Miliband needs Labour to lose

If Brown achieves the unthinkable and some how manages to win on May 6^th (if this is to be General Election day) David Miliband is set to be in the descendent.  Seen as a likely leader to take on the Tories, if Brown does win he is hardly going to relinquish number 10.  But the Foreign Office will likely go to the main man behind a Labour victory:  Mandelson.

He clearly wants to be Foreign Secretary, he told the Telegraph last month “I have a real interest in foreign affairs. I’m not saying I would never like to be foreign secretary, but nor am I saying that I wake up every day and think of little else” and last year he was eagerly trying to push for Miliband’s job if David were to be carted off to Brussels in the job which Baroness Ashton has now filled – High Representative for Foreign Affairs.  And then there is the nostalgia for Mandy of taking on the role his grandfather once held after Bevin resigned as Foreign Secretary due to his poor health.

Mandelson is central to Labour’s campaign and if he steers the party from the grips of defeat he will be even more influential.  Whatever he wants, he’s likely to get it and if that’s the Foreign Office the only way is down for Miliband.  It’s stating the obvious but its hard to see him getting the Treasury especially after his Guardian article in 2008 where he laid out his vision for Labour to get out of the mess the party was seen as an opening bid for the leadership and to give Brown the push after his idea of an “introspective” summer.  Brown is hardly likely to put much effort in keeping David in the job he loves.

If Labour wins he can expect a fourth term in the Cabinet but in a less illustrous department.  If Labour loses he has a strong contender in Harriet Harman for the leadership, who has managed to position herself well as face of Labour during the election coverage (a concession following the Hewitt/Hoon attempted coup) and is popular with the rank and file membership for her left-wing credentials.  Miliband does not have the same support amongst Labour activists.  He maybe loved by the media for his ability to grasp his brief and ability to convey his message articulately and succintly but he needs to work on his grassroots support and hope that another progressive like Alan Johnson does not stand and split the vote.

Obama & The End of the Moon

Apollo 11 Mission to the Moon is set to remain a blast from the past

Twenty-ten has not started well for Obama. Hope now seems to be an audacity and one he and his fellow Democrats need to reverse as they travel towards the midterm elections in November and the dreams of his Presidency awaken to the realities of governance. Or rather he needs to keep the dream of his Presidency alive by keeping his word on bipartisanship and breathe life into American can-do mentality. Unfortunately he is failing on both fronts.

This week’s decision to cancel America’s mission to the moon sounds like it is boldly taking the budget in the direction of prudency. Why go back and re-live some sixties nostalgia burning billions of dollars in the stratosphere where man has been before? For a start as recently as last year a Nasa probe found water on the Moon’s surface and the investment in Nasa has spurred off research and development America’s aeronautical industries. Space is yet to be the final frontier!

To cut this finance off would be the same as the British government announcing it won’t replace its Nuclear deterrent or build both the two new aircraft carriers it has ordered – something which could be on the cards. Scraping the Moon mission in America or Trident in the UK shouldn’t be taken on a mere whim of short/medium term budgetary cuts, but rather with an outlook to the future. You cut off the skill set, the development, and the capability, you may not get it back. Not to mention killing a dream of greatness and national enthusiasm, that in the wake of shuttle Colombia’s awful disintegration came the reinvigoration of the outer-space dream under the Bush administration that America bounces back and goes forward in the face of adversity. Canceling the mission may not be as prudent as the Obama administration believes.

But whilst Obama crushes the lunar dream close it seems to Americans hearts, it is Massachusetts, the vanguard of liberal Americana, where the most worrying signs that the Obama dream has been lost. Why would a state that is solidly Democrat vote in a truck driving big C conservative to replace the darling of liberalists: Senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy’s replacement, Scott Brown, says his victory will bring an end to the filibuster free passage of healthcare reform, through the all-important Senate, which could be enough to kill the bill.

Republicans have held up the election result as proof Americans don’t want reform. Whilst it is true a small majority of Americans now don’t want healthcare reform compared to the solid support 12 months ago this argument is rubbish. Why would the population of the only state which brought in a version of universal healthcare and has only around 4% its population uninsured – a national low – vote against the Democrats because of their national plans, which don’t go as far as the locally popular plan which was brought in with bipartisan support? Answer they didn’t. But bipartisan is the reason for the swing.

People swung away because the Obama dream thus far has not come true. The dream that change would come to Washington, he would unify America with his pragmatism, thoughtfulness and willingness to engage with the many and not the few: a reverse of the Bush era. But it has not worked out quite like that.

Obama stepped back from healthcare, left it house and senate Democrats to come up with a bill and support whatever they placed on his desk to sign his name. That may seem wise after Clinton placed the White House at the centre of drafting the bill which got undermined by foreign events: Somalia, Israel-Palestine, Russia and the Balkans wars. When Clinton was at the same first year marker of his Presidency he couldn’t get some Democrats or Republicans in key committees in either house (namely finance) to vote for the draft bills to go to the floor to allow all elected representatives a say – that was still the case the summer before the midterms. Obama is three stages ahead in the process. But at the cost of the bipartisanship he promised which has come back to bite him as the bill maybe held up out of the grand committee.

He should have kept hold the debate by speaking more emphatically for health care reform, having a clearer vision of what he wanted, selling it and picking out Republicans who must come on board (and bombarding their constituencies with the healthcare message). Instead, Pelosi and Reid and friends have been able to deal make as they choose, which would have been fine, had he not promised to bring change to America with the emphasis on the ways of Washington. That was an audacity beyond hope because of the complexities – some would say the solidity – of American democratic practices, that to bring change he would need to change the structure of Washington governance. But that is beyond dreams, what would you replace it with and how would get Congress to undo and reform the legislative process. Besides he never talked of constitutional reform and if America is sealed by the motto: from the many comes, one replacing a system with one that makes it easier to bring in sweeping reforms brushes away that Latin sentiment at the heart of American politics.

Obama needs to reaffirm his Presidency and be tough: have the audacity to govern. And remind America that the rest of 49 states should have as excellent and efficient health care as the people of Massachusetts.

Cameron’s Dangerous Irish Liaisons

It is ironic that in the week Blair appeared for his grand – or not quite so grand – inquisition on the most controversial action of his premiership, the area he was one of the main catalysts in bringing peace and prosperity to seems to be unravelling. Northern Ireland’s governance could well dissolve back to London and Dublin. The big question: how would the Conservatives pick up the mantle.

So far Cameron has said he supports Labour’s efforts at reviving Stormont which has involved Brown joining the Irish Taoiseach – Dublin’s Prime Ministerial equivalent – in bringing Sinn Fein and the DUP together and solving the issue of dissolving police powers to Belfast from Westminster control. Good perhaps as a deal is reported to be “tantalizingly close” according to the US delegation on the ground. But would it be so with Cameron.

His party is already committed to fielding candidates on a joint platform with the Ulster Unionist Party to rekindle the link between the UUP and the Conservative party. When the election comes almost certainly on May 6th, the UUP will end up sitting with Cameron’s party in Westminster and in theory could even end up with ministerial posts. The problem is how can Cameron’s Conservatives pick up Northern Ireland from the Labour years if there party is going to a) share an electoral platform with the UUP or b) to confuse matters even more the Conservative Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary has been working at creating a pan-unionist pact between the Tories and both the Ulster Unionists and largest party in the assembly Ian Robinson’s DUP. How can the British government from May onwards take an impartial line and deal with both loyalists and nationalists on a level playing field?

The natural answer is with great difficulty. It took time for Paisley and Trimble to believe that Labour would not be more lenient to Sinn Fein and the SDLP. The next Conservative government, whenever it comes to power, should not waste time proving that it is the real deal to Sinn Fein, it should stay out of Northern Ireland politically and not be actively seen as a bastion of support to McGuinness and Adam’s long-time rivals and short-term Stormont partners.

Ahtisaari: the ideal EU President

Martti Ahtisaari - respected but would he take the job?

The globe-trotting, millionaire, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would certainly stop the traffic between Washington and Beijing and be a high profile inaugural president of the European Union. He would no doubt generate a lot of personal traffic too, unless he plans to give up his money-making international speeches, board positions, side-line his Yale University Faith Foundation and presumably ditch his role in the stalled Middle East peace process.

But would Blair be good for Europe? If you want someone strong who will unite the gerrymandering and squabbling bloc of 27 nations he does not seem the obvious choice. His unwavering support for the Iraq war and strong trans-Atlantic ties bitters his appeal in many European capitals and amongst their citizens.

The ideal candidate, in my view, would be former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. Last year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner – won for his role in brokering international peace – is notorious on the international stage albeit with less bling than Blair, he would stop traffic as well, but does not carry any baggage like Britain’s charismatic statesman.

Ahtisaari was a pinnacle broker for peace during the Balkans wars and the dissolve of Yugoslavia, something that severely divided the EU. Ahtisaari helped persuade then Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to accept Nato’s terms for ending the war in Kosovo and subsequently resolved Kosovo’s independence last year as the UN representative. Beyond Europe, he played broker to the peace accord between the Indonesian government and the Aceh rebels in 2005.

He ticks the box for international notoriety, he meets German and other nations desires of having a candidate from a “small” country and he sends a very European message to Beijing and DC: that Europeans are for peace and dialogue. A Nobel peace prize winner as President who has helped the region to peace opposite Hu Jintao and his regime’s poor human rights instead of greeting Blair – someone who divided many Europeans, arguably eroded British civil liberties and undermined the English notion of Habeas Corpus and has achieved nothing of note as Middle East envoy.

The choice unfortunately is not ours nor our European cousins and friends. That is the saddest part: for all the moans of a democratic deficit in Europe, we the people can still not have say over who is our President and Foreign Affairs representative.

The silly pratts surrounding the BNP debate

Oh dear, I seem to have been unduly influenced by the BNP after their BBC platform and have descended into their derogatory style of language and using it against others to whom I disagree. How could the bastion of British journalism have been so prattish and not realised that we would be taken in so easily? Good lord if only that were true.

By the end of Question Time I was laughing, I’m afraid to say. Laughing at how nearly a million people could have voted for them earlier this year. What is no joke though, and what is satisfying about last night’s show is how reason won.

Anybody other than a diehard BNP supporter or outright bigot cannot have watched that debate without thinking: Griffen’s points just don’t add up. He had no answer for the fact that everybody every manifestation of what you could possibly claim as being “English” descends originally from Africa. He made no mention of what the Romans did Britain (though as I mentioned last week, his party’s website praises the Norse, Angles and Saxon people who came to these shores – all after the Romans). He had no answer to any of these fantastically delivered points from a composed Bonnie Greer, who only seemed rattled only when he talked of sharing a platform with a non-violent member of the KKK – non-violent in what way is what I would like to know.

The only pratt in all this is Peter Hain who’s outcry over their participation created more publicity for the BNP before they were faced down by the mainstream of society. Until Thursday the British public had never seen, on such a platform, someone squirm their way out of holocaust denying. I changed my minds with recent facts Griffen said. Auschwitz, as Jack Straw stated, is obviously no recent fact.

From a political point of view, Griffen missed out on his one opportunity to embarrass the mainstream and push his “not so far right as you would think” discourse to win-round those disaffected voters. When Dimbleby asked Straw and Warsi if their parties’ immigration policies had boosted the BNP the talk came to quotas. This was the opportunity. If he was smart and quick witted enough, he could have deflected some of the Nazi comments on to the mainstream. He could have argued that state selection of people based on the positive social merits and characteristics devised by politicians is a form of Nazism as it is an artificial version of social-Darwinism. The BNP would not discriminate against migrants per se because there simply would not be any. But who I am kidding, he never would have thought of that and it would be defeated with the BNP’s repatriation policy.

This was the one area Griffen was really let off the hook. The audience member who asked where will you send me back to? To which his response was: you are welcome to stay here, goes against the entire foundation of his party: keeping Britain for the indigenous population with a high implication that those indigenous people are white.
What was a shame is that more of the audience’s questions were not asked. The one about trade with Europe was a good one and Dimbleby never came back to it.

How could Hain have seriously thought that the BNP would get an opportunity to air their views and encourage support? The irony is his moonlighting of the late night and twenty-four hour airwaves created a bigger hoo-ha than their appearance deserved. Instead of quelling the BNP he enticed undue interest and exposure before Question Time, in effect, gave them the rope to hang themselves as natural debate and discussion won the day. The BNP have been exposed as being unfit even as a protest party on a wide public national platform. I bet their number of votes will be down next year.

It’s Time to Question the BNP

Thank god the bods at the BBC decided to invite Nick Griffen, the BNP leader on their iconic political panel show. Not least because dwindling audiences of news focused shows will tune out of the ITVs, E4s and Sky Travel to see if he has the X Factor up against the mainstream parties. The chance for him would be a fine thing, though it is preposterous to think he will do well. The coverage is likely to be disastrous for his party and here’s why.

Last night I had several pints with a friend at the pub where the Obama’s famously had their fish n’ chips in Mayfair earlier this year. My friend lamented the fact that a colleague at his work, a notorious British company (run, owned and headed incidentally by foreigners) was an ardent BNP supporter. He could not believe the rhetorically rubbish on their site. Looking at it with slightly more sober eyes today it’s still no better.

Beyond the obvious racist politics and talk of repatriating anyone of non-Anglo-Saxon, Celtic decent – presumably around 55 million of us must have to bug off from blighty as it must be impossible to tell who has and has not been tarnished by Normanic blood from 1066 onwards – none of what they say adds up.

After they get rid of all the mudbloods of Britain they then – this from their policies page on their website – want to purge Britain of foreign produce. Everything that can be produced and manufactured here will be, they declare, and they will boycott foreign goods – no more Samsung TVs, Armani suits, Bavarian beers for us – or rather who is left here. But two paragraphs above on their policy page they talk about trading and cooperating with Europe. What exactly can we import then? – The skills perhaps that we have banished from our land – sorry their land (my blood is far too murky I’d be the first on the boat). They call for Pensioners before asylum seekers, but presumably the latter wouldn’t be allowed here in the first place.

The fact is there is no true national in their political name, for they will never be able to get enough seats in Westminster to have any influence. They are never going to be able to defend these poorly thought out policies, certainly not with a London audience, and that’s if they get beyond defending their mission statement, which I just do not get. It talks paradoxically positively about European migration to begin with and then goes on to focus that Britain has benefited from the migrations of Europe “of the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples have been, over the past few thousands years, instrumental in defining the character of our family of nations.”

Well what about the Norman issue? How the hell do we track down those of Normanic descent, and where are the countless millions with small f French blood in their veins meant to go? The Camp Jungle recently purged of Somalis, Afghans and Iraqi would-be asylum seekers here by our friends the French authorities or some nice village in Brittany or Provence where around a million middle Englanders have already buggered off to.

If you are one who has dreamed of a place in your ancestral sun, why not vote for the BNP and tell them you originate from the coast line of Croatia and then apply for their “generous financial incentives” to be repatriated there. I don’t think we have much to worry about their TV appearance, it will show them up to be what they really are: ludicrous.

Labour can win from Opposition

It could be seen as a ringing endorsement as well as a slip of the tongue. At last week’s Tory conference Nick Robinson the BBC’s bespeckled Political Editor accidentally referred to David Cameron as Prime Minister. ITN’s opposite number called George Osborne the Chancellor. A Freudian slip perhaps but it mimics the prevailing vi ew that the Conservatives are set to return to power after leading Labour in the polls for nearly two years for most of it with a double digit lead.

The sun shined on Brighton even if the paper clouded the mood. But it didn’t have to. The mood was bleak enough looking at the tired, irksome faces of the cabinet members who turned up at the Progress event on the Sunday – not to mention the spartan audience of party rank and file. Mandelson talked of the energy of the young guns like Miliband and Byrne and his renewal of his gym membership to keep up with them. What would be better is to run the party now as though it is the opposition and force Prime Minister Cameron to come clean on exactly what he would and not just espouse policy idea after idea.

Government is tiresome, opposition is fresh. Brown looks beat; Cameron has been flying in the ascendancy. If Cameron believes the government has now taken quantitative easing too far, the opposition-government should turn and ask what is the new conservative government going to do instead and what their forecasts are under their plans. The push has to be to reveal their hand.

Of course Cameron and friends will be aware of this game. In 1992, Cameron was part of the Conservative Research Department team led by Andrew Lansley, now (Shadow) Health Secretary, who managed to overturn then Labour’s twenty point lead and win the election by acting as though the Conservatives where on the opposite benches. They pushed the publics trust in Labour forcing Shadow Chancellor John Smith to release a pre-election budget and then tore it apart. William Hague as leader made the mistake in 2001 in releasing too many details to his policies which were picked apart by Blair’s team.

The simple line of “we do not know what they will do”, “the devil is the Conservative lack of detail” could resonate with a public still, according to some polling, yet to fully make up their mind to put their cross in the Conservative box at some point between now and June.

Obama’s line on Healthcare: It will save America money

Last night ahead of Susan Boyle’s address to the American nation, President Obama spelt out the need for health care reform highlighting that the US “spends more healthcare than any other nation but we are not any healthier for it”.

Whilst the US budget deficit deepens in recession, speaking at his White House news conference, Obama said his health measures will reduce the deficit and that he will not sign a health bill placed on his desk that deepens it. This though is not the crucible of the health problem in America. Instead it is this paradox: that the nation which develops more drugs and new ways of treating people than any other, has forty-seven million of its own citizens with no access to healthcare. A social deficit as deep as any financial one, but one that has lasted longer than any depression. Sixty years ago President Truman called vigorously for state supported health care, sixteen years ago the secretary of state was a central part of the failed attempt then.

Obama follows in the footsteps of failure but last night he put himself at the heart of the debate using his personal popularity to bring change to American healthcare, whilst stating personally he doesn’t need healthcare reform and neither do the members of Congress, but the masses of America do. But, instead of focusing on the benefits of getting access for 97% of Americans he focused primarily on the economic merits and how healthcare reform would shave off $2.2trn dollars from a projected deficit of $9trn. In other words support healthcare reform and it will save the US money.

How he envisages money will be saved is by cutting down on waste. He makes an excellent point that when a patient is being treated for problem if they are sent to a different consultant or hospital they redo all the diagnostic tests, duplicating them, with the multiple bills falling on the insurance companies tab and pushing up future premiums for the patients themselves. The government will save money according to Obama because the state already subsidises health policies through tax breaks. Controlling the costs of healthcare is controlling the deficit he reiterates.

On the one hand this seems like a clever focus as opposition from within his own party is due to projections of the trillion-dollar price tag and concerns about the tax burden. But he barely focused on the social need to cover more Americans only giving examples of the Coloradan woman who had to use her life savings because the cover she had would not protect her for her pre-existing conditions. This is the reality of why reform is so important.

This focus on money could backfire especially if the light is shone on what Americans must give up to reduce the costs. Answering this Obama used the analogy of a red pill and blue pill which do the same thing but the blue pill is cheaper why not take that? The problem for many middle Americans is that is, to pardon the pun, a bitter pill to swallow.

If you kid has a chronic condition and they are on the red pill, have been on for a while and their symptoms are under control are you going to put your child on a new medication for the sake of your premium and this new healthcare. Obama also highlights that those who are happy with their current policies need not change them, but how will this usher in the savings which he projects.

American healthcare does have waste and his ideas on cutting down numerous diagnostic tests and that Americans will have to “give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier” is a good idea. But really he should talk of the benefits of having a society where people do not worry as much about getting ill as they do in Europe. Healthcare costs, having a state-sponsored system costs, as the population ages the costs are likely to only get higher. But the social benefit of having more citizens healthy and a healthy workforce is surely worth it.

From the Commons: Order at last as Michael Martin stands down

Crammed into the lobby yesterday, with the throng of people who had come to see a moment in history that occurs only every three hundred and fourteen years: the resignation of the Speaker. As soon as we managed to get into the public gallery and sat down the fireworks went off but within thirty-five seconds the moment had fizzled out. For there had been no cheering, no great statement, no statesman-like speech only a short brief and to the point address and for less than a minute Michael Martin had briefly restored some order.

The mood in the Commons defused. When he had finished the tension left along with most of the MPs who began to file out as foreign affairs questions began. The PM as he left went over and shook Michael Martin’s hand as he left through the members exit. He was followed by many labour backbenchers the likes of Martin Salter, Dianne Abbott and Stephen Pound speaking to him briefly and exchanging pats on the back and hand shakes.

With his announcement it was back to business in the Commons. With all the understandable furore of MPs expenses over the past fortnight it was gratifying to see some proper debate and discussion. Denis MacShane former European Mission talked of his recent visit to Georgia informing the house that he had seen Russian flags of Russian outposts inside Georgia not far from Gori well within Georgia’s sovereignty. The government reiterated its support for Georgia’s sovereignty as Sir Nicholas Winterton on the Tory benches who asked whether the government would work to improve relations with Russia and be careful not to back one side after the Caucasus was put on the map of international problems during last summer’s war. Refreshing to hear this view from the Tory benches especially after Sir Nick was one of the numerous backbenchers heckling and shaking their heads vehemently against the Lisbon treaty. The Tories are still ardently calling for a referendum, Cameron’s PPS Desmond Swayne yesterday called on the government to have one especially as it was in both main parties manifestos to have one over the Constitution. Caroline Flint reiterated as she has said before that the Lisbon Treaty is different and told the house of Commons that the cost of a referendum would be the same as the general election costing in the region of seventy to eighty million pounds.

The BBC is right not to show the Gaza aid campaign

Gaza Protesters

Just when you think all maybe quiet on the White City front, splashed across the print media is a flurry of critique of the beeb from the Mail to the Times. 

The BBC carries on into this year like a series of one of its hit tragic comedies and Television Centre risks becoming a Fawlty Tower in its own right.  You find yourself cringing as they painfully make a greater mess of what is a simple situation.  Like Basil Fawlty dealing with his german guests, if the BBC were more careful, tactful with their response this would not have got so out of hand.

This television appeal, which is still being edited today for tonight’s broadcast on ITV, C4 and Five, is partial: it is aimed at helping one-side of a war.  You may agree with me that Israel’s actions were absolutely abhorrent and you may like me be about to make a donation to the Red Cross to help the families of Gaza rebuild their shattered lives.  But why should an international news network, famed around the world for its impartiality take a public line and advertise an appeal for one side in an armed conflict?  Were we not aware of the suffering after weeks of coverage?  We are certainly aware of the DEC campaign now, more so than we would have been had the BBC agreed to air it.  In fact, paradoxically the BBC may have done the campaign a favour through this extra publicity and furore which may come at the expense of disgruntled viewers tuning elsewhere for a time.

This whole situation has been born out of the fervent anti-BBC movement amongst elements of the media and politicians who have been brandishing their teeth and led by the antithesis of impartiality The Daily Mail.  Why has Sky News not been criticised, they have not (at the time of writing 5am gmt) not even made up their minds on whether to show the footage or not.  Are they then not heartless for not even deciding on what 11,000 people, 50 MPs, and Britain’s religious leaders see as essential viewing and sitting on the fence? Have they no conscience no standards?  At least the BBC said no.  Why hasn’t CNN been asked to air this campaign, it broadcasts  in Britain and internationally.  Could it not use its airwaves to raise relief for Gazans?  What about Al Jazeera:  the voice of the voiceless, should they not be vocal for this appeal?

The answer as mean spirited as it may sound is no.  All these outlets are there to inform, not to push people so directly in coming down on oneside and by opening up their wallets at the end of news bulletin.  In the last week, the international media has been very good at showing the shear devastation after watching from the sidelines of the Gaza border since 27^th December (with the exception of Al Jazeera who were the only news network in Gaza during the Israeli onslaught). We as the viewer must then take that information and decide whether we let the news roll on to Eastenders or Fawlty Towers re-runs.  We must not have the news followed by an advert which compels to feel one way or another.  Aid agencies already indirectly advertise themselves in war zones by appearing on news programmes talking about the Congo, Darfur or Gaza and give their causes publicity and air time without the need of free airspace and a slanted ad.

 That is the argument the BBC should be making and doing so as candidly as some of their reports from Gaza.  So when a BBC spokesperson is pressed on a radio debate about whether or not there is a “humanitarian crisis” and they try and squirm – like an interviewee on the Today Show – their way out of referring it as one, so as not to weaken their position further in the hostile public environment the beeb now has in the publics eyes.  They should instead stand firm and say: “there is a humanitarian crisis, and we have been reporting on it day in an day out, it is up to the viewers to decide how they react to our impartial reporting on the ground”.  That should be that and the BBC should not be expected spoon feed morals to the public.  If Douglas Alexander and the Archbishop of Canterbury want people to donate money to Gaza they can come and explain why on air or have a whip round the pulpits of Westminster, but not by way of an ad on our news programmes.