« Tory MPs dissent from report calling for relaxed abortion laws | Main | Your favourite right-of-centre/ conservative (and elected) leader in the world today is... John Howard »


I wouldn't be surprised if after half a century of libertinism this country now goes into a puritanical religious upswing - Victorianism reloaded.

Include me out though. I am not going to keep commenting about this. If the editor thinks posters like atheling add to the debate and leaves their comments up writing on this site about the Middle East is not something I have time for.

That Darth Vader video is amazing. Perhaps one of the bandsmen is a neocon!

Responsiblity for these visits rests with the Foreign Office, doesn't it?

Pictures of Gordon Brown shaking hands with the King of Saudi Arabia should be distributed as widely as possible.

I know they buy lots of stuff off and cooperate on terrorism issues (allegedly), but do we really have to suck up to them this much?

Refusing to shake King Abdullah's hand would lead to a diplomatic crisis. There was absolutely no chance at all of Brown refusing the hand. It would be an enormous slap in the face for Saudi Arabia.

As for the Darth Vader music, I find that bizarre. I thought King Adbullah was a reformist who wasnt in a position to really speak out.

One more thing, why should King Abdullah care what Cameron has to say? Given that Cameron wont be PM in the next couple of years and that thats not certain, I would think that King Abdullah would only concern himself with the confrontation from Cameron if Brown agreed with Cameron on this issue. Until then, Abdullah has more important things to do.

Well done Cameron. I hope he expresses his views forcefully. Thanks for the link to Dan Hannan's article Editor. Hannan at his best.

Money talks.

Cameron would be doing the same as Brown if he were PM and Brown would be doing the same as Cameron if he were in opposition.

It's just a charade.

This in today's Wall Street Journal:


The Government proposes to give 70 million pounds of taxpayers money to try and counter radicalism in Muslim culture,would it not be better to ban this type of literature and close mosques that supply it.

Where money doesn't do the trick, it takes true ideological fervour to shake hands. Thatcher and Pinochet for example.

What is provocative about the flag?

Only parties that have no chance of power can afford to offend major national leaders. Much as one might despise the policies of these rulers, we have to do business with them and we have to observe the protocols. On the other hand I hope our leaders will also raise issues of concern with them at an appropriate time.

I was shocked when the red flag of the Chinese totalitarian state was flown on the Mall. Flying the Saudi Islamist flag doesn't have quite the same visual impact, but still a bad thing. We should only be flying the flags of genuinely friendly countries, and buying our arms exports doesn't count.

Chad Noble said "Cameron would be doing the same as Brown if he were PM and Brown would be doing the same as Cameron if he were in opposition.

It's just a charade"

Sadly, Chad, I fear you are right. Major and Maggie were pro Saudi in the first gulf war era, had to be.

And for all the talk of an ethical foreign policy Labour have found they need an ally in the region too.

Ultimately this will proberbly continue until the oil runs out, or we find an alternative to it.

Dear all

I have just posted a comment on my Blog about the Policy Exchange's report on 'Hate literature' found in the UK mosques. Although, because of my research and study, I am very aware of the phenomenon, I am very disappointed at the level of the research and the lack of a serious methodology and research plan, which, at the end, invalidate all Policy Exchange's report.

I think that research on this topic should be conducted by experienced academics in the field as well as funded by apolitical research bodies. I think that this quite amateurish research and report has damaged the possibility of further serious research.

Best wishes


Of course money talks. So do guns. Saudi has both in great quantities. So does China. Britain is a very puny fellow in the international playground and there is no "Sir" out there to stop bigger, tougher boys from doing us over - only weak, cock-eyed Miss United Nations. Therefore, anyone who brazenly suggests that we insult the Chinese or the Saudis in the name of feeling smugly superior is nothing but an infantile ignoramus. What would it achieve? Nothing - apart from disadvantage to our own people. Who would it help? Noone. NOONE. There is no way that a powerful and resolute nation will take the slightest notice of our wounded moral sensibilities. Why do people urge these naive attitudes?

Isn't there a middle way Simon between insulting Saudi Arabia and rolling out the red carpet?

I fear not, Mr Editor. The Saudis have long traditions of hospitality which demand a deal of respect in return. The sort of frosty, correct relationship you suggest is only possible with nations less easily wounded in their "amour propre". Moreover, we have to understand that those aspects of Saudi society which offend us - women being debarred from driving, for example - are very probably endorsed by most of the Saudi population. It is only a century since we in the west debarred women from all sorts of activities - such as voting. In declaring a moral war on Saudi today we are at war with our own past. Imagine that some advanced culture of 1900 had started hostile manoeuvres against Britain on feminist grounds. Would this have enlightened us? Most probably it would have hardened the old attitudes. To make these observations is neither cynical nor relativistic. The liberal path is - in my view - the right one. However, it can never be imposed and whilst illiberal conditions obtain in the world, we in Britain are obliged to deal with illiberal people. They, like us, will change and improve over time. There is no point in insulting them and even less point in trying to insult them just a little bit, so we don't lose their trade.

CCHQ has just issued this statement:

"Commenting on David Cameron's meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a spokesman said:

“David Cameron, with Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, had a very constructive meeting with the King of Saudi Arabia at Buckingham Palace.

“David Cameron underlined the importance he attached to the relationship between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia.

“Most of the 45 minute meeting was spent discussing co-operation between Britain and Saudi Arabia on counter-terrorism matters, including radicalisation inside and outside UK mosques, and the importance of stopping this radicalisation and the sources of funding for it.

“The meeting also covered the Middle East Peace process and the latest developments regarding Iran.”

Hello! Hello! Anybody Home? Wakey! Wakey! Is there anybody still residing in Britain who has BALLS??? What a mob of appeasing weaklings. About time you stood up to these bastards. Your descendants who fought and died for the freedom and liberty of Great Britain, are turning in their graves. Shame! Shame Upon You! The quicker your suckhole Governemnt drops the appellative "Great" from the nation's name the better. I thought the Kofi Annan knighthood was embarrassing enough, but now this. What a mob of gutless wonders, and all in the name of diplomacy. Can't say much more the language from here gets a little blue. No wonder Brits are fleeing in droves to Australia, and other western destinations. How the mighty have fallen. Bow your heads in shame!

Bill Fraser,
Down Under


The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker