[blair house blues] exercise in pettiness

You've probably read of the brouhaha over Blair House, guesthouse for foreign leaders in Washington.

Remember that Obama wanted to be in there, leading up to the inauguration, so his kids could go to school but Bush refused, saying that the house had been pre-booked? It was then booked to former Oz PM and MP Howard and wife for one night, on the occasion of "the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former British PM Tony Blair, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe" and Howard.

"Mr. Howard will be staying for one night as per the invitation," his spokesman told [the Australian]. "There's no entourage; it's just Mr. and Mrs. Howard. None of it is at the expense of Australian taxpayers."

Even so, Aussies appeared to be decidedly opposed. A Melbourne newspaper, the Age, in an online poll, found that, of 11,360 respondents, 82 percent said he didn't deserve the medal. (Prior winners were Tommy Franks, George J. Tenet and J. Paul Bremer.)

It seems to me that there is pettiness everywhere in this story, from the Obama snub through to 9,315 Australians. I wonder about Blair though, who was just as much a key member of the coalition of the willing. Could it have been his Labour label which saw him lose his place to Howard?

Another house to keep an eye on is Trowbridge House, being renovated for the use of former presidents who are in town.

Shoot me down in flames and maybe it's a legacy of my occasional proximity to a minister I worked with in Russia but protocols are protocols and IMHO, when a president or PM ceases active duty, no matter what he did or who he was, even Brown and Obama eventually, he should at least be accorded a few retirement perks out of recognition of past service.

There is a feeling about, amongst large sections of the citizenry, understandable but a bit short on understanding, that nothing be conceded, that the taxpaper owes zero to former heads of state, that they took enough of the taxpayer's money swanning about the world during their time in office.

I think this is mean-spirited.

While I wouldn't cry tears if Brown found himself bumped off or summarily thrown out on his neck, there are protocols which ensure some sort of dignity for the office, if not the person. They should be automatic and not linked to the incumbent.

While we're on it, the salary of £190 000 odd a year is ludicrously small for a de facto head of state - no wonder it can't attract talent, that job. It's not arguing for Brown here but for the dignity of the office itself.

Criminal wastage, such as Wat Tyler exposes, is appalling and needs to be roundly condemned but the perks of office - well why not? I'd like to think that all jobs have their perks and bonuses which make them rewarding, from air traffic controllers through to rubbish men. Well maybe not rubbish men, the bstds.

There's a danger of falling into the "politics of envy" trap here, of thinking we are equally, if not more deserving than that man over there, of begrudging the perks he enjoys. He might begrudge the few reamining perks you enjoy.

Tell you what, while I'm up in the air over Heathrow, about to land, if the air traffic controllers were on some perk or other, I'd say give it to them, give it to them, along with the brain surgeon who examines my head for running this post.