There is controversy over the unveiling of a statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square. Apparently it wrong to put up a statue to Lloyd George because he ordered bombings in Iraq between 1916 and 1922, which "makes today's celebration of Lloyd George's legacy highly topical and disgraceful."

What on earth are Harold Pinter, John Pilger and Denis Halliday on about in their letter to the Telegraph? Whilst Lloyd George wasn't perfect, it is hardly "disgraceful" to erect a statue of him in Parliament Square.

The reaction to Lloyd George's statue is especially remarkable in contrast with the reaction when a statue to Nelson Mandela was erected in Parliament Square. The BBC article on Mandela's statue has absolutely no mention of his less-than-salubrious past and objections to his statue because of it, whilst the article on Lloyd George has more on the opposition to his statue than support for it.

Mandela was a terrorist. No matter what the cause for which he fought, his actions ticked absolutely every box of that definition. Lloyd George, on the other hand, just authorised bombings during a war! There is no denying that Lloyd George has more right to have a statue in Parliament Square than Nelson Mandela. To start with, he was a British Prime Minister, and not a terrorist!

So why, why was there a deafening silence on opposition to Mandela's statue but the utter opposite for the far more noble and deserving Lloyd George?

Source: BBC

Does the fact that a young aide "blacked up" and another posted the photo along with a jokey caption mean that the Tories are racist? Of course it doesn't. Yet Dawn Butler says that this shows that the Tories "ha[ve] not changed one bit". Quite what she is suggesting, I don't know. Anyone who makes such a link between one young aide dressing up and an entire party being potentially - if not actively - racist is an idiot. Yes, both of them were stupid. But, last I heard, stupidity wasn't a crime. If it was, all of the present government would currently be residing at Her Majesty's pleasure.

What is shows is that Labour react against anyone who does not fully accede to their racism, their politically correct "positive discrimination" - such an oxymoronic phrase that I'm surprised that anyone can utter it in all seriousness. There is nothing "positive" about discrimination, after all - discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. And discrimination, we all accept, is wrong.

Racism can go in any direction, from any and to any. So why is it that Labour believe that only whites can be racist? Because they are living in a world created by their politically-correct infatuations with an "equality" that is anything from equal at all. Nelson Mandela himself came out and said that we shouldn't read racism into every situation after a man was reported to what was then the CRE for "blacking up". So why won't Labour listen to him on this? Because that would be common sense.

Labour is living in a racial world that stopped existing years ago. People my age don't see race or skin colour as meaning anything. It's just your genes, innit, not who you are. It is these middle-age race campaigners who are the modern racists, who fixate about skin colour and creating an "equal" [ie. unequal] country.

To my generation, "race" means bugger-all. We believe in meritocracy, where a person earns their own position, not one where they have one already created simply because of their racial origins, usually demonstrated by skin colour. Who cares what your ancestors may have been or done? To them, it means everything. Who is the racist here?

Image: Oxfam
Sources: The Guardian, Daily Mail

A statue of nelson Mandela is to be unveiled in Parliament Square

Why should a statue of Nelson Mandela be put up in Britain at all? He is not a British statesman or even an international one with any real effects on British life. Yes, he was an international and important leader in his time as South African President, but that doesn't warrant a statue paid for by the taxpayer and erected in Parliament Square.

Mandela seems to be used as a political talisman - MPs named him as their Top Political Idol back in January, and Gordon Brown welcomed him to 10 Downing Street as the "greatest and most courageous leader of our generation". To invoke the name of Nelson Mandela is almost to make opposition impossible. He is used as the figurehead of the Elders - who have yet to actually do anything since their formation - and seems to be little more than a political shield against any challenge.

How can he really be considered the equal of the other great statesmen whose statue stand in Parliament Square? He achieved some great things, but he was only in office for five years, 1994-1999. I think that the veneration of Mandela has gone too far, and the erection of this statue is an example of it.

UPDATE: Asp also has a good analysis of the same story, and points out that:

Sources: The Times, BBC

Whilst on his farewell tour of the world, Tony Blair met Nelson Mandela, who welcomed him to the "club of retired presidents". Yet he meets neither requirement. Blair is neither yet an ex-leader and has never been a president in the first place - however much he ran his Cabinet and his government like he was. He may be eligible to join the club of ex-world leaders from 27 June, but not that of presidents, how much he may have wished to have been one.

We have the Queen as our Head of State, not a politician. And that is certainly a good thing. If Blair had been President instead of Prime Minister, I shudder to think what could have happened to the country in the last decade.

Until 27 June (26 days away still), Tony Blair is officially the Prime Minister of Britain. He really shouldn't be doing a farewell tour at all yet but, if he won't let Brown take over officially, he should be running the country whilst Gordo and the deputy leader contenders tour the country. Especially since Prescott has also swanned off to top up his tan, who on earth is running the country?!

Source: The Times, The Metro