Cojones

Not written too much over the last week, owing to a preoccupation with biofuels and climate change. Instead, I've been doing a little bit of research. My conclusion so far is that we're screwed and most people seem to be in denial. Including the self-appointed opinion formers in the media (funny how what started out as mediums of communication now have so many opinions of their own). Oh, and ignorant: get this from the Grauniad: "the [F1] cars should switch over to engines running on ethanol: a grain-based fuel, biodegradable and emitting no carbon dioxide." Not quite.

Did you notice this piece in the Guardian, which began: "You are unlikely to have heard of Gazprom..."? This started me thinking. This was discussing a fund in which readers may consider investing. Those readers who are so ignorant they haven't heard of Gazprom. Hmm. I'm beginning to get a glimmer of understanding as to why I have to indirectly fund people who have been "mis-sold" endowment mortgages and personal pensions. Are we developing a culture where people are assumed to be ignorant? Yet we have media who tell us what to think. But they have no responsibility to present a true picture. These media themselves, who, what with deadlines (and probably staffing levels cut to the bone like most businesses), are permitted to be sloppy. Where, exactly, does responsibility for getting the facts right actually start?

Maybe I should write to the PCC and ask. But the chairman of this ineffectual organisation is none other than Sir Christopher "Solomon" Meyer. I say "Solomon" as somehow, in the famous passage, he knew that "he may have been the only member of the waiting British team who understood this [cojones] meant balls." I may be the only person reading the Guardian's Money section who's heard of Gazprom, but somehow I doubt it. Perhaps Sir Christopher is just revealing - how shall I put it? - his breath-taking arrogance. I particularly loved the bit where he "cursed [himself] afterwards for not piping up." As if he could have thereby brought about a second UN resolution. The monkey thinks he's the organ-grinder.

I read all the Meyer extracts in the Guardian, and entertaining as it was (and a breach of trust, by the way - don't buy a used car off this man, he'll tell the world what a sucker you were), I was left wondering exactly what Blair - supposedly the same Bliar, who decided with Bush in 2002 that this war would happen - had done wrong. Simon Jenkins is closer when he says: "Blair had no leverage on Iraq with Washington's neocons - but, like Wilson over Vietnam, he did have a choice." In my view Blair chose - but not in one momemt, rather by a series of many, many decisions over several years - to get rid of a dictator and maintain the UK's historic alliance with the US, because those were his and the government's foreign policy objectives. He neither wanted to, nor would have been able to, stand up to the forces of history. I happen to think that many of the complex causes of dramatic world events are systemic. The reasons are embedded in systems of behaviour, deeply rooted in the past and not simply subject to change by the will of single individuals, however powerful they and we think they are. This war, I believe, was inevitable the moment the planes hit the Twin Towers, and probably had been since the unfinished first Gulf War.

"The media" don't need to maintain a consistent line as to what Blair did wrong. They can lay into Blair one week for having been scheming and the next for having been ineffectual with the Americans. And they can spin all they like, all the while accusing the government itself of spinning. How about the Guardian headline on Monday 7th November: "Blair's litany of failures on Iraq - ambassador's damning verdict". How do you justify that? Sells papers better than: "Civil servant disagrees with PM (who should know) about extent of UK leverage over US foreign policy."

I'd like to think the Guardian is well-meaning and at some level attempting to be objective in its reporting (that headline is not headed "Comment", though). It gets more amusing when we get to papers like the Evening Standard (which I buy because it has a monopoly, as I will keep insisting on reminding everyone). On Monday 7th, they reported (on a "News" page) not only that the former ambassador made a "withering critique" (really?), but also that "Mr Blair wore trousers so tight he had to get changed." This may be true, but it's not what Meyer wrote (at least in the extracts). The trousers he changed were on another occasion when he realised his were too casual: no-one else was wearing jeans.

But that distortion and inaccuracy is nothing compared to what the columnists can get away with. In the same edition of the ES, Peter Oborne writes: "Our Prime Minister would go into a meeting with the President armed by his advisers with a list of concessions that needed to be won and never even raise one of them." Having read reams of Meyer's supposed revelations I see nothing to suggest this. Where did Oborne get that? Perhaps someone can direct me to a passage in Meyer's memoir that suggests such an interpretation, otherwise I guess I'll have to assume Oborne just made it up.