hearing was properly attuned - but these were cheers, I think, for the fact that through tragedy and adversity the Iraqis had managed to send a team at all - nothing more sinister than that. And for China of course, and rightly, the loudest cheers as they were led around the stadium by Yao Ming accompanied by a nine year old boy from Sichuan who had helped rescue some of his classmates when the earthquake struck last May. A poignant and appropriate tribute representing many heroes of that disaster, recognised and unrecognised. 

This was a night when animosity and politics should have been forgotten. A night which belonged to the organisers of what some might claim was a contender for the title of the greatest show on earth. A night which belonged to the volunteers and participants whose years of dedication to the spectacle will be a long memory for them, but a night that above all celebrated the global village of athleticism where to even take part, will be a tribute to the determination and dedication of many.

And yes, if you were able to,  you had to be there!  

The Standards Board - Double Trouble.

Everything seems to have a "Standards Board" these days. Not a bad idea really, if it applies to everyone fairly, is clear and unambiguous. Of course, they do go for "minimum standards", to protect the less robust in the case of financial institutions for example. Basel II is a case in point - on the basis that it was actually needed in the first place - but here we have an agreed set of "standards" to apply to the financial services industry globally. Wonderful. But no sooner had it been put in place when certain countries said "Well, yes, this is good, but perhaps it doesn't all apply to us", and others who said "Clearly, the top ten banks have to follow the rules in their entirety, but the other 12,000 can modify it to something simpler". Drop the standards, double the trouble. Bail out the big investment banks, who perhaps should have known better, but sorry, the little provincial bank must be allowed to fail.

Financial markets aside, what about the sporting community? I am getting just a little fed up of the "warnings" being put around in advance of the Olympics which start on Friday, against the drug cheats. Not because I think drug induced performances should be condoned, but because the people who are giving the "heaviest" warnings seem to come from countries with a high proportion of suspect athletes and sports people, who have already had their sports men and women disqualified from previous victories. The standards are there, but they only seem to provide a "target" for the coaches to aim at, and see what they can get away with.

Speaking of the Olympics, there is a great deal of fuss about the use of the internet and the level of access being allowed to journalists and others in Beijing. Journalists, it seems, want to go to Beijing to report on the Olympics - and the first thing they do after they arrive is try and access sensitive sites as a "test". I think that China is entitled to believe, as has been stressed in other parts of the world at other times, that the Olympics should be non-political. This should be for genuine sporting achievement. If you want to protest about something, fine, but there is a time and a place for everything. It seems that the Chinese are much more likely to respect the sensitivities of their hosts when they visit other countries, than the so called civilised world is choosing to do when in China. 

And as we are on politics, I was struck by a comment in the Letters column of the South China Morning Post a few weeks ago, when someone wrote about the way in which the world treats Mr. Mugabe on the one hand in Zimbabwe, and Hamas on the other. Once again, don't misunderstand me as I am not apologising for, or condoning terrorism. It seems odd, though, that from an election which by all accounts was reasonably and fairly run we have an elected Government (Hamas), which is subject to immediate sanctions by the West if they put one foot out of line. On the other we are subjected to regular doses of an African leader, unfairly elected, who by almost every account is unspeakably dreadful - and no-one does anything other than express their distaste for him.

Standards? Yes, let's agree them and abide by them if that is what they are there for, but double standards are quite unacceptable.