Government EU defeat, Lance Armstrong and storm Sandy

In a shocking departure from recent form, high level British politics became interesting last night as the House of Commons supported an amendment to demand a reduction in the European Union’s budget. Not only was this a strong show of British political muscle against the excesses of the EU, it also marked a defeat of the government in a whipped vote, as Tory backbench rebels joined forces with Labour, the SNP and the DUP. It is a result warmly welcomed by all sceptical of the growing federal behemoth of Brussels, but as it is not binding on the Prime Minister it is but a small skirmish in the battle. Whether this will catalyse Parliament into ‘sorting out’ the European question (which, given the widespread and growing public disquiet on the issue must surely include a referendum on the UK’s relationship with the EU) remains to be seen. But regardless, it’s good to see things getting exciting in the Commons once again.

I don’t wish to add too much ink to the Lance Armstrong case, so I offer only this -  putting aside the ethics, deception, methods and outcomes of the scandal, two great sadnesses emerge: firstly, we will never know how good Armstrong truly was. Many say that without EPO you drop from the front of the peloton to the middle; although I have no doubt he wouldn’t have achieved the success he did without EPO, I would be surprised if he hadn’t experienced some success and been competitive at the front end without it. But this is the point – these questions can never be answered, they will forever be speculative and will forever be worthless, for Armstrong the sportsman is now worthless. The second sadness is that there is no inspiration left for fans and riders of an era of cycling already largely discredited, for the success of Armstrong was one of the few lights – and certainly the brightest – that remained. I’m just thankful that my own interest in the sport was only birthed two seasons ago.

Returning to politics while hopping across the Atlantic, the American presidential elections have been thrown to the back stage in light of storm Sandy. This is quite proper in light of the tragedy that the storm has wreaked. Yet a scene from The West Wing comes to mind when Zoe Bartlett has been kidnapped and President Bartlett is unable to focus on the politics of the situation. Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman speaks up and says ‘that’s why I have to’. It is entirely right that political calculation doesn’t show a public face in these times, but no doubt in the background many campaigners on both sides of this election will be calculating the political ramifications of the storm. This is not hateful when their goal is to respond rightly and responsibly to the tragedy; it would be hateful if either side tried to use the storm to their political advantage.