The way to do things

Yesterday I popped down Nairamdal Park, the main park of Ulaanbaatar, to wander about in its surrounds made starnger by snow. In winter time parts of it look like the Penguin's Lair from Batman Returns. However, upon reaching the perimeter, I find that the entire park has been fenced off. Upon inquiry as to why such a drastic measure was implemented, I was told that the park is to be renovated and won't be open until 2009 (add one-two years for inevitable delays)! To section off a whole park to refurbish it for two years is rather extreme since certain parts of the park could be updated area by area, instead of denying it to everyone for a good few years. Not all of UB's residents can afford in either time or money to go to the countryside to enjoy a relaxing stroll, while the boating pond became in winter an ice rink with picturesque backdrops.
In Britain they would have done things better on an issue like this, but conversely get it wrong on far more important matters like Trident renewal. Des Browne says he hopes he has made the case for renewal. He couldn't make the case for finding his own arse with his hands. Unknown future threats are myriad. A large chunk of an island in the Canary archipelago is predicted to be on the verge of falling into the sea, triggering a tsunami that would wipe out the eastern seaboard of North America a la Deep Impact, causing economic meltdown as the waves recede. What insurance policy against this far more credible future threat has the government got - absolutley none, because it wishes away such real potential catastrophes, lost as it is in its own nuclear phantasmagoria. And didn't they say (again and again) terrorism is the abiding conflict of our times? What are they going to do with our deterrent against this - use nuclear missiles to shoot hijacked planes out of the skies? Then there is Margaret Beckett, stating that a decision has not been taken but there has to be a vote now is Swiftian in its contradictions since the implication is that a decision has already been taken, otherwise the vote would not be so pressing. It takes a while to develop a new submarine, but our submarines have a further 17 years of frontline service in them (if frontline can be described as three of the four being laid up in harbour for most of the year), and can be patched up for several more years service as the government is forced to admit. As for Conservative defence spokesmen saying that "renewal is essential" (notice they are men, not women - maybe nuclear missiles make up for the inadequacy of their own sexual armoury), did they follow the rabbit down the hole and end up at the Mad Hatters Tea Party? Obviously David Cameron did not stop smoking pot after Eton if he supports statements like these.
All in all, T. Blair seems determined to get something secure on nuclear renewal as part of his legacy, even at the cost of provoking one of the largest rebellions in his parliamentary party. Mind you, he's done it before, and he'll do it again because he simply is out of touch with guiding Labour principles and looking back over ten years always seems to have been, needing to twist his party's arm when he was politically stronger. Britain's nuclear weapons constitute 1% of the world's nuclear arsenal and if a unilateral gesture won't mean much in persuading other countries not to seek nuclear aramament, then by the same token, there is little reason in keeping our deeply destructive drop in the ocean at vast expense. Remember this, the British public narrowly supports a nuclear deterrent, until told the cost.