The emerging split

The British Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has stood by his criticisms of the 12-day bombardment of Lebanon with a warning that Israel had to win the "political battle" as well as confronting Hizbollah militarily.

The Independent reports (in pig awful journalism):

…Howells, whose weekend remarks in Beirut and here yesterday appeared to reflect an emerging difference - at the very least in tone - between the UK and US governments over Israel's conduct of the war, repeated that Israel had to "think very hard" about the loss of civilian life and the impact on Lebanon's infrastructure.

Asked if he was saying that that Israel's bombardment, which has taken over 370 lives, was not "proportionate and restrained", Howells said: "Yes, I believe that is the view of the British government. We defend all the all the way down the line Israel's right to defend its citizens, cities and communities against Hizbollah, a ruthless enemy, but there is also a political battle to be won, and they have got to show proprtionality."

Like I say, the journalism is wanting and the political constructions strange, but the message is still clear. Britain’s government is not falling into step with the Bush admin on Israel.

The other noise coming out of London, and presaging rift, is the fact that Blair was actually quite pissed off by Bush’s G8 performance. If nothing else, it made Blair look like the patsy he is.

Happy days, the Mid Atlantic Ridge is rocking and rolling.

More...

But just to show the real difference between the two nations; The US tend to fix bad press with name changes. If it stinks just call it something else. In Britain they dress differently to solve their problems.

Uniforms for passport teams 'will deter illegals'

Uniformed border control officers are to be introduced at ports and airports, John Reid, the Home Secretary, announced yesterday.

In addition, the budget for immigration enforcement will double to £280 million by the end of 2010 to try to clamp down on illegal immigrants.