Brexit, of course...

Sadly, this is yet another example of the problem besetting all politicians - they don't get any training.  OK, I would say that, wouldn't I, given that my career was as a trainer: but it's true that in most other professions, by the time we get to the stage of making important decisions, we have either spent several years qualifying or have many years of experience in our jobs - or both. The problem is compounded by the tendency for people who go into politics being the type whose mouths naturally get into gear before their brains.

At every election or reshuffle, ministers are appointed who have no knowledge of the work of their department, unless they have shadowed it in opposition (e.g. David Blunkett or George Osborne, who whatever you think of their politics did at least know what they were doing). Look at the latest one - Penny Mordaunt, who may well be successful and does have some experience in defence.....but oh no, she goes to DFID and someone with no experience of defence whatsoever is promoted from chief whip to defence for all the wrong reasons.

I've no doubt that the humanitarian cause that Priti Patel was supporting is a noble one - but she should have gone through the proper channels before getting involved in another department's work, and she didn't have the experience or common sense to foresee the knock-on effects of what she was doing, or the political capital that others would make out of it.

I don't think that Brexit is the issue in this case, although it shows how Brexit is paralysing the whole process of government.  This government is all too reminiscent of the Major government which staggered from crisis to crisis, some of its own making, getting less and less popular in the process.  The difference is that there was then a credible opposition led by Tony Blair: now we have an extremist leader of the opposition who has alienated most of the better operators in his party, but is unfortunately skilful enough as a demagogue to get people to vote for him, or at least against the Conservatives.

Patel has a job, as a junior minister it's her job to represent foreign office policy she didn't, now she does not have a job, just as you or I wouldn't if we went off piste so publicly.

Mind you it's a wonder Boris hasn't been sacked for the same reasons, but there is a brexit reason for that.

If she'd gone to New Zealand and paid courtesy calls on Minsters or to a stable donor recipient country and visited humanitarian sites she'd have been fine though telling the Foreign Office in advance would have been courteous.

Israel/Palestine is at the very core of the Middle East's issues. Failure to deal with rights of Palestinians, real or perceived, and Israel's apparent running roughshod over them is a major grievance for Arabs and the wider Muslim world. Failure by successive US an Western Governments to 'hold Israel's feet to the fire' over previous committments means the grievances are focussed on Western capitals too. Going visiting on one side only against that background as BAD POLITICS AND NO DIPLOMACY.

She then visits the Golan Heights, an area which the UN regards as illegally occupied, and apparently talks about directing aid via the Israeli Army. More BAD POLITICSAND NO DIPLOMACY.

Then called upon to account for herself she is economical with truth and rearranges a pre planned trip abroad to avoid having to appear in the Commons and explain her actions.

The only mystery is that she held on so long.

Remember when we used to have thumbs, Bromp? I'd, erm, give you one for each of those two contributions.

Esp, we understand that you see this subject through your own personal and cultural lens, but that doesn't invalidate other views on the matter. Bromp is right to point out that the Middle East influences events across the world, sometimes uncomfortably close to home for all of us. To meddle, without authority and probably for reasons of vanity, in areas her government and civil servants know to handle with extreme care, was hugely irresponsible, and Patel was lucky to be allowed even the get-out of a resignation.

If he'd spent his first (ie coalition) term making alliances in Europe he'd have some political capital to draw on. He didn't though, playing instead to the Europhobe wing of his own party. He was obstructive and rude in various forums. Vetoed solution  to Euro zone problems that had little or no impact on UK. Further he was downright dishonest in his campaign against Juncker's presidency. 

A demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument' (OED). Where the term originated, in ancient Athens, by telling the people what they wanted to hear, the demagogues caused a lack of cohesive government which led to the loss of the great war against Sparta and ultimately the downfall of Athens as a great power.

They didn't have to shout and rant, although no doubt some did: Jeremy Corbyn's air is something more like a retired geography teacher. But he has the ability to make unsound policies, which haven't been thought through and owe more to dogma than logic, attractive to many - especially young people who haven't the experience to see that they won't work. He sounds calm and rational, I agree: but that in itself is dangerous as it makes him sound more logical than he is.

To me that's a form of demagoguery, although the term itself isn't important. Disagree with me by all means, Bromp, but 'nonsense on stilts' is a bit strong.

Actually I rather liked Cameron. And Boris. And having met both, quite respected their intelligence.

I am at a loss as to how to explain the complete stupidity and unmitigated hypocrisy that both exhibited during the Brexit referendum farce.