Marcus' Blog

Greece Pulls Out of the Euro?

2011-06-05T08:26:00.000-07:00

This mistake by the Reuters Exchange Rate made me smile earlier today, mostly because I suspect someone in their office actually played a bit of a joke rather than there being a "programming error" as claimed.

Greece hasn't used the Drachma since 2002 but the error in the programming didn't surface till now did it?

Why I Can't Wait for the Labour Leadership Result

2010-09-25T02:12:00.000-07:00

This afternoon we will have new leader of the opposition and frankly I can't wait. The party will most likely remain fractioned whoever wins and with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems in power, Labour will struggle to present any viable alternative. Ok, Tory economic policy is hardly the height of popularity but it sure beats the recklessness of previous administration. No one wants to go back to that.

The main reason I'm looking forward to the result though is that on twitter so many Labour supporters have really pushed the boat out in support of their favoured candidate. When some influential tweeters tried to make Oona King the Labour candidate to stand against Boris Johnson in the forthcoming London Mayoral election we recently witnessed a dramatic climb down when left-wing stalwart Ken Livingstone was (obviously) elected instead (will they ever learn?).

I look forward to later retweeting some of the propaganda that supporters of the losing candidates have put up in the past week or so. The authoritarian left tend to like a battle, even with each other, and some quotes could soon come back to really bite supporters and candidates alike hard on the arse.

What does Solidarity mean 30 years on?

2010-09-02T06:40:00.000-07:00

Thirty years ago in a shipyard on the North coast of Poland, Communism began to fall. Today, Gdańsk shipyard is more likely to host a rock concert than a political meeting and the locals are more concerned about whether the new football stadium will be ready in time for Euro 2012, but the city will forever be associated with the Solidarity movement. As Poland celebrates this anniversary and remembers the impact Solidarity had (and continues to have) in transforming the country from a Soviet satellite state into a fully-functioning EU democracy it is worth asking if similar movements could be as effective across the former U.S.S.R and even further afield.

For those who don’t know, Solidarity was founded in 1980 as a response to the political and social difficulties faced by the Polish government and which plagued the everyday life of Poles across the country. It became the first trade union in the Eastern Bloc that was not controlled by the Communist Party and despite continued attempts to repress and even destroy the group throughout the 1980s; Solidarity grew as a political force and earned the right to contest the 1989 semi-free elections through the Polish Round Table Agreement. As a new and legitimate political party, the group won 160 of the 161 seats available and Solidarity co-founder Lech Wałęsa became the President who presided over the collapse of Communism in Poland. Since the early 90s though, Solidarity has become more of a trade union in the more traditional sense of the word and has little political influence as a party.

Wałęsa unfortunately did not attend the celebrations for reasons that varied from ill-health to making a point against the current political affiliations of the union. However, U.S. President Barack Obama did send a message of support that was read out by the American ambassador to Poland, Lee Feinstein: "Through the Solidarity movement, the people of Poland reminded us of the power each of us has to write our own destiny. In the face of tyranny and oppression, they chose freedom and democracy and, in doing so, changed their country and the course of history." This raises an important point; Solidarity was always more than just a political party or even a trade union but was a social movement that brought the people of the country together against the U.S.S.R.

Solidarity was strongly influenced by Catholic Social Teaching which is unsurprising given that even today more than 88% of people belong to the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Pope at the time, John Paul II, was Polish and in a major document called ‘Sollicitudo Rei Socialis’ supported the concept of solidarity. More importantly though, the movement was underpinned by the philosophical teaching of Leszek Kołakowski who concluded in his Theses on Hope and Hopelessness that “the best way to counteract prosecutions is massive committal....thus in the countries of socialist despotism, those who inspire hope are also the inspirers of a movement which could make this hope real”. Or, as it was put in Kołakowski’s obituary: “self-organised social groups could gradually expand the spheres of civil society in a totalitarian state”.

A big idea and one that retains its importance even today for many countries where groups seek social change; especially when we look at the types of state described. Kołakowski speaks of states which have destroyed historical memory, manipulated all information and where memory has been nationalised so that citizens have been robbed of their identity. This could be used to describe a worryingly large number of countries in 2010, including many post-Soviet Republics. In fact of the 15 post-Soviet states, the organisation Freedom House has declared eight not to be free, three to be partially free and only four are considered to be free states.

Some offenders are worse than others though and ought to be highlighted as such. Turkmenistan continued to be controlled by the Communist Party after 1991 and the country soon became isolated and the media strictly controlled. The President died in 2006 and whilst his successor, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, promised reforms including a new constitution, in reality there has been little political reform and most political dissidents are locked up. Meanwhile in neighbouring Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov has been President since 1991 and since then he has stripped all other institutions of any meaningful power and there is no effective opposition. Finally we have Belarus whose President, Aleksandr Lukashenko, has been described as ‘Europe’s last dictator’ as opposition is crushed with violence, harassment and intimidation.

The people of these countries, and others like them could learn a lot from the teachings of Kołakowski and the way they were put into practice by Wałęsa. The path to freedom is often long and arduous but the story of a fired electrician in a Polish port becoming President ought to be one that inspires people all these years later and there are indeed modern day examples. The Dalai Lama in Tibet, Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma are all people who deserve our support in the way that Solidarity received widespread support in the 1980s. Wałęsa may not have attended the celebrations at the weekend but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to thank him for and can’t still learn from him today.

Hague, his SpAd and Guido

2010-09-01T11:16:00.000-07:00

If this story had turned out differently, Guido Fawkes would have been considered a pioneer of the new age of journalism this evening. However, the statement by Hague and the resignation of Myers has made Paul Staines look very much like the bad guy. The foreign ministers marriage and sexuality have been called into question and a man has resigned for no reason but should we really be blaming Guido?

One of the 'problems' with freedom of the press is that people spout lies, talk rubbish or, as in this case, cast aspersions. Guido's reputation could maybe be damaged if this was a stupid aspersion that has been cast but was it really that big a jump? If you think so then fine, but you're probably not the sort of person who has much respect for the type of reporting that comes out of order-order.com anyway and Hague himself has admitted that "in hindsight I should have given greater consideration to what might have been made of [sharing a hotel room with my driver]".

Before people once again start condemning Guido Fawkes they need to consider the wider principle. Would you rather live in a society where people were too scared to post this sort of thing? If Guido has truly misjudged this piece then he will suffer in terms of reputation; I doubt that this is the case though.

Andy Burnham comes to Rugby

2010-08-27T14:27:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to say that Andy Burnham came to visit Rugby this evening to open a new Fabian Society for Warwickshire. He came across very well and it was intersting to hear him speak on a range of issues. In fact, he was only supposed to stay until nine but continued to take questions from the floor for an extra half an hour.

Of course in a room full of Labour supporters the man from Aintree was hardly challenged and without wanting to flatter myself too much; I think I posed the biggest threat. Nevertheless Burnham covered a range of topics and whilst his approach to healthcare is sorely misguided (a 10% care levy will not provide peace of mind for those who struggle to pay it), his dedication to the issue is admirable. He will be hoping to make the most of Andrew Lansley's decision to scrap NHS Direct after this evening, already saying the health secretary is "is on a vindictive mission to break up the NHS."

Arguably this makes him something of a one issue candidate and his leaflets were plastered with the phrase 'Defending the NHS' which also appears on the side of the 'Burnham Battle Bus'. This is not to say that the former health secretary is actually a one trick pony and he has some nice ideas on other issues such as housing but he needs to show this if he is to become more than 'the other guy'.

I, for example, was more interested in the Land Valuation Tax (LVT) which he set out in an article in the Guardian the other day. My question was that: "Surely such a tax, particularly if it is too onerous, would discourage people from moving up the property ladder and act as a hindrance to first time buyers?"

Andy pointed out in response that the tax would help first-time buyers who would be beneficiaries of the system by virtue of the fact that it removes stamp duty. He then conceded that the tax would act as a disincentive to move up the property ladder but encourages "efficiency in land use" so that big companies cannot just sit on an important piece of land and not use it for anything (a 'land bank'). I'm not quite convinced and the fact that he admits to this disincentive also means less fluidity in the property market therefore higher prices. Then higher prices means higher LVT and people begin to feel the pinch year after year possibly having to then downsize into a house which is too small. There are also other concerns regarding registered land and how the valuation can be done cost-effectively and fairly but I saved those points.

Burnham will struggle to defend his quite radical policies in the face of opposition and whilst he is a nice guy, I feel that a vote for him would signal a return for the Labour Party to the wilderness of the 1980s. Not that Labour should worry as he is the rank outsider and after the leadership contest will most likely make an ignominious return to the back benches.

Peace Talks Resume

2010-08-20T16:52:00.000-07:00

It's good to see that peace talks between Israel and Palestine will begin again at the start of September after a two year absence. This won't be easy and will lead to a lot of friction within the traditional debate but hopefully some real progress can be made.

Of course there are many issues that will be almost impossible to resolve and it will be up to Obama, Western representatives and the Arab representation in the form of the Egyptian and Jordanian presidents to ease the process as much as possible.

I don't think it is very fruitful to set a time limit on discussions as this has proved counter-productive in the past but if successful this could lead to greater justice in Palestine and, of course, increased esteem for Obama. On the other hand if the talks prove to be a complete failure this could jeopardise stability in the region and Obama's Presidency....

Another attack on a prisoner: this cannot go on

2010-08-03T08:21:00.000-07:00

Grendon Prison: where the attack happened

First Ian Huntley was attacked when in prison and is consequently suing the prison service and now another, different prisoner, is dead. There are those who say that the people who choose to break the law have no rights but these individuals are not much better than accessories to murder.

Of course one does not wish to jump on the bandwagon of simply blaming the police and there has to be a thorough investigation where the facts are discovered. Once this has been completed though HM Prison Service should not be automatically allowed to avoid any responsibility on the basis that these people are apparently 'scum' or whatever other word the Daily Mail wishes to use.

As soon as a person is arrested he becomes under the effective care of the state; whether we like it or not. After this there is a duty of care which must be exercised proportionately. It is unfair to make this duty too arduous considering limited resources and the traditional legal 'public service' excuse but prisoners do have rights. For a man under the care of the state to be killed in apparently one of the UK's 'safest jail's' is simply not good enough.

Unite Against Fascism: Help or Hindrance to the BNP?

2010-07-23T12:43:00.000-07:00

Anti-fascist campaign group ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) have once again been in the news successfully opposing “Nick Griffin appearing anywhere in public” after the British National Party (BNP) leader was refused admittance to the Royal garden party. This outright ban on a democratically elected politician shows unwarranted paternalism, gives the fascist party unmerited publicity and most worryingly of all bring us a step closer to the sort of society the BNP would like to implement and UAF are supposedly against.

Readers may recall that Griffin was set to attend the same garden party last year as a guest of BNP member of the London assembly, Richard Barnbrook. The outcry stimulated by UAF eventually led to Griffin pulling out claiming he had “no wish to embarrass the Queen.” Though Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, saw through this “political stunt”, the whole affair allowed the fascist leader to come out the other end as the bigger man. It is a sick twist of irony that it is only because of UAF that this was allowed to happen and they have now done the same thing this year.

Mr. Griffin did though get closer to the palace this time round being eventually denied entrance for apparently using “his personal invitation for party political purpose through the media.” A rather weak argument when you consider that there was absolutely no rule against appearing on GMTV etc. Once more Griffin is left to traipse around the news circuits playing the victim card describing the decision as “an absolute scandal.” The saddest truth of all though must be that he is probably right. If anyone were invited to a party with 8,000 guests and were the only one turned away at the door on the basis of some flimsy rule it is hard not to feel a bit of sympathy.

This is not to be confused though with sympathy for the BNP as a whole. It is true that Griffin has greater legitimacy this year as an MEP for the North-West but his is still a party infested with convicted criminals and people who cast judgments on other human beings based on the colour of their skin. It is a shame that such a vile organisation has taken root in the UK but it is a credit to our society that we tolerate views from all sides of the political spectrum.

It is this level of tolerance which the BNP, at heart, detests. Intolerance is imprinted on the ideological DNA of the entire movement. Make no mistake, if they were ever to attain power there would be no more tolerance, no more elections and no more political parties. Why then have we begun building such an awful society now by placing a ban on what is ultimately a legitimate political movement?

When I describe the BNP as legitimate that is not to say that they are right. As an ideology fascism consists of little more than irrational and opportunistic politics and the violence advocated is nihilistic. Hardly a strong position to adopt and one that is easily dismantled. UAF though seem to believe that the public are not capable of such basic critique. Before Griffin’s appearance on BBC Question Time last October a UAF leaflet claimed that “more airtime for the BNP will lead to more racist attacks on the street.”

Frankly I am insulted that UAF think so little of the general public that even the mere sight of a fascist turns us into a racist mob. Those who actually watched the appearance will know that Griffin did not perform well, was exposed as the vile individual that he is and was ridiculed for days and weeks after. The appearance also confirmed the over-inflated awe within which UAF hold Griffin, and the BNP, to be unjustified. It is this lack of faith both in the public and the group’s own ability to convince which culminates in the political cowardice demonstrated by the UAF.

Instead, why not give the BNP absolutely free rein to spout their bile and allow the public to make up their own mind. Of course this could backfire and the BNP could enjoy a surge in support but wouldn’t this be a more damning indictment of the state of politics in our own country more than anything else?

If the public are allowed to make up their own minds it also means that the BNP will become accountable to real political criticism rather than the continual, unintelligent tirade of calls for the organisation to simply be banned altogether. This is the more effective tactic to deal with the BNP as shown by Question Time and also by Peter Tatchell who confronted Nick Griffin yesterday, outside the BBC studios. The scuffle concluded with Tatchell summarising as follows: “You saw Nick Griffin. I asked him a question. He ran away. He’s a gutless coward.” It’s hard to disagree and it is also probably true to say that Tatchell did more to embarrass and delegitimize the BNP in those 44 seconds than UAF have done in all their years of campaigning.

Demanding that fascists do not deserve a platform is a poor excuse for shying away from debate. Experience shows that the best way to deal with those who attack the vulnerable is to confront them in the open. UAF may not like this but the only real way to beat the BNP is through unfettered freedom of speech.

Cooking Their Way to Recognition

2010-07-21T10:46:00.000-07:00

This particularly heart-warming story caught my attention this afternoon. It is the story of one Palestinian man's outrage at Israel calling mosakhen an Israeli dish when it's origins are Palestinian.

In order to reclaim the dish though this restaurant owner went the extra mile and cooked the biggest ever mosakhen seen to get into the Guinness World Records.

The thing which I find particularly inspiring is that Nasser Abdulhadi (the chef in question) spent a year demanding that the people at Guinness list his achievement as one from Palestine rather than the Occupied Territories. He goes on to say: "We need recognition as a regular people, for what we can achieve in the normal run of life. We're not just a resistance movement fighting the Occupation."

When discussing this conflict it is so easy to remember that there are people living in the area just getting on with their lives. Nevertheless, until the international community can realistically point to a free Palestinian state not subjected to Israeli de facto control the fight must continue.

Chuka Umunna passive-aggressive note to George Osborne

2010-07-17T17:25:00.000-07:00

Steatham has got a new Labour MP and don't we know it. Taking over from the spineless Keith Hill who voted in the way his taskmaster told him, Chuka Umunna seems an apt replacement. Loved by the Guardian and the New Statesman (who describe him as the British Barak Obama), his latest piece is little more than a regurgitation of the same Labour policies that the electorate rejected. A sure way to gain publicity but the argument remains stale.

The passive-aggressive tone overrides the piece like someone scraping their nails down a blackboard and everyone who reads it knows Osborne will most likely never have to set his eyes upon it.

The actual content is also weak. Umunna accuses the budget of not being progressive before going on to list policies which he knows damn well will slow the UK's recovery from recession by hampering the financial service industry (one of the best in the world) by taxing it and thereby making it less competitive. If we were to have a progressive budget which will once again stimulate growth in the economy then surely this key aspect of the UK's GDP must be preserved?

A nice career move by Umunna then which will win him many more friends on the left but this poorly dressed-up sabotage attempt on the recovery and George Osborne hardly stimulates debate and ought to be ridiculed.

Camp David: 10 Years On

2010-07-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

Hey all, just a quick note to say that I have a new piece on 'The Vibe' site taking a look back at the Arab-Israeli conflict in the past 10 years. Please have a look and comment, react etc. Many thanks.

A Fresh Start for Kyrgyzstan

2010-07-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

Ok so the piece is up. Basically I insist that you all click the 'like' button and comment etc. I could really do with the publicity as it's only my second article on the site. Just click here!

The Price You Pay Discussion

2010-06-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

For those of you interested in a political theory discussion on the role government has in the murder of its citizens via welfare cuts, then check this out.

I have a piece going up on the same site tomorrow on Russian influence on Kyrgyzstan. Yup, the fun times just keep on rolling....

South Africa 2010: Great goal or Horrible Miss?

2010-06-11T07:45:00.001-07:00

Who should play in goal? Will Rooney's groin strain recur? And just how can England be so bad at penalties?

Yes it's that time again. All other news will hardly get a look in during the following month as the country goes mad for the World Cup. If you think it's bad here though imagine what the atmosphere is like in South Africa; the host nation.

This will be the first time the competition will be held in Africa, a continent which has given so much to the game. It is though also a continent which is ravished by war, famine and poverty and often engenders a feeling of pity more than anything else. The World Cup is a chance to begin to move away from this and earn a new-found respect from the rest of the world.

South Africa undoubtedly has a lot to be proud of considering that only 16 years ago the African National Congress (ANC) inherited a formerly apartheid state with no money and a bubbling racial hostility that was ready to explode at the drop of a hat. Now the country is host to a wide variety of private companies, banks and financial markets making it Africa's largest economy and the world's 24th largest. It has even rode the recent global financial crisis with some ease thanks to fantastic mineral wealth.

Some are more critical of hosting the World Cup in South Africa, including some of the most venerable writers of the game such as Brian Glanville. He sees this as an attempt by the feckless Sepp Blatter to foist the competition upon a continent which isn't ready.

Outside of the world of football politics, this argument retains its validity. GDP per person stands at a lowly $10,000, less than a quarter of the American figure, and this is distributed in a less than even fashion. Most blacks are reliant on the pitiful government support meaning they live in shacks located in crime-ridden townships outside the main cities; a murder is committed once every half hour. With poor sanitation and 43% of the population living on $2 a day it is unsurprising that the country ranks a measly 129th on the UN Human Development Index, 12th in Africa.

Unemployment is also a huge challenge with the official rate at 25%; the highest in the world. There is also a clear dividing line on race (30% of blacks are unemployed compared 6% of whites) which only serves to highlight the elephant in the room. After 350 years of white supremacy it would have been foolish to think that the issue would disappear overnight. One only has to think back to the murder of Eugène Terre'Blanche in April and the tension this caused.

Compared with 20 years ago though this is nothing ad people often forget this. South Africa is very much on the up even if it has to make a few mistakes along the way. Many see the dominance of the corrupt ANC as a threat to this but under constant scrutiny from opposition parties, the press, the courts, unions and NGOs it seems unlikely South Africa will go the same way as neighbouring Zimbabwe. This years World Cup should be seen as an opportunity to not only celebrate how far South Africa has come but to encourage it to go further and act as a talisman for her continent. As football correspondent Mark Gleeson puts it: "it is a rare opportunity that would be criminal to miss."

A New Start

2010-06-07T04:26:00.000-07:00

Exams are over and school (well uni) is out for summer. I'm hoping to do quite a bit of writing over the summer. This is not only on here though dear reader! I have become once again involved in quite a nice little website called 'The Vibe' and have had an interesting discussion with an ardent Zionist over 'flotilla-gate' which you can see here. I'm also hoping to start work on a couple of my own books including one on the first crusade and a short novel. Exciting times.

Anyway we all know that we've now got a coalition government so it's not worth banging on about all that old news. It's great to have David Cameron as our PM and the coalition represents an exciting change in British politics. Although I felt that the agreement was drawn up rather hastily and Nick Clegg in the end was forced into acceptance by a resigning Gordon Brown I believe that it will last the whole five years.

On the other hand I hope that FPTP remains as our voting system by 2015 and I think this is just one area where the coalition partners will have to agree to disagree!

Hope you are all well and a lot of people who read this are also probably doing exams at the moment so good luck to you. For more regular updates follow me on twitter!

Porn Director?! Rapist would have been a better metaphor for the Lib Dems

2010-03-16T09:48:00.000-07:00

It became apparent in the last week, to much controversy, that Anna Arrowsmith (Lib Dem PPC for Gravesham) used to direct porn films. At last, the nation thought, the Lib Dems may actually be interesting! But no, the story soon died down as the Lib Dems held their own Spring Conference in Brum.

By sharp contrast this was a damp squib. Nothing much happened and the party got almost no media attention as you might expect. The party slogan has actually become something of a joke. It seems that Britain's third party has simply stuck together the other two party's slogans!

Perhaps party supporters should wonder if it's the electoral system that's preventing them getting into power or their own lack of creativity. Have they given up?

The BBC News School Report

2010-03-12T10:42:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to take the opportunity on here to say what a great success the BBC News Report Day was. I have only seen and heard a few parts of it so far but a particular highlight was school children from Bristol holding an interview/conversation with children of the same age in Kabul, Afghanistan.

I hope that such nationwide events encourage young people to engage more with the world around them.

Kelvin MacKenzie worse than Richard Littlejohn?!

2010-03-09T11:16:00.000-08:00

Yes you heard it here first, unless you were listening to the 'World Tonight' last night.

In the discussion with MacKenzie he clearly gave his support to vigilantism with regard to the James Bulger case to which his 'opponent's' fantastic retort alerted the former Sun editor to a piece Littlejohn had written in the Sun at the time of the killing. In it Littlejohn (uncharacteristically) criticised the calls for 'stringing up the pair from the lamposts' but nevertheless this very much belittled any type of argument Liverpool's no. 1 enemy could muster in his whole 10 minutes!

Labour Pull Two Electioneering Stunts in the Same Week

2010-03-07T09:32:00.000-08:00

Labour have quite clearly begun gearing up for the forthcoming election as has been seen by two stunts in the last few days which do little more than get a little media attention at the expense of innocents.

Firstly, Gordon Brown went over to see the troops in Afghanistan to say 'thanks'. I'm not sure about you but this sounds more than a little like a goodbye, perhaps GB knows he won't be coming back to the warzone he leaves behind. Anyway you look at it, a vist to see 'our boys' is even for the least cynical voter nothing more than an appeal for votes. This is not what the army is for.

Meanwhile Jack Straw has agrred to meet the mother of James Bulger, Denise Fergus, but I fail to see what this will achieve. The Justice Secretary cannot reveal what Venables has done and to do so would be a breach of law. The release of such information would only lead to the lynch mobs of the red-top newspapers dragging the ocuntry into disrepute and there would undoubtedly be another case before the European Court of Human Rights. The locus of Denise Fergus with regard to the case has ended and Jack Straw knows this. The minister is tapping into the public fury and the vulnerability of Fergus for votes.

There you have it then, the lengths this untenable government will go to stay in power. How anyone can help them do so is beyong belief.

University of Westminster Protest - A Response

2010-03-04T05:12:00.001-08:00

Firstly, major apologies for the lack of blogging activity. Nearly a month since my last blog ffs! I can only put this down to my own laziness to research issues when I finally get a break from my dull law degree.

Anyway, mentioning uni, there's some absolutely insane protest going on against the wholly necessary cuts which we have to make. Of course at the sign of anyone's job getting "slashed" it seems inevitable that the stereotypically student-left jump on the bandwagon. How a campaign can claim to have legitimacy when it has fewer supporters than jobs actually being axed is beyond me but that obviously doesn't concern them.

The reason I've decided to blog on this petty attempt at student activism is because now events have gone a step too far. On the 1st March the protesters stormed the board of governors meeting and have since been in occupation of the vice-chancellors office. Resorting to violence and causing fear and panic across the rest of the university is not something that should be tolerated and it is of little surprise that the campaign has recently added to its demands that "no student or member of staff involved in actions against job cuts faces any repercussions or reprisals"; me thinks our rebels are feeling post-revolution guilt.

The accusation thrown against the university is that the governors are trying to make it run more like a business; well heaven forbid! The campus is based at the top of Regent Street, one of the foremost business areas in London and the world. They continue that because of this and the ensuing cuts that education will suffer. I doubt this somehow. Clearly if there is some sort of thinning down in areas it will be done in an appropriate way so as to not lose business. If the governors were to go too far then no one would go to the university at all and there would be no 'business' left to run. The governors are the best people to know the best ways to save money and indeed the university has in the past had financial trouble and needs to cut back.

Furthermore the government has in the past year or so shown more reluctance towards funding universities across England and with tuition fees set to rise surely the best way to prevent this is to cut back in non-essential areas. Personally I hope that more universities take note of the good work done by the governors and deal with any wannabe revolutions appropriately.

Picture courtesy of Sky Yarlett
www.flickr.com/worldofsky
www.worldofsky.wordpress.com

The Pope's Position Represents True Liberty

2010-02-11T09:14:00.000-08:00

An issue has arisen regarding a confliction of liberties but on what side can we truly say that autonomy of the individual rests? I speak of course, of the Equality Bill which would have allowed homosexuals to apply and, more importantly, be considered for positions in Catholic faith schools.

Both Catholics and homosexuals are minority groups within their own rights and each has an undeniable right to practice their lifestyle choice. We therefore have to consider which lifestyle is truly being impinged upon here.

True liberty encompasses a right to choose. To choose what you think, to choose what you do and to choose how to live your life. A free-market capitalist society is the best example of this right to choose as it is often forgotten that taxes are an affront to liberty and laissez-faire capitalism almost entirely removes this burden. In fact the only taxes which would be paid would go towards the police/army...to defend liberty.

In such a society the right to choose extends to businesses and thus it becomes clear on which side of the fence I fall. If I run a business, be it a school or a multi-national firm, I retain the right to choose who I employ and as it is my business it is my prerogative. Similarly the man on the street has a right to choose to apply for a job, or not as the case may be.

However I cannot force him to work for me in the same way that he cannot force me to employ him (or in this case force me to consider his application). Why should the gay community, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to enforce themselves upon the job market?

I'm not quite sure why the mainstream media has come out (excuse the pun) against the CAtholic community so much. As far as I can see it is because the gay rights movement has come so far so fast in the last 40 years and this is seen as a natural continuation. Frankly they are wrong and I am glad that Harman has backtracked.

REVIEW: What Difference does Political Blogging make?

2010-02-09T01:02:00.000-08:00

I got to the Monk's Exchange last night at around 7.15 but there was already a decent crowd ready for the Westminster Skeptics panel discussion. At the bar I got talking to Amanjit Jhund (Labour PPC for Windsor) who introduced me to some of his friends on the left including Shamik Das, assistant editor of 'Left Foot Forward'. I also met Karen Lee, editor of BBC 2's Culture Show.

The Panel Discussion began with Nick Cohen (Observer journalist and author of 'What's Left?') stating the case for journalism. I wanted to try and see his point of view so as to get a balance and not be so automatically predisposed towards blogging but I found his argument somewhat disjointed and non-effective. Of all the panel responses it was Slugger O'Toole (Mick Fealty) who gave the best account for the bloggers with a sensible speech about the important role played by such blogs as his own in opening discussion of stories up.

The Q&A session was slightly more disappointing with both questions and answers being rather prolonged. Nevertheless some important points were raised about the hostile nature of a lot of blogs and also about the possible future of journaslism. Particular insight was from Jonathan Isaby who famously moved from working at the Daily Telegraph to become editor of Conservative Home.

The evening came to a close with conversations with both @WhosLobbying and the legendary Thomas Byrne who will be relieved to hear I won't be revealing details from our slightly drunken conversation!

Are You 'AV-ing a Laugh?

2010-02-02T11:27:00.000-08:00

In what can only be described as a pathetic election ploy and nothing more, Gordon Brown has announced his desire for a national referendum on replacing the British first past the post (FPTP) electoral system with the alternative vote (AV) system used in places such as Australia.

It seems to be a continual tactic of the Labour party to try and back the Tories into a corner by trying to announce another fix-all policy and when the opposition sensibly point out the pitfalls of such crackpot ideas they are accused of regaling on their promise to be the 'party of change'. This time Brown has gone too far and his attempt at electioneering is plain for all to see. Labour have had nearly 13 years to instigate such radical change with more commanding majorities (thanks to FPTP) so why wait till now? Well as I was taught in A-Level politics, this is the classic sign of a dying government.

I mean, just think what AV would mean electorally for Labour. They would undoubtedly pick up a lot of '2nd' votes from Lib Dem supporters as well as from the Greens and other parties on the left. Meanwhile the Tories would most likely only pick up such 'sloppy seconds' from parties on the right such as UKIP.

I'm not here to necessarily defend FPTP and I'll admit it has disadvantages but, then again, so does AV and all electoral systems. If there was a 'perfect formula' then all democracies would be using it by now.

I do believe though that the advantages of FPTP will become prevalent in 2010. If David Cameron achieves a healthy majority come May then the Conservatives will be able to lead Britain back to growth unencumbered by the desperate politics of New Labour.

Cricket in the Empire

2010-01-29T12:05:00.000-08:00

It's no secret that the reason cricket is so popular in places such as Australia, India and South Africa is because of the influence of the British Empire. In fact it's hard to think of a nation with test match status that hasn't had a British influence.

This looks set to continue into the modern day with Afghanistan becoming a real force on the cricket pitch. Only nine years ago the team consisted almost entirely of refugees and were struggling in the second tier of Pakistan's domestic league but now have full one-day international status and only missed out on a place in the 2011 World Cup by a narrow margin.

Arguably their biggest success to date came last Sunday when they beat the Irish (who are no pushovers themselves) by 7 wickets in a multi-day game. This will undoubtedly set them up nicely for next week's ICC World Twenty20 game qualifiers in the UAE.

I'm not sure if there is any political metaphor to make here but good luck to the Afghans. I believe it was Julius Nicholson in a Thick of It Special who said that 'cricket makes the troubles of the world seem so far away'.

My Day Alongside Alastair Campbell

2010-01-14T04:04:00.000-08:00

At 7.20am Tuesday morning most of you were probably still in bed but I became the 8th person to be queueing outside the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, waiting to register to attend the Iraq Inquiry. Before long your standard media outfits began to arrive and made reports to their respective channels.

Once in and registered we eagerly anticipated Campbell's arrival and I have to admit to being surprised at just how tired and older he looked. I know it was 6 and a half years since Campbell was last part of government but the large sigh at the first interlude was telling.

The former director of Communications and Strategy started off a bit shaky and when questioned about the nature of his role tried to fob off the question by saying that if Tony Blair asked him to jump off a building then he wouldn't have. Hmm, Sir Roderic Lyne soon told him to "be serious".

Once into the questions about Iraq, Alastair Campbell soon became more comfortable and answered questions more freely; providing clear and detailed responses to the panel's robust questioning. Campbell often got into a good tussle with Sir Lawrence Freedman that was only stopped because the stenographer couldn't keep up!

In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of the day was heading into the very final session when Campbell implied that Clare Short was both incompetent and difficult to work with. The reason this came up was because Lyne pointed out that Short's ministerial department (International Development) was often excluded from key meetings about Iraq. With Campbell making such a strong case for the moral argument for war just before this break, surely he must have realised the importance of the department in the aftermath of any invasion?

All in all a good day to experience politics first hand and I certainly think the panel's line of questioning already lends it more legitimacy than the Hutton Report. Role on Tony Blair!

Labour attacks UK Charities

2010-01-05T12:48:00.000-08:00

You know that a government is desperate once it starts to attack the most vulnerable in society and this is exactly what Labour seems to be doing as they seek to remove the exemption that charities currently enjoy from music royalties. Despite being in force since 1988, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act will be amended so that all charities must, from April 2010, obtain a license from Phonographic Performance Ltd if they wish to play copyrighted music to the public. Clearly this covers nearly every charity that seeks to advertise on either the radio or on television and some smaller charities may fail to notice that the law has even changed. Will we therefore possibly see a legal case where a music producer takes a charity to court?! Simon Cowell v. NSPCC could create a few headlines in itself!

The amendment to the law will simplify the framework within which charges are applied and the payment is only £81 annually, but this is £81 that could otherwise be better spent, particularly in the case of non-profit organisations and such an amount could be a significant dent in the finances of some smaller charities. The government’s apparent justification for the amendment is that it is necessary remove the exemption to achieve a proper balance between owners of the rights to the music and the users in accordance with EC and international law. Such a claim seems, in reality, hard to substantiate. For example, use of music for weddings, hospital wards and medical therapy are still exempt; is there no balance to be redressed here?

Overall the advantages of the amendment are hard to find with regard to charities. The overall system may be simplified but it was probably a whole lot simpler when they paid nothing at all.

The Tories are the Only Party Left with a Shred of Decency

2009-12-27T17:35:00.000-08:00

I apologise for the lack of blogging in the past month and extend the apology for the next few weeks potentially as well. Unfortunately a law degree doesn't let up and a series of recent coursework, exams and even a presentation are stoppping me from having any sort of life. You'll be pleased to know that I'm having a short break for Christmas upto New Year but will then be back to the grind until around the 18th Jan.

Anyway, the reaction to David Cameron's New Year Message has unsurprisingly been hostile but for different reasons to what we might expect. After calling for much of the fakery and unnerving party loyalty to be removed from politics this has been thrown back by the Lib Dems in particular, who seem determined to build a wall around their small corner of Parliament.

With a hung Parliament a realistic possibility after the next general election we need to start thinking about how our country can realistically hope to make progress; especially in the current economic climate. However, quotes from Lib Dems like Danny Alexander who state "The Conservatives cannot be trusted where fairness is concerned" are petty attempts to create hostility. I mean on what basis is this assumption made exactly?!

As a Tory I wouldn't mind working with the next Lib Dems after the next election, in fact it may even have some advantages in relation to policy areas such as the environment. However, if this is the attitude the party is going to show towards Cameron's olive branch then perhaps we need to think again about associating ourselves with the Lib Dems.

Somebody Tell Teacher!

2009-11-24T05:53:00.000-08:00

I've always like Twitter. I feel it's a brilliant means for discussion across a range of topics and the public element to it makes it better than either MySpace or Facebook. In particular political discussion can not only be edifying but also a great source of entertainment.

Not last night though as the whole political twitterverse seemed to descend into a splurge of name-calling and tattle-telling with the main culprits, embarrassingly, being on my own side of the debate.

One of the Conservative's most prolific bloggers, Tory Bear, has chosen to lambast Labour supporter and active campaigner Bevanite Ellie over a joke which was not even her own. Rather the joke was originally 'tweeted' by a Labour councillor but TB has gone after the messenger instead.

To be honest the joke wasn't particularly controversial and typical of Labour's black humour towards Margaret Thatcher. However, TB jumped on this opportunity like a rapist and started demanding an apology like the whining kid who sits at the front of the class.

This then seemed to start a whole war over twitter of general poor quality barraging. If you're going to insult the other side at least try and be witty, yeah?

Much as I dislike Labour this seems to me like another Sun episode where the demand for an apology for the soldier's mispelt name actually engendered sympathy for the party. I sense jealousy over Ellie's success emanating from Mr. Bear and he will do well in future to keep this in check.

Polly Toynbee may have a point?!?!

2009-11-14T13:12:00.000-08:00

It's not just Conservatives this week who disagree with Polly Toynbee's column as die-hard Labour supporters were forced to back Gordon Brown as party leader after her latest column suggested that Labour has no hope of winning the next election with Brown at the helm.

Now most Torys, myself included, would agree that Brown is doing the Labour government more damage than good (though none would want him to quit!) but this is not the part of the article I wish to highlight. Rather, as part of her same-old polemic on the Conservatives she states that "Cameron has collected no extra brand loyalty" and I can't help but reluctantly agree.

The evidence she cites suggests that despite the polls, 2% more identify themselves as 'Labour' whilst the Conservative Party this year has lost 40,000 members. For a party hoping to establish itself after the next election for a number of years to come this is not a good sign.

The problem lies in the failure of the Conservative Party to be able to establish any real sort of brand identity in the same way that Labour did in the run up to the 1997 election or, more recently, the Democrats successful campaign for the presidency last year. Both Tony Blair and Barack Obama engendered a real enthusiasm amongst the public in a way that David Cameron hasn't thus far been able to do.

Of course it is still early days in terms of the 2010 election but supporters and members have reason to be concerned. Many think that there isn't a lot behind either Cameron or Osborne so it is perhaps time to start coming out with some real policies for government. Not doing so is making Cameron appear weak at PMQs and at other times when there is policy debate as we provide no alternative.

I'm sorry to say that at the moment people are voting Tory out of dissatisfaction with Labour rather than enthusiasm for a Conservative government and this has to be changed in order to achieve a sustainable period in power.

A Good Week for Labour After a Bad 12 years

2009-11-13T07:33:00.000-08:00

Gordon Brown must have something of a smile on his face this week after things have started to look up a bit for the Labour party, we can only hope for the sake of those of a nervous disposition that this smile isn't photographed.

First, what looked like it might be a stinging attack by the Sun newspaper has backfired and ended up with many showing sympathy for Brown, this was followed on Wednesday afternoon by a powerful performance by the PM on PMQs and in the early hours of this morning it was confirmed that Labour candidate, Willie Bain, won the Glasgow North East by-election.

This good week cannot be overplayed though. The Sun has ended up with egg on it's face but nothing more than that, many would agree that PMQs was a bit dull and Labour was always going to win Glasgow North East, the most telling fact probably being that turnout was so low.

Nevertheless Labour will feel the need to get carried away by all this but I somehow doubt that one week of minor political victories at a time when we are remembering our war dead is going to detract from the failings that this Labour government has ladled upon the country for the last 12 years.

Pressure mounts on Cameron over Lisbon

2009-11-03T07:56:00.000-08:00

It's finally happened then. President Klaus of the Czech Republic has signed the Lisbon Reform Treaty bringing it into law. Once the Czech Supreme Court looked like it was going to declare this effectively constitutional treaty, well....constitutional there was always going to be a huge amount of pressure on Klaus from the other 26 countries to sign and this has happened in the last hour or so.

This brings bad news for two sorts of people euro-sceptics and EU Law students and unfortunately I fall into both categories. However, as David Cameron will now be realising at Conservative HQ there is little me or him can do about it and we've just got to deal with the Treaty as it comes.

Cameron is probably under a lot more pressure than my good self though. I have to learn a few new names and Article numbers but Cameron faces something of a no-win situation. On the one hand he has promised the British public a referendum on the Treaty but now Lisbon is in force, to reject the Treaty now would lose Britian a lot of face on the world stage. The flipside of this is to accept the Treaty though this would undoubtedly upset the strongly Euro-sceptic wing of his party; especially considering their new Euro grouping.

A policy announcement is due tomorrow and many will wonder which way Cameron will go with the definite possibility that either way will cost votes at next years general election.

Both Labour and the Lib Dems are enjoying this Tory discomfort but there may still be a way out. In my opinion Cameron is in a strong position in relation to Europe with the threat of a referendum. This can be used to ensure various opt-outs and concessions for Britain and it is at this stage that Cameron can either choose to campaign for a 'Yes' vote in a referendum (as happened in Ireland) or to promise the British public that no referendum is now needed that important opt-oputs have been negotiated whilst getting even the likes of Bill Cash MP to support this position.

In any circumstance, Cameron will be under great pressure over the forthcoming weeks and months. The best thing Conservatives can truly hope for is damage limitation.

A Step Too Far

2009-10-27T08:05:00.000-07:00

A report by International, published today, condemns Israel for denying the Palestinian people access to even the basic minimum amount of water required for living. The average Palestinian receives 70 litres of water per day though some receive less than 20 (the minimum required during a humanitarian disaster) meanwhile many Israelis are free to enjoy their swimming pools and hosepipes.

The plight of the Palestinians is not helped by the Israeli blockade and the fact that some Israeli soldiers use water tanks for target practice.

The response from Israel has been typically evasive with them claiming that they give to Palestinians the amount of water agreed under a 1990 agreement and going on to say that it is Palestinian mis-management that is the problem. There are two problems with this explanation that are vital for the survival of many Palestinians. Firstly, it is Israel who has control over the water supply to Gaza? These subjected people can only get something as vital as water from a country which wants to see their total defeat and this is a huge problem facing any Palestinian government. The only way this can be solved is if, as Donatella Rovera of Amnesty puts it, "Israel must end its discriminatory policies, immediately lift all the restrictions it imposes on Palestinians' access to water". Secondly, the Palestinians do have an inefficient water infrastructure but this is mainly down to Israeli military operations targeting Palestinian water doing major damage, including $6million worth of damage during the Cast Lead operation last winter.

It is about time the international community did something about this situation as we have moved far beyond politics now and Israel is now slowly killing the Palestinian people by denying them the source of life even many third world countries now take for granted.

Internet Campaigning Hits the Spotify

2009-10-21T05:13:00.000-07:00

It seems that Conservative chairman Eric Pickles is now more famous than a lot of his party's MPs with a host of public appearances and this morning he added Spotify to the list. In a new advert which will start during the free songs the service provides Pickles will address the primarily young audience and highlight the innumerate failures that a Labour government has made us suffer from over the last 11 years.

Like many attempts by politicians to address such a fickle audience the advert has unsurprisingly been criticised for being excessively 'cheesy' and any self-respecting person would no doubt agree the 45 seconds are cringeworthy.

Nevertheless the importance of using the internet cannot be underestimated and it is certainly understandable that the party wants to broaden its base in the months before a general election. In fact, that the advert is so 'bad' is almost part of its charm and means that it has gained undue press coverage and will certainly be remembered for some time yet.

Furthermore, Pickles has proved himself as an asset to the party through his various appearances and his instantly recognisable voice and personality is something the Tory party should certainly think about using in the future.

By the way you can listen to the advert here courtesy of Paul Waugh.

The French (Counter)-Revolution

2009-10-20T10:51:00.000-07:00

If Labour thought the in-fighting in their party was bad then they can take some comfort from France's ruling conservative party which is currently fighting it out in the country's court system. The case is being seen by some as a new class war with the aristocratic ex-PM Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin challenging the bourgeois President Sarkozy who, in no uncertain terms, worked his ass of to get to the top.

The case concerns a smear campaign (Clearstream) by Villepin back in 2004 which accused Sarkozy of accepting illegal kickbacks from arms deals. This was later proved to be false but Sarkozy went on to bring charges against Villepin who, he submits, knew the information was false but went on to use it anyway.

The stakes are high and French commentators wait for the decision with bated breath. A win for Sarkozy would effectively end De Villepin's career while a finding of not-guilty would be a damaging blow to the Sarkozy presidency. From an independent point of view, I think France has to hope for the President to come out on top of this dispute. Sarkozy is a man of action and during these troubled times this is exactly what all countries need but in particular one with a continental, protectionist economy.

BNP Stoke The Publicity Fire

2009-10-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

With the BNP making the news again ahead of Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time it is unsurprising that this fringe party is trying to make the most of the coverage as any party would. Unfortunately for those of us who read the politics pages the BNP are filling headlines with their usual bile which makes Jan Moir look like Mother Theresa.

Today the BNP website announced an attack on the two non-white panellists who are also due to appear alongside Griffin on Thursday night. Having read the article I'm sure you'll agree that it is complete nonsensical diatribe which you wish you hadn't even bothered opening never mind reading; I mean halal cake....seriously?

Unfortunately the papers seem to disagree that this isn't worth the time of day with the London Evening Standard running with almost a full-page story and editorial comment. The paper realises that they themselves are contributing to stoking the race row but is only reporting the news that is being created more by the Labour Party more than almost anyone else.

The culprit this time is the Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, who has suggested that the BBC may face legal action unless Griffin was removed from the panel. Now to me and surely everyone else with half a brain this is completely illogical, the BBC simply responded with a succinct "our understanding is that, if there was an election tomorrow, the BNP would be able to stand". There we go, in what is barely a full sentence the argument and subsequent news story is destroyed.

I hope Labour are happy with themselves for once again giving the BNP undue publicity, unless they have realised that they themselves are slowly becoming a fringe party and also need the coverage?

Marcus Cleaver for Supreme Overlord

2009-10-14T07:59:00.000-07:00

Let’s face it, human society has become stagnant. For all this talk of the modern technological age the best two advances in the past decade have been ‘Pirate Sex’ and ‘Hole in the Wall’. Meanwhile atheism only thrives because God is too fucking embarrassed of us, which leaves us to aimlessly wander around the planet distracting ourselves by fiddling with our ringtones.

In fact if there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, the average person’s last thought would be ‘Oooh I’ve got an app on my iPhone to measure radiation. Oh wait it’s just melted....as have my hands’, before a fissure appears in their freshly carbonised skull and their brain is turned into a molten bubbly mess.

I like to think that my last thought would be ‘At least a lot of other humans will die, plus hopefully that pretentious Apple Store on Regent Street will now just be a pile of smouldering rubble’. But it doesn’t have to be this way people for I, Marcus Cleaver, am prepared to lead human civilisation into a new dawn.

With me as your God-like figure at the top, the intellectual elite will be allowed full freedom to work towards a better society whilst the infidel (namely those in the Facebook Group 'Prevent Marcus Cleaver's Attempt at World Domination’ will be....removed.

Utopia awaits.

Join the Facebook group here!

No Split Over Europe

2009-10-06T05:20:00.000-07:00

There is no doubt that during the 90s the Conservative Party were split over Europe and during this weeks party conference both opposition parties and the mainstream media have more than hinted that a similar problem could plague a future David Cameron led government.

The party policy towards the Lisbon Reform Treaty seems prima facie consistent with all major figures showing scepticism towards the rehashed Constitution Treaty that was rejected by both the French and Dutch voters. Certainly, if the LRT is not in force before a Tory election victory, the British public would be given a chance to have their say. Furthermore, it looks like Britain would vote 'No' to Lisbon despite the frankly ridiculous attacks by foreign minister David Milliband accusing the anti-federalist stance of the party as "embarassing".

The supposed problems for Cameron are apparently going to arise if the LRT has been passed by all 27 member states of the EU as the Conservative leader has not announced if there will be a referendum in this case. The question has come to light again this week, unfortunately coinsciding with the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, as the Irish electorate resoundingly approved the treaty, making the passing of the LRT more imminent.

There are many sensible reasons for not announcing the Tory position just yet, the first being that it would be unfair to interfere in the debate that Poland and the Czech Republic (the two countries yet to ratify the LRT) are having in their respective countries. The second reason is that it is most likely going to be 8 months before the Cameron family move into Downing Street and it is anyone's guess as to what shape the treaty will be in at that point. If it is still in it's infancy then it may well be worth having referendum but it would also be understandable not to if the LRT is, by then, operating with full force.

The fear that Britain will lose face with the EU and farther afield if it regails on it's ratification is a petty one. I would rather the government did what the voters wanted rather than keeping up appearances abroad if that was deemed to be the best step forward for the UK.

A Quick Look at the Figures from @PoliticsHomeUK

2009-10-03T08:32:00.000-07:00

OK this is a bit embarassing but the only way I can get the internet to write my blog is to go our university library and what with it being a Saturday it's closing soon so my look at these figures is severely limited.

The look at over 200 marginal constituencies is quite interesting to present a political map of the UK, particularly so this year with a general election coming up in the next few months.

The headline figure that a potential Conservative majority of 146 last year has been halved to only 70 this year, doesn't look great especially alongside other figures that seem to suggest less trust in the Conservative party on the whole. This though is perhaps an unfair comparison as Labour were at breaking point last summer and since then the political climate, at least, has calmed down.

Despite being cut back in some areas such as the North, the Conservatives are in a strong position and this only looks to be increasing with The Sun newspaper now backing the party and the Manchester Conference still to come. The party will also be pleased to know that the expenses scandal seems to be something of a distant memory.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg will be pleased that his party have upped their number of seats from 2008's figures but will still be disappointed that he could well lose some of his MPs from the South-West in the next election. He will be wanting to try and capitalise more from Labours seemingly inevitable demise.

Anyway I'm about to be shouted at but will perhaps try and write an update at some point. Please do read at least the first 11 pages of the document linked to above as it should give a good indicator as to the election in 2010.

Mao to Come From China

2009-10-01T05:01:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China (PRC), a birthday which is culturally seen by the Chinese to be particularly significant. It is needless to say then that the celebrations will take place with military precision; something synonymous with the Chinese regime since the 2008 Olympics.

But the excessive security seen last summer could be stepped up even further for this years parade. Twitter and Facebook have been blocked and those living along the parade route were told that they could be shot if they stood on their balcony or even opened their window. Despite all this the parade, like the Olympics, should be nothing short of spectacular. With participants ranging from squadrons of jet pilots to students holding placards; this years parade will be the largest ever. China will also be showing off their new military hardware to which experts around the world will look forward to with baited breath.

All of this sounds very Satlin-esque and many commentators are likening the Chinese regime to the Soviet Union which collapsed in the early 1990s based on tell-tale signs of decline such as corruption, social discontent, autocracy and increasing militarisation. This may all be true to varying degrees but there has been no sign of major protest in China since the Tiananmen protests of 1989. Instead Communist China appears to have made great steps forward in its 60 years. Life expectancy has doubled with better healthcare available and China's ever growing university system now has 20.2 million students in higher education. Admittedly by global standards China is still a poor country with 207 million people living below the World Bank Poverty line but the central government is making efforts in this area.

Another way in which the PRC is different to the USSR is economically. Whilst the Soviets remained isolated in terms of the global economy, China has cemented its place at the centre of the financial world since joining the World Trade Organisation eight years ago and has recently proved itself by being the first country to pull through the global recession. Boasting foreign exchange reserves of $2 trillion, China would be the last country you would bet on having a financial meltdown.

China has achieved this bed of stability through its own flexible brand of Leninism known as the Beijing Consensus. Whilst Mao Zedong would perhaps have more than a few complaints if he came back to modern day China, he would no doubt be happy with the standing of his PRC on the world stage and the inevitable progress it will make in the future.

Obama's 9/11

2009-09-29T02:50:00.000-07:00

What arguably secured a second term for George W. Bush was the way in which he dealt with 9/11. The strong, hardline response was just what the American people expected from their President. Now, eight years later, Bush's successor faces his own 9/11 which provides an opportunity for another term in the White House and furthermore the chance to secure his legacy.

Many economists agree that unemployment rates in the U.S. could persist around the 9-11% mark for years to come with the global recession pushing whole communities onto the backfoot. One only has to look at Detroit with it's jobless rate of 17.7% to see the effect of the collapse of the automobile industry though this has affected towns and cities across America. And of course it isn't just transport manufacturing that has suffered with unemployment in furniture manufacturing at 22.5% and the construction industry is suffering with 16.5% unemployment.

At least it's a good time to be an economist with theories being thrown at the crisis left, right and centre. What is perhaps most interesting is that Okun's law seems to be faltering. The principle basically states that as the economy shrinks it sheds job at a similar rate and vice versa. On this basis, unemployment in America at the moment should be at around 8.5%; not the substantially greater 9.7% it is suffering.

What does all this mean? Well for some economists such as the renowned labour theorist Larry Summers, this could well signify a hysteresis in the economy and this seems to be backed up by the Peterson Institutes's Jacob Kirkegaard who recently stated that "a lot of the jobs that have been lost will never come back".

So if economic growth alone won't re-employ America, what can Obama do? The way to create a job stimulus seems to come in two parts and suits a Democrat President. Firstly, people have to be able retrain and learn new skills whilst out of work but the thing that stands in the way is a lack of economic freedom to do so. A sort of Medicare bill but for skills education would perhaps give mature students a right to healthcare or subsidised mentoring so that they could, for instance, learn a useful skill without worrying as much about their family. Secondly, more support must be given to new companies; the future economy. This can be done through tax breaks or even direct loans but unless new companies receive initial help they will not survive for long in this time of economic hardship.

These policy ideas aren't exactly in line with my normal Randian way of thinking, but as George W. Bush said a year ago; I am abandoning free-market principles in order to save the free-market.

Snubgate?! More Like Snoregate!

2009-09-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Downing Street was forced to deny rumours that U.S. President Barack Obama turned down offers of 'one-to-one' talks with Gordon Brown during the Prime Minister's trip to New York. The story is being played out in the mainstream press as a breakdown in the special relationship between the US and the UK but to me this seems more than a little melodramatic.

In the worst case scenario the White House may have considered that it wasn't worth talking to Brown; a leader that will more than likely be out of power in a matter of months. Even then this comes nowhere near to signifying the end of a relationship that has endured for decades between these two countries, one only has to look at the speeches given by the two leaders at the UN General Assembly to see how in sync the two nations are.

The more likely reasoning behind Obama's 'snubbing' is that he was far too busy to meet with Brown at this busy time on the international political calendar. Japan has a new Prime Minister with whom Obama would like to meet and of course countries like China and Russia are key allies when it comes to dealing with Iran. I have no doubt that Brown would like to have met with Obama but just because practicality says no doesn't mean we should jump to irrational conclusions; after all the President didn't meet with any other EU leaders either.

It certainly seems that neither Gordon Brown nor the Labour government can do anything right at the moment with most political stories ending up all over their face. Take the Baroness Scotland story for example. A clerical error by the Attorney General could cost her her job. Never mind the brilliant legal work that she has done with the Crown Prosecution Service, she too has been dragged into the Labour mire as part of yet more petty political point scoring.

Don't get me wrong I am always happy to see the demise of a Labour government, it's just I would rather see them fall because of their policy, not because they forgot to photocopy something.

#ldconf providing the real alternative?

2009-09-23T05:11:00.000-07:00

So it's conference season already and all the party machines are gearing up for their event of the year. For me, this year is already more exciting than previous years with twitter allowing the public a backstage pass and generating it's own public debate. Of course when I say 'more exciting' this is a step up from the political equivalent of a school assembly. In this non-literal game of 'follow the leader' the parties use the now highly publicised conferences to big themselves up. A couple of new policies might be announced but long gone are the days when heated discussion arose in those conference rooms.

Nevertheless with a summer that, in Britain at least, tends to generate very little political intrigue, us self-confessed anoraks take what we can get. With this surely in the back of their minds it is the Liberal Democrats who headline this years conference season and have already attracted much press attention. One does have to question if there would me this much interest if the conferences took place in say February but that is beside the point.

The Lib Dems seem to have gone on the offensive from what I have seen so far. Vince Cable in particular has challenged the Tories economic plans even referring to them as "ill-equipped politically, morally and intellectually for the challenges ahead" and stating in no uncertain terms that the shadow chancellor George Osbourne is too inexperienced to run the national economy.

It is clear that Clegg an the rest are on the hunt for votes but it is this really the best way to do it? The Lib Dems reputation as the 'nice guys' of Parliament is being challenged on a daily basis and isn't doing them any favour anyway but picking such petty squabbles will only generate hatred. In the same way, having poor excuses for having no policy is just as bad. Surely even the Lib Dems have to accept that they aren't going to beat the Conservatives at the next general election so surely their best bet is to attack the outgoing party and not completely alienate the incoming government?

Following my advice may mean the Lib Dems need to become even more authoritarian in their style and annoy me further but if it wins them votes I'm sure they won't mind too much about little ol' me.

Lehman Brothers: An Obituary

2009-09-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

As we pass the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers a lot of media sources and politicians are looking back and asking how and why this happened. It is the latter query though which is both more interesting yet worrying for libertarians.

It doesn't need me to spell it out for you that a a lack of regulation and more generally, capitalism, has taken the brunt of the blame. In his speech from Wall Street, Barack Obama stated “We will not go back to the days of reckless behaviour and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses".

To me this seems like a rather over-zealous argument, how can you realistically blame capitalism for the expensive mistakes of various CEOs such as Richard Fuld? Running a high-risk business would pay-off with some massive bonuses in the short-term but when it all goes down the proverbial gutter, people can't be too surprised.

The real problem lies in government bailouts and in this sense the American government did the right thing by refusing to help out Lehman Brothers though this rule should apply right across the board. I understand that the likes of Goldman Sachs have now paid back what they borrowed with interest but the very knowledge that this safety net will be there only promotes greater and greater risk. Only when it is made clear that companies are responsible for their own actions will they be able to make a healthy profit without jeopardising the public purse.

A New Era for Parliament?

2009-09-09T07:49:00.001-07:00

This summer of politics may be remembered for many reasons: the MP's expenses scandal, the G20 summit in London and the continuing demise of Gordon Brown to name but a few. But what may turn out to most affect the UK parliament is the scandal involving the Speaker of the House of Commons.

As Michael Martin failed to acknowledge his responsibility, MPs on the floor of the Commons had to directly challenge the Speaker; something rarely done. Although this successfully led to Martin's resignation, like it or not, a new culture has been bred that holds the Speaker to greater accountability. Possibly more than his remit deserves.

All this has led to UKIP leader Nigel Farage challenging the new speaker John Bercow in the next general election by fighting the Buckingham constituency and early reports suggest he will do well.

Traditionally, parties do not challenge the speaker but this has already been somewhat quashed as a tradition in the past two general elections where the Scottish National Party (SNP) challenged 'The Speaker seeking re-election'.

There are certainly a lot of good arguments out there for Farage as a Speaker and the idea of having a Speaker who is independent of all the main parties is appealing. It could be said that the UKIP leader would show antipathy towards those on the left but from what I've heard from Farage I would suggest he has just as much hatred for much of the Conservative Party!

In spite of all this I hope Farage doesn't get elected. Not because I dislike the UK Independence Party but because Bercow hasn't done anything wrong in the role so far. In fact, I believe the MP for Buckingham has done a pretty good job keeping the House in order from what I saw before the summer recess. Farage's argument seems to be that Bercow himself cannot be trusted because he was embroiled in the expenses scandal but then again who wasn't. Do you think Farage would have been as white as snow?

A Step Forward or a 'Tragic Surrender'

2009-09-01T09:01:00.000-07:00

Mexico this week took what is arguably an important step forward for building a liberal society. A new law decriminalises the possession of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs in amounts small enough "for personal and immediate use". The law has been passed by President Felipe Calderon in order to "regulate the issue" and to free resources and prison places.

The most telling part of this story though has probably been the reaction from Washington. One only has to look back to 2006 for American opposition to this policy in Mexico as pressure from the George W. Bush administration forced then President Vicente Fox to veto the bill. Guarded comment from the White House this time around suggests that the Obama administration is beginning to realise that the confrontational 'war on drugs' is not the best approach. American drug czar Gil Kerlikowske even said he would "wait and see".

But unsurprisingly there has been opposition to the new law on both sides of the border. Mexican officials fear that their country will become plagued by 'Latin Amsterdams' whilst others fear that the law sends out the wrong message as the Mexican government struggles to win their own war on drug trafficking. Meanwhile some in the southern states of America are concerned that the new law will inflict "a serious setback" to the battle against drugs. Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is worried that "We now have an entire country on our southern border that is a haven for drug abuse".

Personally, I believe that fully developed states should not worry about legalising drugs. Once this is done it takes it out of the hands of drug dealers and can enter the free market where each individual is responsible for their own actions. This may be different in Mexico that famously suffers from an inherent drugs problem (only a couple of months ago many high-powered officials including mayors and judges were arrested on drug conspiracy charges) but America has probably done the right thing by patiently awaiting how successful this small step towards legalisation is. If such a policy can make a difference in Mexico then it will mean other countries will have to start taking the possibility of legalising drugs seriously.

"A Mockery of the Rule of Law"?

2009-08-23T04:29:00.000-07:00

The decision by Scottish authorities to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds was bound to cause some distress but surely no one expected an anger-fuelled letter by the head of the FBI.

The empty words from Obama last week about the decision being a "mistake" were perhaps to be expected considering the American victims but for FBI chief Robert Mueller to completely attack the Scottish judicial system is unacceptable.

You may be wondering why I am so bothered about what Mueller has to say; after all he has no power over the decision. Well this is exactly the point! The FBI has no involvement with the Scottish judicial system and has no right to stick their nose in. In fact Mueller himself concedes that it is unbecoming to comment on the actions of other prosecutors.

As a law student I know the vital importance of the rule of law to any democratic country so for this Yank to come along and accuse Scotland of "making a mockery" of the rule of law is frankly insulting. Alex Salmond has certainly done the right thing by backing the decision in the face of criticism. The decision by the Scottish officials is in keeping with their legal rules and arguably more in line with the rule of law than America which has no system of compassionate release.

But this blog isn't seeking to debate the issue of compassionate release. Rather I seek to expose a problem that has plagued American foreign policy as far back as the 1950s. Washington seems to consistently involve itself in other countries affairs. This is prominently seen in South/Central America. Even the most liberal Americans such as libertarian Yaron Brook can't help sticking their nose in where it's not wanted. Many hoped for a change to this when Barack Obama became president and welcomed his reaction to the political crisis in Honduras but this incident shows that maybe the problem is abit more deep-seated than anticipated.

#welovethenhs but should we have to?

2009-08-13T11:38:00.000-07:00

The seemingly increasingly unreliable twitter had another outage yesterday but this time not because of hackers. No, this time the British public flooded the social-networking site with the hashtag #welovethenhs as part of a campaign by the creator of Father Ted, Graham Linehan. The accomplished tweeter has had some other successful campaigns in the past involving subjects from The Daily Mail to Eurovision.

Linehan goes on to say in his interview (linked to above) that "you attack [the NHS] at your peril". This is a response to the video above as well as a concerted effort by the American right to use the example of the British healthcare system as the argument against 'Obamacare'. Certainly there have been a lot of fallacies purported on news stations such as Fox News and these have since been succinctly dealt with by The Daily Telegraph.

The article seems to confirm what Stephen Fry tweeted about the matter and all should have been cleared up nicely. Unfortunately things didn't stop there and people's adoration of the NHS gushed through twitter. The problem with this is that the NHS is nowhere near a perfect system, in fact I would say for certain that the US system is a heck of a lot better than our own.

It would perhaps be unfair to have no provisions whatsoever for those who fall ill but a major reliance on the free market is simply the most efficient way to distribute healthcare. The traditional argument that 'at least a doctor here checks my pulse before my wallet' is absurd. These people associate health insurance solely with going on holiday but most Americans consider this a monthly bill that gets paid with utilities etc. The only reason we don't complain is because it gets taken out of our taxes, which pay for a variety of goods and services; including healthcare.

The campaign has also turned on Daniel Hannan who has also been a victim of @glinner's campaign. Despite making some authentic criticisms of the NHS, albeit not necessarily constructive, he has been made a scapegoat by even his very own party. The campaign has rallied such patriotic support that it has blinded some normally sensible people and whipped renewed fire into those on the left.

The problem lies in the fact that this isn't even much of a left/right issue as much as it is an authoritarian/liberal issue. It's the difference between wanting the government to interfere with healthcare provision and, as Hannan points out, flooded with bureaucracy or leaving it to the efficiencies of the free market. In my mind, Britain is leaning heavily towards the wrong side.

So America is slowly backing away from it's NHS hate campaign but I personally hope that this allows us to look at why the British healthcare system was picked out for ridicule. Of course a myriad of people have their own success stories with the NHS but this time the grass really is greener.

Hit Them Where It Hurts.

2009-08-12T09:14:00.000-07:00

I'm always a little bit worried when Britain gets accused of interfering with her old colonies. Even when the allegations are completely unfounded, such as those in Iran, or so absurd they can't be true, such as those in Zimbabwe, there's always a lingering voice telling me we shouldn't be involving ourselves in other countries domestic issues. In fact the recent Iranian election provides a good example. The British media and a lot of the public were outraged at the apparently rigged election result as they have every right to. In fact Channel 4 news did a very good job of reporting the election and subsequent protests. However, what was most important was that the official representation of Britain (i.e. the government) refused to get involved with the election result and stated that it was a matter of the Iranians themselves to sort out.

I think though that there is a balance that needs to be struck. Certainly Britain is a respected country on the international scene which enjoys membership of the EU as well as a close relationship with the US. It would be somewhat pointless having this influence if we could not use it for the power of good. The problems arise when deciding upon the appropriate sanction in a situation. This is what Britain, and other countries/international organisations, have to decide upon in the upcoming weeks and months in relation to Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi will be kept under house arrest for the next 18 months for allowing a US national into her home. The Burmese have attempted to make the sentence seem lenient in the eyes of the international community by reducing the original sentence from 3 years hard labour but this is widely recognised as a meaningless token because it still means Suu Kyi will not be allowed to stand in the election next year; the first since 1990.

So as our friend Lenin would say; What is to be Done? Well in the short term it seems that once again Labour has done the right thing. The very critical stance taken by Gordon Brown clearly establishes the British position in relation to this matter. The long-term will be more interesting. Whilst we can't jump to extremes and invade, on the other hand we can't simply let this issue drop after a week or so.

The answer, I believe, lies in economic sanctions. By isolating Burma it makes it harder for the country to function. Some would suggest that this only makes things harder for the people of Burma but cutting off economic aid and trade is a good way to strangle the military junta.

At a time when we are considering the legacy of Corazon Aquino and 'people power' in that part of the world, it would not surprise me if the Burmese dictatorship was overthrown within the next year. From the outside, we have to show our support to her people by not assisting those in power.

Vatican vs. Capitalism

2009-08-06T03:22:00.000-07:00

This may probably be seen by some as part of my continuing polemic against religion but it seems to me, at least, that I am simply presenting the case for the defence here. Throughout the post-industrial revolution period it seems the church has attacked those seeking to make a profit and be successful.

The main encyclical to this effect appeared in 1967 when Pope Paul VI recommended redistribution of wealth on a mass scale in order to achieve "Populorum Progressio" (The Development of Peoples) as the document was called. This was attacked beautifully at the time by Ayn Rand in her "Requiem for Man" but now the church is once again moving from the theological to the political in Pope Benedict XVI's latest encyclical, “Caritas in veritate”.

This new piece from the Vatican seems to be continuing on the same theme that profit is evil but is given a modern spin by criticising globalisation as well. The call for globalisation, and capitalism generally , to be 'properly managed' seems to be particularly well timed as people are blaming the apparently 'free' market for the global recession. No one of course considers it was the perpetuation of a 'mixed economy' that ultimately collapsed in on itself; but that's for another time.

Capitalism is based on hard, cold logic and I believe it is this that the church fears most when we get down to it. The best way to explain this is to look at those on the right who believe that it is possible to defend capitalism while putting faith before reason and by advocating self-sacrifice, not self-interest, as the essence of morality. The hypocrisy involved by harbouring such a belief is self-evident but goes a long way to showing the church's long standing antipathy towards capitalism.

I'll leave you with a quote from the aforementioned "Requiem for Man":

"Consider the proposal to condemn Americans to a lifetime of unrewarded drudgery at forced labor, making them work as hard as they do or harder, with nothing to gain but the barest subsistence — while savages collect the products of their effort. When you hear a proposal of this sort, what image leaps into your mind? What I see is the young people who start out in life with self-confident eagerness, who work their way through school, their eyes fixed on their future with a joyous, uncomplaining dedication — and what meaning a new coat, a new rug, an old car bought second-hand, or a ticket to the movies has in their lives, as the fuel of their courage. Anyone who evades that image while he plans to dispose of “the fruit of the labors of people” and declares that human effort is not a sufficient reason for a man to keep his own product — may claim any motive but love of humanity."

"Mr Obama. Tear down this news ticker."

2009-08-04T04:41:00.000-07:00

The Cuban nation has always fascinated me. Although the country adopts completely the opposite political philosophy to what I myself believe it's success in certain areas is undeniable. For example, Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world. After major natural disasters, the first doctors on the scene are Cuban and guess which doctors are the last to leave? Yes, they're Cuban.

This only becomes more impressive when you hear of the struggles that Cuba has had to face since the Communist revolution in 1959. Ongoing cold relations with the US have undoubtedly held back the country back and the collapse of the USSR also caused economic hardship during the 1990s.

Surely though it is time this petty war of words finished between the US and Cuba. It is clear that Cuba won't be changing any time soon. Many pointed to the death of Fidel Castro as a potential turning point but the seamless transition of power to Raúl Castro means Communism in the Central American Republic looks set to continue.

The Obama administration recently showed that it was prepared to take a step in the right direction though as a controversial news ticker was 'unplugged'. Previously located on the US diplomatic mission, the ticker displayed pro-democracy messages from 2006 until the Cuban administration responded by placing flags and billboards to block the sign.

Relations with Central and South America will be a long way behind healthcare reform and the economy on Obama's 'to-do list' but so long as Obama doesn't deliberately go out of his way to anger them like his predecessor and makes some reparation for the last 50 years; he can leave the White House satisfied in this respect.

The Future for Atheism

2009-08-02T09:10:00.000-07:00

Right. Bit of background before I throw myself into this subject because it would be unfair to put forth my position without first explaining my own religious views.

I was brought up as a Catholic because my mother is something stupid like 50th generation Irish-Catholic, tracing roots back to St. Grellan. Anyway I proceeded through the rituals of that: communion, confirmation etc. but last year decided as part of my new-found objectivist philosophical outlook to abandon this in favour of a fairly strong atheist belief.

I'd never really thought about this much as something that should be promoted amongst society in a similar way to an actual religion. However, a couple of news stories about 'Camp Quest', an atheist summer camp, got me thinking about whether I should take my atheism more seriously and be a more active non-believer.

Firstly, I would say that the attitude of 'Answers in Genesis', who argue Camp Quest drums a "hopeless" world view into young minds, only serves to show the intolerance shown by religion to many minorities. I support the Camp Quest, not because it drills secularism into young children but because, instead, it asks the campers to objectively weigh up the evidence and come to their own decision. If a child comes to the conclusion that there is a God then they most certainly will not be castigated for their view.

This sort of tolerance is vitally important to me as a liberal. I have the right as a free citizen to launch a verbal polemic against 'Answers in Genesis' but if I had the power to I certainly wouldn't shut it down because they preach a different view to me and, in my mind, indoctrinates young impressionable minds.

However, it is also for this reason that I would not 'come out of the atheist closet' for want of a better phrase. I would hate to feel that I am forcing my view onto anyone else. Naturally if my position was challenged I would defend atheism to the hilt but if someone came to me for religious advice I would tell them to weigh up the evidence and make their own decision.

Mopping up in Sri Lanka

2009-07-28T13:26:00.000-07:00

I'm going to stick my head on the line here and if this blog was more public I would be getting attacked by voters in Mauritania and those following the ASEAN Security Forum in Phuket; but there hasn't exactly been much going on since perhaps the terrorist attacks in Jakarta on the 17th July. In fact one of the problems with having a birthday in August is that not much happens, it's like war and crises take a holiday. Probably the most famous thing to have ever happened on my birthday is the receiving of the Declaration of Independence in London in 1776. The reason it took so long to arrive was probably because the postman was on holiday.

Naturally I'm not naive enough to truly suggest that the world comes to a standstill in the summer but with the recession beginning to stabilise many countries will be looking to do the same. Arguably the country which needs to stabilise the most is Sri Lanka.

In the final assault of the Sri Lankan army which beat the LTTE many soldiers and civilians lost their lives and much of the Northern region (primarily inhabited by Tamils) has been devastated.

This was a couple of months ago now and the recovery has already begun. This has recently been helped with a huge loan from the IMF.

Regeneration has already begun in the North with plans for roads to be built amongst other projects. It is interesting though to see that both Britain and the United States chose to abstain from discussions over the loans in order to reflect human rights concerns in post-war Sri Lanka.

Suspicion remains rife amongst the international community mainly because the Sri Lankan government has been so secretive during the post-war period. Foreign media is not allowed to visit the camps and Sri Lanka's own traditionally free media has been censored. With reports coming in of deadly diseases spreading through the camps it is no wonder that supporters of the Tamil people are threatening legal action.

It is my opinion that this should be the least of Mahinda Rajapaksa'a worries. The Sri Lankan armed forces remains vast when compared to the population as a whole and it would be easy to squander the loan on maintaining this and offering large army pensions. Rather the President may have to step up to the plate yet again and be the bigger man in this debate. It would be both hugely popular and easy to give the money away to his own people but if the money is spent on making life better for the Tamil minority instead, then both Rajapaksa and Sri Lanka as a country will soon regain it's credibility on the world stage.

Norwich North

2009-07-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

Firstly one has to congratulate Chloe Smith on her election victory today. I'm not going through all the statporn here but it's enough to say that a 16.5% swing and a 20% margin ahead of the nearest candidate is a pretty comprehensive win.

With parliament in recess, it is no surprise that the blogosphere has been attracted to this story like a moth to the only light left on in politics. I myself have succumbed as well, simply because there is no other news, but generally I don't like to look into by-election results too closely. With so much attention from the press and political parties alike the results are often not a true representation of either local or national feeling but how recent events are spun in the local and national press.

Furthermore the Conservative win wasn't all too surprising. We can't say that we now know that the Conservatives are likely to beat Labour in the next general election because the man on the street could have told you that. It would be unfair to even guess the results of the next general election from this for the reasons set out above.

Perhaps we can learn two things from this but I'm afraid neither are good for the Lib Dems. I've honestly not got some vendetta against the party, I'm just pointing out what I see. Firstly, the Liberal Democrats have actually lost out in terms of share of the vote going from 16.2% to 14%. I know this may be just a by-election which isn't necessarily LD-friendly but one expects them to be taking votes from Labour, not losing out to the Conservatives.

This brings me to my second point. it appears that the expenses scandal is over and has had little effect on the voters. The Conservative party were arguably the biggest losers in this debacle but seemingly gained votes from the Lib Dems who came out from the affair reasonably unscathed. If this is the public's fickle attitude only months after the Telegraph broke the story then I have little doubt it will be gone and forgotten by the next general election.

I suggest that the public are fickle but, in my opinion, it's not a bad thing this has gone both from the news and the minds of the electorate. There are much more important issues at stake which must be considered when casting a vote.

Magnificent Desolation

2009-07-20T09:21:00.000-07:00

Despite no pretty play on the word 'Google' many people across the world will be aware that it was today, Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface of the moon and uttered those famous words. Only a select few have been to the moon, really as part of the ongoing space race with the USSR and astronauts such as Armstrong are well into their 70s.

The traditional 5 year meet of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins at the White House has attracted a lot of attention this year and certainly will more so in 10 years time. The academic discussion around the milestone has varied from sustainable power to looking after the psychological welfare of astronauts when the return to the humdrum of everyday life.

Perhaps 40 years after the Summer of '69 we should be discussing the future of space travel. Americans have become increasingly disinterested with 'the final frontier' both on a micro level and governmental. NASA has less money to work with year on year despite their important work and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). Many suggest that if America had continued their space campaign as vociferously as in the 1960s there would be an American flag on the surface of Mars.

But the global recession and proposals for widescale healthcare reform only highlight that America may never commit to their space program in the same way again. The time may well have come to pass the buck to growing economies such as China who, it is rumoured, are interested in taking over the ISS.

Perhaps it will be a Chinese flag we first see on the Martian planet.

Nicolas Sarkozy and the Seven Monks

2009-07-19T14:59:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time (May 1996) in the mountains of Algeria, the heads of seven French Trappist monks were found. This sounds more like a nightmare rather than a fairytale and could indeed turn into a nightmare for the French President.

But how can a relatively small event in a North African country 13 years ago scupper Sarkozy's hopes for legal reform in the French Republic? At the time it was assumed jihadists in the form of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) executed the seven men but recent revelations suggest that they were killed as the result of a botched Algerian military operation. Meanwhile the Sarkozy reforms seek to remove the inquisitorial nature of the French legal system by getting rid of the independent investigating judges and replacing them with politically appointed state prosecutors.

At first one can see why many French legal academics are up in arms against this. The point is well summarised by the representative of the monk's families, Patrick Baudouin, who suggests "The intent of Sarkozy's plan is clear: to put investigations back under political control by eliminating the magistrate and putting prosecutors in charge". He goes on to advocate that "once an independent judge is allowed to investigate, the ability of the rich, the powerful and the state to keep the truth covered up is reduced to almost nothing."

However the system that Sarkozy wants to introduce is very similar to the more adversarial legal procedure seen here in the UK and across the Atlantic in America. Many would argue this allows cases to be investigated in more detail and gives both sides a chance to forcefully submit their argument before an independent judge. The success of such a system can be seen in nearly a thousand years of English legal history but at the same time it is hard not to support the outraged French lawyers and judges. Although the Napoleonic justice system may be in need of reform, it's promotion of independence represents one of the country's most cherished values.

Lib Dems are all a twitter with Cleggy.

2009-07-14T13:15:00.000-07:00

Most Torys are too old for computer whilst most Labour supporters are too poor. On this basis it was always going to be the Lib Dems making breakthroughs with technology in the party politics arena. The blogoshpere is dominated by Lib Dem blogs with middle-class mothers and self-employed geeks offering their opinion on the issues of the day. Every so often they come up with good points but more often than not it's the boring drivel you would expect from anywhere on the Lib Dem, proportionally represented, pyramid of power.

Anyway the reason I bring this up is that now the party leader has joined his supporters by doing an interview with the general public via twitter. However, rather than throw himself into the great unwashed, questions will be vetted by, you guessed, The Independent newspaper.

This is being hailed by many here in geek-world as the greatest thing since sliced bread and the Lib Dems themselves are mopping it up like the badly aimed cumshot it is. In reality it's not going to be any different to any other contact method your ordinary man on the street has with Nick Clegg apart from being limited in terms of time and to 140 characters. All questions which he doesn't want to be answered won't make it through The Independent and any responses that do come back will be shortened versions of "We don't have any policies we're ever going to implement because Britain has a two-party system. We just like to chip in with nonsense about PR every so often".

Stop wasting bandwidth.

"Disparate and misinformed Fear will keep us all in place"

2009-07-11T15:32:00.000-07:00

Those musically knowledgeable amongst you will recognise the above lyrics from the song 'Hunting for Witches' by Bloc Party, something of an anthem for liberals everywhere I think. 'Hunting for Witches' is probably an appropriate title for this article that turned up a few days ago. I caught it on the start of 'The Wright Stuff' on Channel 5 on Friday.

Basically a couple of police forces in England released radio adverts encouraging members of the public to check if other people are sex offenders by making use of a scheme in place. Immediately once can imagine the sort of people using this scheme. Gossipy women, twats of neighbours, clingy parents.

As a libertarian I am absolutely outraged by this! The scheme can only do more damage than good. Imagine finding out for example your mother-in-law or even your fiancé had checked you out. This alone would be enough to destroy a relationship.

I'm not advocating an absolute right to privacy for paedophiles but there are already effective systems in place to prevent close contact with children. The system promotes widespread distrust and could result in rehabilitated offenders being victimised.

Coming up short

2009-07-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

Silvio Berlusconi hosting the G8 summit only seems to enforce the idea that the meeting is little more than a jolly boys (and girl) outing. I'm not saying it's going to be a typical Berlusconi party with topless 18 year old girls but the Italian host only makes the meeting more farcical than it already is.

Arguably this is a heck of a shame as the top 8 countries wield a lot of power, particularly in relation to overseas aid. The G8 nations promised in 2005 to deliver $22 billion in aid by 2010 but four years since this commitment only $7 billion has been spent. Organisations such as Bono's ONE blame this on countries like Italy and France who have only given 3% and 7% respectively of their pledged commitment but one has to remember that one of the other major talking points in L'Aquila, the global financial crisis has put pressure on all countries.

However, whilst the recession is a cause for concern in the developed world it can be a matter of life and death in Africa. Overall growth in sub-Saharan GDP is set to drop from 5.5% in 2008 to 1.5% in 2009. This is better than a lot of countries but when considering population will continue to grow at around 3% this is potentially disastrous with 53 million additional Africans living on less than $2 a day.

From a broader economic view this may be a blessing in disguise. More and more politicians from around the world are questioning the worth of giving to a continent which loses $150 billion through corruption a year and many economists believe that aid leaves African leaders unmotivated to make changes. Despite this, with businesses failing in both America and Western Europe I would hope that more venture capitalists look towards Africa for a more sustainable source of income for various sub-Saharan nations. Foreign investment in Africa is only around 1.7% at the moment but the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts an increase by 16.8% this year.

One success story is Liberia, a country torn apart by civil war in 1993 and plagued by political instability until 2005 is now reforming. Companies such as BRE are investing in rubber plantations. Now Liberia's predicted GDP per capita growth for the next decade is 6.3% compared with -0.5% for the last decade.

So my advice for the G8 leaders? Enjoy the sunshine.

STARTing the Iran discussion

2009-07-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

During the cold war, meetings between the leader of Russia and America over nuclear weapons were a cause for concern across the rest of the world. With the capability to destroy mankind several times over, countries understandably sat with a sense of unease. Twenty years after the cold war has finished and America is still not Russia's best friend by a long shot. When Barack Obama meets President Dmitry Medvedev today he will not have the cheering fans he has come to expect in other countries nor the over-hyped media coverage.

Despite all this the meeting is hugely important. Sure the Russian economy is suffering more than most in the global recession with the steel industry being hit particularly hard but prudence in the good times, an extensive influence over former Soviet states and more nuclear warheads than the rest of the world put together make Russia a global player on the world stage.

Many issues will be discussed in Moscow from relations with Ukraine to environmental concerns but I think the most important issue could come to be Iran. As the West looked on with growing concern at events in Tehran, neither Medvedev or indeed Prime Minister Putin even mentioned the contested election. In fact Russia was the first country to officially receive Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after his re-election.

There is certainly a special relationship between the bordering countries. Russia sees Iran as an entrance into Middle East politics whilst Iran themselves have benefited from Russia defending their interests. Of course the Russians have concerns over a nuclear Iran but don't think sanctions will stop the Islamic Republic and will rather have the effect of enraging hard-liners.

This is probably the most sensible line to adopt when looking at the issue realistically. While America and Russia re-negotiate their own START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) it may be a worthwhile cause trying to restrict the number of nukes Iran is allowed. In return for the world recognising Iran's nuclear ambitions they may well be willing to compromise in terms of the number of warheads or even a U.N. presence at their facilities.

In all honesty this may be stretching my imagination to its outer limits as Russia's relationship with Iran is nothing like say China's with N. Korea; plus Russia has more pressing concerns on it's other, European, borders. Nevertheless one has to question what is the point of having an influence in the Middle East if you're not prepared to use it?

"Are you leading the news with that?"

2009-07-05T04:21:00.000-07:00

Those are the words of David Milliband this morning on the Andrew Marr show in response to the leading story in the Mail on Sunday.

The newspaper suggests that the future head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, has been exposed to a potential security risk after his wife maintained a Facebook page with basically no privacy settings. Before being taken down from the social networking site, the page gave information of where Sawers lives and works along with where he goes on holiday and various high-profile connections including one with controversial right-wing historian David Irving.

There have already been questions raised as to whether the story compromises Sawers appointment to the position. Patrick Mercer MP, chairman of the counter-terrorism sub-committee, explained that he had some concerns over the potential security risk at stake whilst Lib Dem Foreign Affairs spokesperson Edward Davey demanded an inquiry into the security implications.

It was left then to our Foreign Secretary to (once again) be the voice of reason in this furore alongside former Prime Minister Sir John Major. Milliband suggested that the amount of information released would not have been that great via Faceboook. For instance, the associations on the site are people with whom Lady Sawers is 'friends' with. I agree wholeheartedly with this view; so we know where the family went on holiday but it's not like we've got dates, flight details and what movie they're going to watch during the journey!

I can see why a newspaper would want to run with this story but Major agreed with Milliband that the issue had been "overblown". And as the Foreign Secretary so well put it: "the head of the MI6 goes swimming - wow, that really is exciting."

As a sidenote I would like to comment that I have generally been very impressed with the performance of David Milliband MP. He could easily have resigned a few weeks ago and left the government in disarray but he has stood strong and not sold out. The reaction by the British Foreign Ministry in relation to events in Iran has also been very well thought out and sensible despite the pressure on the Labour Party at home.

A message from "very good looking gilr"

2009-07-04T17:07:00.000-07:00

I apologise to all of you who thoroughly enjoy my politically based musings but this message sent to my blog profile is well worth sharing!

good day dearest my name is joykassala very good looking gilr and honest i saw your profile today and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you the more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom i am.Here is my contacts email address (joykassala1@yahoo.com) i believe we can move from here! (Remeber the distance or colour does age not matter but love matters alot in life) I will be happy to seeing a good responds from you a lof of kiss and love to you.
Thanks and remain blessed.
Your's in lovely
joykassala

Now on Special Offer

2009-07-02T00:47:00.000-07:00

So it emerged the other day that the Royal Family cost each British taxpayer 69p per year to maintain. Being the stark (raving) liberal that I am you may well have assumed that I would be well against this 'Imperialist ancient taxation' but I am not and would like to explain my reasoning based on a pure economic footing.

In America there is a subsidy for mohair. This has been around for years, originally used to guarantee the production of military uniforms. It has hung around though for more than 50 years later as one of those obscure taxes that only costs the American taxpayer a few cents per year. Nevertheless, pressure on state senators has made sure the subsidy always makes it through the budget.

Anyway the point is that this small subsidy doesn't provide any economic benefit. Journalist Eric Pianin suggested in 1953 that it "does little more than line the pockets of western ranchers who raise goats and sheep". The Royal family on the other hand are probably the first thing tourists think about when visiting Britain. I'm not saying that's all there is in Britain and tourism will just die but it has to be said that the Royals are part of our culture. The Queen as Head of State also performs an important function. State visits are important for a lot of countries and there is definitely something of a buzz when the Queen of England comes to town. I think this stems from what Walter Bagehot described as the "dignified part of government", although not truly performing an efficient part of governmental work the monarchy is venerable and respected. I furthermore believe that this acts as a stabilising influence on the political system when governments come into disrepute.

This isn't the traditional BNP rhetoric that the Royal family are what make Britain British but I think that people should look at this issue rationally and make a sensible choice.

Soto-may-or may not have ruined her chances?

2009-06-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

This is more of an update on a previous blog I did but it is a story that I have followed closely for a variety of reasons.

The news came in today that the Sotomayor decision that was up for review by the Supreme Court had been reversed by a 5-4 majority. I searched via twitter to check for reaction in the States and was surprised by what I found. A lot showed very little knowledge of the case and took to the assumption that Sotomayor was discriminating against white people; even amongst the educated class.

If this was the reaction amongst some academics you can only begin to imagine what the wider public thought. As well as the offensive cartoon above, many more people took her decision as an attack on white people in general. Others were just plain racist.

The truth of the matter is that she is likely to be confirmed anyway. She has an outstanding background as a prosecutor, lawyer and judge and there is the obvious political difficulty with attacking a Hispanic nominee. Plus the Senate will look at the New Haven decision but certainly more objectively than the American public.

One more sensible 'tweet' points out that even if Sotomayor was present in the court, the decision would still have been the same. This is true if looking purely along liberal/conservative lines but often a judge can influence the whole court on decisions close to their heart, one only has to look at Safford Unified School District vs. Redding for an example.

So rather than looking upon the reversal as a potential roadblock to tenure, people ought to take note of what is to come from Sotomayor. A lady who feels strongly about discrimination could lead to major beneficial interpretations of the constitution in the future.

Gran Cuñado is Watching You!

2009-06-25T08:24:00.000-07:00

The crazy series of events you have just seen unfolding before your very eyes was part of a spoof Argentinian gameshow called 'Gran Cuñado' which loosely translates as 'Big Brother-in-law'. Effectively, 19 comedians have all dressed up as exaggerated caricatures of candidates for the mid-term legislative election on the 28th June. In fact, the election was not due until October but was brought forward by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as something of a referendum on the Kirchner rule that has dominated Argentina for the past 6 years.

The show really lays into the Kirchners but this is only a reflection of widespread opinion. Polls suggest that the ruling couple will lose their majority in the lower house of Congress. Another thing that has not helped them is the emergence of a more cohesive opposition from their own Peronist movement. In particular, Colombian born businessman Francisco de Narváez is leading a high profile campaign in Buenos Aires against former president Néstor Kirchner. A failure to top the poll in an area which accounts for 40% of the electorate would certainly be seen as a humiliating defeat.

The reason for this change of fortune seems to be the rejection of Kirchner economic policy, yet at first glance this seems impossible to believe. During Mr. Kirchner's time as president between 2003-7, the Argentinian economy recovered swiftly from the collapse of 2001-2 mainly as a result of debt restructuring by Kirchner. What's more it seems that Argentina is making an early recovery from the current global recession with export prices improving.

Whilst Mrs. Kirchner was elected in a landslide in 2007, it was widely believed she would be less hardline than her husband. This has not been the case thus far though and attempts to raise taxes on agricultural exports were resoundingly rejected whilst Mrs. Kirchner seems to have gone to war with private business in general.

On the ground, unemployment is a growing concern amongst the Argentinian people with rates rising as high as 17% in some areas of Buenos Aires. In the same areas the poor rate is as high as 40%, figures not seen since 2002.

With Argentina being one of the economic powerhouses in South America, perhaps it is up to de Narváez to promote the restoration of capitalism. Although he cannot run in the next presidential election (being foreign born), his potential success later this month should send a message to the president that more business-friendly policies are what is needed to not only solve unemployment but also make Argentina a major global economic force on the other side of the recession.

Preparing for the Future

2009-06-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

The Mansion House speeches are normally more of a back patting exercise rather than the substantial debate of economic policy seen on the 17th June. The reason for this is the collapse of the financial system and in particular the near-death of the banks last October. All of this has resulted in the biggest rift between the government and the Bank of England since Gordon Brown (as chancellor) freed them 12 years ago.

In many respects Alistair Darling is lucky to be making a speech at all after the recent cabinet reshuffle. Nevertheless the speech is representative of new Labour policy and make interesting reading. Firstly, Mervyn King stated that the central bank should not only take charge of macroprudential regulation but should also be given new powers in order to do so effectively. This echoes the position of the Conservative party but in stark contrast, Darling suggested that "to concentrate on institutions seems to me to miss the point". In effect Darling said that no one system of regulation has protected a country though this view in itself seems to be missing the point and also appears naive of the situation.

The most interesting exchange though took place on the European level. This comes after a meeting of European leaders on the 18th and 19th June where it was recommended that more regulatory power be shifted to Europe. The proposals would include a 'European Systemic Risk Board' (ESRB) that would look out for dangers to financial stability then suggest how to avoid them flaring up any further. On top of this a 'European System of Financial Supervisors' would aim for more convergence in financial regulation.

In general I am an anti-European man myself but if you had asked me in 1957 whether I supported the newly formed European Economic Community (EEC) I would have said yes. Any institution which facilitates free trade is good in my eyes. This is why I support these reforms even where pro-European new Labour have some concerns. Darling agrees that there should be more co-operation on both a European and global level but dislikes the proposed commanding role of the head of the European Central Bank as well as believing bank supervision should remain a national responsibility. To a large extent I agree with this position. If, as happened with the EEC, Europe begins sticking it's oar in where it is not wanted then we may not only lose our own sovereignty but, particularly here, land ourselves in serious economic trouble. However, it should be noted that when European Finance Ministers met on the 9th June it was recognised that European supervisory ruling should not impinge on national fiscal sovereignty.

Power to the Tweeple!

2009-06-19T14:36:00.000-07:00

Most of the blogs on here tend to be very generalised accounts of governments across the world but this is a bit more localised and personal.

For some reason we get the Daily Mail delivered to our house. We used to get the Daily Express but for some reason (my mother's Nazi tendencies) the authoritarian bile poisons our letter box every morning.

From this attitude you can imagine my glee when my beloved twitter launched a campaign involving many influential tweeters to skew the poll asking "Should the NHS allow gypsies to jump the queue?" towards the positive. Reports have come in that within 20 minutes we were already at 86% yes 32% no! By 94-6 the Daily Mail responded by removing the poll. At a time when the Iranian regime is being criticised by the world press for something very similar, it is interesting to see the same thing here in our own country.

What will possibly be most interesting is the reaction of the Daily Mail. It seems hard to defend their position, especially as these polls are specially constructed. Furthermore they can't argue that twitter users are all lefties because there is a clear sense of irony. A fightback against such medieval attitudes.

Hopefully the rest of the press will have a field day too. I've already seen an online response by The Guardian and MSN has branded the poll 'ridiculous'. With the Mail trying to corrupt the British people's views towards xenophobic hatred, hopefully this will give the public a much-needed reality check.

Bibi See Two

2009-06-17T05:54:00.000-07:00

In a landmark speech on Sunday, Binyamin Netanyahu finally accepted the two-state solution proposed by many as the answer to the Palestine-Israeli conflict. President Obama may rightly call this a victory on his part, but has this truly made a difference to the position we were in before?

Looking at Israeli politics it seems that only those on the far-right have publicly condemned the speech as a "surrender". Within the governing coalition there have been some small grumblings but nothing on the scale one would naturally expect.

The reason for this can be noted by a detailed look at the speech itself. Netanyahu stated he would accept the Palestinian state if two principles were fulfilled. The first of these has been labelled by Hamas as racist, which maybe goes a step too far, but the actual criticism itself is well grounded. The principle that a Palestinian state must “clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people” has certain side effects which discriminate against the Palestinian people. In plain terms it means that any Palestinian refugees would have to be settled outside Israel's border so as to not "undermine Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people".

Secondly Netanyahu demanded that the Palestinian state be completely demilitarised. This also means that the government may form no military pacts with other countries and would have no control over its own airspace. In a 21st century middle-east this is completely unfeasible and will have to be challenged.

Hence we return to Obama who has to make the most of this concession. The general acceptance of a two-state solution has to be welcomed as a step forward but now a fair, realistic deal must be brokered.

Iran Votes 09

2009-06-12T08:49:00.000-07:00

Today Iranians go to the polls in what is probably one of the most interesting political systems in the world. The Islamic Republic's politics is dominated by religion but with a number of candidates presenting a challenge to the incumbent Ahmadinejad the contest is turning into the sort of slagging match we would expect here in the UK.

Originally the contest looked as if it were going to be rather dull when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, seemed to show support for Ahmadinejad and resultantly Muhammad Khatami pulled out. Furthermore the Council of Guardians removed many of the candidates in May. When this occured only three opponents were left standing: Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi on a mildly reformist platform; and Mohsen Rezai of the ultra-conservative wing.

Although it is likely that the reformist candidates will split the protest vote to allow Ahmadinejad back in, the level of interest in Iranian politics is as high as it was in 1979 on the eve of the Iran-Iraq war. However, it is possible that divisions amongst conservatives may lead to a second round run-off against a reformist challenger. In all likeliness the leading opponent is Mousavi and it is certainly true to say that if this is the case, Ahmadinejad will face a tough time of it.

Whatever happens, this election has undermined the once uncriticised Ahmadinejad and led to greater openness in a country which badly needs it.

Look for your legacy elsewhere Gordon.

2009-06-10T04:03:00.001-07:00

If you cast your mind back to the end of Tony Blair's reign as Prime Minister you will remember there was a lot of talk about what his legacy will be. In the main, most people decided it would be the Iraq war but in the longer term he will probably be recognised as the Prime Minister who introduced the Human Rights Act or the National Minimum Wage Act.

Back to today and there is a realistic chance that Gordon Brown will have to endure the legacy of being neither voted in or out by the British electorate. In order to prevent this and perhaps hold onto his job for a while longer, Brown will make an announcement today at 12.30 to consider reforming the voting system. The proposed 'alternative vote' has not gone without criticism while others see it as a manipulation of the system to suit Labour interests.

The proposal for constitutional reform has been thrown around since the MP's expenses scandal broke more than a month ago. The truth is, we are still suffering the reverberations from this and even today The Daily Telegraph is publishing stories on the scandal. We can change the electoral system and change all the MPs, but if there is still an 'in it for yourself' attitude then this will all have been for nothing.

As there constitutionally must be a general election within the next 12 months it seems highly unlikely that such legislation will be passed but this doesn't mean Gordon Brown can't make a difference with the rest of his time in office. Firstly there needs to be reform of the current MP's expenses system which will probably mean, at the very least, accepting the changes proposed by the Kelly committee.

I believe though that if Gordon Brown were to go further than this then he could secure something of a legacy in terms of openness of government. He was already praised at the start of his premiership for scrapping plans to limit the Freedom of Information Act proposed by Blair. Now will be the best time to pursue the Act further and allow greater access to information on the mandate that public money is unknowingly being mis-spent. Reforms could include being able to scrutinise private companies that execute a public function, being able to look more closely at QUANGOs such as Network Rail and even scrapping the rule that public records cannot be released until 30 years down the line. The Dacre Review conceded, correctly, that sensitive information could be kept for the 30 year period but there is still a lot of other important information being kept away from the press and public.

If this is pushed through along with making the Minstry of Justice (the department that deals with requests for information) more efficient then I believe Gordon Brown, in this respect, can leave Number 10 with his head held high. He vowed to remove the sleaze from politics that Tony Blair brought with him and, although an obscure way of going about it, he can tick that box.

BNP win is proof of democracy working

2009-06-08T04:19:00.000-07:00

As people woke up this morning to find that the BNP had gained more seats than any other party in the European elections they were rightly disgusted that the UK is, for the first time, returning a fascist to Strasbourg. Interestingly the blog world has also become obsessed with this story and I would suggest this is more to do with the failure of their own party than anything else. One LibDem blogger suggests that proportional representation is not to blame but let us remember that they gained one seat despite losing 1.2% of their total vote share from last time. Meanwhile a Tory blogger goes so far as to suggest that the BNP are on the far-left of the political spectrum! This politically naive argument only detracts from the Conservative party gaining a paltry 1% of the popular vote when the governing national party is in disarray.

Without a shadow of a doubt it is the BNP who have been the most successful in these elections. Although the Green party went up by 2.4% in terms of the total vote share compared to the BNP's 1.3%, the Green's did not gain any extra seats whilst Nick Griffin squeezed into the North-West of England by around 1,200 votes and Andrew Brons earned more than 120,000 votes to secure a seat in Yorkshire and the Humber.

There are many reasons which can be attributed to the BNP winning nearly 1 million votes. Firstly the electoral system has to take some of the blame. Proportional representation (PR) is often banded around as being more fair and democratic but the truth of the matter is that it allows fringe parties not only to get their hands on power but to be a controlling influence as a coalition partner. The good news from this is that a chance of BNP success in a general election is slim.

Going back to the Euro election results though the online world seems almost apologetic for letting the BNP represent the UK but the far-right have had a lot of success across Europe in countries such as Austria, Denmark, Slovakia, Hungary and especially the Netherlands where Geert Wilders' PVV party picked up 17% of the popular vote along with four seats, in the end finishing up in second place overall.

The current economic climate could have left the gate open to parties on the left of the political spectrum who would offer both greater control of the economy but also greater redistribution of wealth. However the far-left only made a small gain in Denmark and none whatsoever in either France or Germany where they were expected to do well. Instead it seems to be the authoritarian right which is doing best across Europe. The UK is a good microcosm of this fact and not just in relation to the BNP. The Conservatives won the election and now seek to form a new anti-federalist alliance with other winners in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) also had success in beating the Labour party to second place, showing that their performance in 2004 was by no means a fluke.

In my opinion, if you do not vote then you accept the results of the election and continuing with this logic, 68% of the total electorate accept the BNP as our representatives in Europe. With poor turnout and PR contributing to the result we still have to say that democracy is working, but as the old cliche goes: 'you get what you vote for'.

Sonia way to the Supreme Court

2009-06-03T02:16:00.001-07:00

Despite the best efforts of major conservative groups such as the Fox Corporation and the Judicial Confirmation Network (also see above YouTube video) it is almost certain that Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, will be voted the replacement for David Souter by the Senate after Barack Obama nominated her on the 26th May.

Seemingly, the only thing that stands in her way is Ricci v. DeStefano. In the case, Sotomayor appears to approve of affirmative action (the American name for 'positive discrimination') when a city in Conneticut refused to promote any of a group of firefighters because there were no African-Americans amongst them.

In her judgment, Sotomayor describes the decision as "facially race-neutral" which has baffled a lot of legal critics. The fact of the matter though is that under the American system it is likely that the city would have been sued whatever decision it made and this is to some extent being explored as the case lies in the Supreme Court at the moment.

Most major critics though are looking at the wider implications of the decision. They suggest that race and sex should be irrelevant when deciding who gets promoted and some hint that the same logic should apply to Sotomayor herself. At first glance it does look like the appointment was a political one and appeases both the female and Latino demographics but Obama insists that his decision was based on her intellect and broad legal experience. However, her background does make Republican criticism harder. Any major opposition to Sotomayor will only tend to alienate female and Hispanic voters even more.

Some have suggested that Sotomayor is more to the left than any of the other judges on the bench whilst others believe she is keen to make the law rather than to simply interpret it. Overall this seems unlikely and can be attributed to an errant quote pulled out of the dusty archives somewhere. As a matter of fact, Sotomayor hasn't yet ruled on some of the more contentious issues in American politics such as gay marriage which only makes her a less controversial choice. This also means there is a slim possibility that this decision could backfire but for the time being this is looking like a very shrewd appointment.

Hanging in the Balance

2009-06-02T02:58:00.000-07:00

With the upcoming European elections drawing so much attention in the UK press it is a shame that the elections in Lebanon on 7th June have failed to attract much attention. Some argue that even in spite of this the election in a country only 4 million strong can only have a minute effect on the contentious region. This though seems unlikely as many look towards the results here as a barometer for the Middle East.

Most know nothing or very little about Lebanese politics per se but will have heard of the main opposition group; Hizbullah. In 2006, the Hizbullah field militia fought the Israelis in a quick but bruising battle. Now they are seeking to do battle again but this time with the shaky governing coalition consisting of Druze, Sunni Muslims and various Christians. Although the latest opinion polls show a slight lead for the opposition, the March 14th coalition has the advantage of American support and vice-president Joe Biden recently stopped by on a flying visit. He even hinted that a Hizbullah victory could put the vast amount of American aid currently going to Lebanon into jeopardy.

But America isn't the only heavy-weight power to wade in on this election. Both Iran and Syria help to finance Hizbullah and have strong connections with the country as their respective armies dominated Lebanon as a peacekeeping force until 1998. By Western standards, corruption is rife on all sides. In particular, Saudi Arabia is effectively financing an anti-Hizbullah campaign.

Lebanon is taking steps in the right direction with an attempted cap on campaign spending but this is easily exploited and as yet there is no uniform national ballot despite protests.

The general mainstream media, particularly in the US, is all too quick to point out that Hizbullah are the bad boys and they certainly don't endear themselves to the press after claiming "divine victory" in the six week war.Even their leader, Hasan Nasrallah, is a charismatic cleric who has found his way onto the Middle East's 'most wanted' list. There may well be a certain fear of the unknown involved as Hizbullah command enormous street power and their militia has superior training, equipment and morale which is the envy of the Arab world. Nevertheless they have also begun to play the political game nearly just as effectively by allying with an alliance of Christian factions and toning down their own religious zeal a tad.

Hizbullah must not be underestimated though and recent reports that link the group with the assassination of Rafik Hariri only serve to highlight this. In fact the Jerusalem Post is probbaly right to suggest that no matter what the result is on Sunday they will continue to play a major role in Lebanese politics. Rather these elections are turning out to be more important on a wider scale as East takes on West in something of a circus of politics before Iraninans go to the polls themselves on the 12th.

A Dead-Man's Revolution

2009-05-26T07:57:00.000-07:00

For all intents and purposes, Guatemala is a failed state and this is of no surprise given its chequered past. Until 1996 there was an ongoing war between left-wing guerillas and governing military dictators in which 200,000 died. As a result there was an influx of guns into the country. When peace arrived, drug-trafficking syndicates were being set-up across Central America and many of the former fighters turned to crime. Nowadays both crime and corruption pervade Guatemalan politics.

With a murder rate of nearly 50 per 100,000 Rodrigo Rosenberg should have simply have been another victim of the state but what the president Álvaro Colom did not expect was a posthumous indictment which was then given to the press. At first the president tried to fob the video off as a fake but when the video was verified, Colom turned to accusations of a right-wing plot.

Unsurprisingly there was a backlash against this with a protest outside the presidential palace in Guatemala City on 17th May. Protesters were also angry about suspected money laundering first suggested by Jean Anleu Fernández (@Jeanfer) on our very own Twitter. Thus, although a rival protest organised with public funds also took place, it was no match for those calling for Colom to step down.

Now the UN and FBI have got involved and will hopefully provide some justice for Mr Rosenberg's family. More importantly though his death must not be in vain. The fact those in political office cannot be prosecuted and that the army has now been given a greater role in quelling unrest must not deter those campaigning for what Colom once offered himself; good government and justice in Guatemala.

Falling on Deaf Ears

2009-05-23T14:49:00.000-07:00

The Taiwanese are no stranger to taking to the streets as seen in 2006 when they campaigned against the corruption of then president Chen Shui-bian. In 2008 the KMT returned to power with 81 out of the 112 seats available in the Legislative Yuan compared with the 27 seats of Chen's party. Part of the reason for the demise of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was their hostile relations with mainland China as they sought to become more economically independent.

This policy has now been reversed by current president Ma Ying-jeou and to good effect. A slight dip in the polls may be expected due to the global financial crisis but the pro-China policies seem to have kept this to a minimum. In general the stock market has been doing well and very recently the Taiwanese Health Minister was invited to the World Health Assembly as an observer for the first time in 38 years.

However recent suggestions from Ma about the possibility of a free trade agreement with China have sparked opposition from the DPP. They took to the streets on 17th May calling Ma a traitor and attempting to organise a referendum on the issue.

In fact such an agreement may be essential to the economic survival of Taiwan in the future. Similar agreements have already been signed with other South-East Asian countries and will take effect next year. In order to weather this storm a free-trade agreement between Taipei and Beijing must be signed. The protestors may be rightly concerned about some political concessions made in the course of dealings but it will be worth biting the bullet.

The DPP suggest that 600,000 took part in their protest but this figure is exaggerated and police estimate the figure as being nearer 76,000. Nevertheless the government should be worried that opposition may become more radical and there are already signs of this happening. Let's hope this dog stops barking and doesn't develop a bite.

Braving the Storm

2009-05-21T11:07:00.000-07:00

Unlike their American neighbours, Canada's banking system has held up superbly during the global banking crisis. In fact, they even made a profit during the last quarter when most would agree market conditions were at their worst. This has unsurprisingly led to many world leaders looking towards the Canadian model; not least Barack Obama.

What makes Canada so unique then? Well it seems that in Canada there are five major banks that dominate independent brokers. Compared to America, where 70% of mortgages were given by independents, Canada's smaller banks and lenders only originate 30% of the total. The result is that Canada's 'big five' are almost too big to fail although this in turn stifles competition.

Looking, for example, at the relatively short period of 1997-2008, RBS made 10 times as much as the Royal Bank of Canada. Furthermore, having such an oligopoly means the government has to supervise the banking system more than in other countries. Interest paid on home loans is tax-deductible in America but this is not the case in Canada plus most mortgages have to be insured by the 'Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation'. Nevertheless, the scrutinisation that applies to new mortgages keeps the banks honest and has not got unnoticed in the American media. Some even suggest that the bigger housing-finance companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should guarantee mortgages rather than buying them.

Overall though it seems unlikely that America will ever adopt such a conservative model. As one banker put it "the United States has an inherently higher risk appetite".

A Tough Nut to Crack

2009-05-20T07:32:00.000-07:00

It has been a long time since Israel has faced any real pressure from America over their position in the Middle-East but this is potentially set to change during the Obama era. Recently vice-president Joe Biden told AIPAC: "You’re not going to like me saying this, but [do] not build those settlements. Dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement,". Israel itself is in a good position to fight it's corner though and arguably couldn't have a better man to lead the charge. Binyamin Netanyahu disrupted the peace process as Prime Minsiter from 1996-99 leading Bill Clinton to splutter "that son of a bitch doesn't want a deal". Although Obama himself is a novice in this sticky mire he will be aware that Netanyahu will back down under pressure. Furthermore, it is my opinion that George Mitchell will prove himself to be an effective peace envoy to the region.

Netanyahu doesn't come to the table empty-handed though and refuses to prevent the growth of Jewish settlements and will not surrender the Golan Heights amongst publicly refusing to accept the notion of two states. In this respect, Obama cannot afford to give to much away and must play a tough game. The Democrat administration may even be helping Israel in the long-term by doing so as it will force them to take actions which will appease the Arab states. Another thing which must be sorted out is the government of the Palestinian state which must provide a stable base. Again, Israel must co-operate strongly here even if this means not interfering.

One thing is for sure though. Obama must get stuck in to this problem now in order to deal with the conflict and cannot stick with the rhetoric seen on Monday. Obama gives a keynote speech in Cairo next month and it is certainly no understatement to say the world waits.

The Fallout from the Expenses Scandal

2009-05-17T12:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't written about this yet and to be quite honest have generally taken little interest in it. Hopefully I can use this slightly detached position to take a more intelligent view of the issue than some bloggers and tabloid newspapers.

I should probably state my position in relation to MPs generally and in this current climate it is especially important to do so as it seems my own view is now quite radical. MPs generally do an excellent job and it should be remembered that often their work isn't easy. To go through all of this now would be impossible but it is enough to say that their hard work often goes unrecognised by constituents and unnoticed in the press (both national and local). A more expansive article on this is available here. Unfortunately such points are lost in the swathe of uproar and it is unsurprising that now 85% of people think MPs are "self-serving and out of touch".

Although the scandal is now subsiding it will have a damaging effect in the future. Take the elections set to happen on the 4th June. With such a dim view of representatives now taken by the British electorate I predict turnout will be lower than usual and many ballots will be spoilt. Although I have long been an advocate of the availability of the vote blanc, an especially low turnout will take a proverbial piss on the democratic system.

Furthermore, in this time of economic hardship it is clear that cuts will have to be made to public services. This will be hard to justify in a climate when MPs are seen to be feathering their own nests. Meanwhile any campaign to crack down on benefit cheats will come across as, at best, ironic.

Although I have now rested the case for the defence, clearly this mess needs to be sorted out. Immediately we have to deal with those MPs who have seriously abused the system. Although the system is admittedly faulty, not all MPs have exploited the system with major disregard so those who have done must suffer the consequences. On Question Time last Thursday, comparisons were made with such an abuse in the commercial world and though this is not the same thing; people are rightly angry. Heads have and will roll and despite debate as to what constitutes a major abuse of expenses it is important for the public's sake that action is seen to be being taken. I believe the culmination of this will be a successful vote of no-confidence against the speaker next week.

In the long term we have to consider an alternative system to the one which the MPs themselves have designed. It's not an awful system necessarily but clearly it has lost all public confidence and there is cross-party support for a new system which could come from either an independent commission or at least the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

In my opinion the best way forward is to completely ditch the second home allowance. This would mean that MPs salaries would have to be raised by around £30-40,000 which, it has to be conceded, seems unfeasible in the current climate. However, this would not be a bad option for the Conservatives to take up once they attain power. Recent polls suggest that the Tories hold a huge lead over Labour and such a policy may be controversial but would get passed if it is presented as ending the possibility for abuse of the system once and for all. Another criticism is that not all MPs would use the extra money for the purpose intended and may simply keep the money and live with friends/family in the capital. This, in my opinion, is fine! People are never told how to spend their salaries so why start now with MPs? GPs and headteachers are now paid more than MPs and whilst their work is important; these guys are running the country.

Terry Leahy for PM?

2009-05-14T07:16:00.000-07:00

As an advocate for laissez-faire it is somewhat upsetting to see people in these troubled economic times looking towards more regulation in finance. However there is one country that seems to have bucked the trend and in an unlikely corner of the world too.

South America is famed for it's tendency towards the left-wing and this stereotype has only been confirmed in recent years after Latin America's left has enjoyed success at the polls. However, in a recent election, Ricardo Martinelli (<-Enjoy the tune btw) became the new 'el presidente' of Panama with 60% of the popular vote, beating Balbina Herrera of the governing centre-left party.

What makes Martinelli an unusual candidate is that he is the owner of Super 99 the country's largest supermarket chain. In fact, including all his interests, Martinelli's wealth covers 2% of the Panamanian GDP. It is therefore unsurprising to hear that he wants to cut corporate tax. Such a conflict of interest would be ripped apart in British politics but clearly the Panamanian people want Martinelli to run the country as efficiently as his supermarket.

The election comes at a crucial time in Panamanian development. After rapid economic development of around 8% per year for the past 5 years, Panama has hit a slowdown and with a property bust and rising food prices (sound familiar?) it will be interesting to see how a businessman handles the situation.

Obama's Big Decision

2009-05-12T04:27:00.000-07:00

America waits in suspense as David Souter announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. The importance of this cannot be emphasised enough. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution and as the final court of appeal; it's decision remains final.

Despite this power, the system of checks and balances which operates in the US means that it is up to the president to nominate members to the Supreme Court when there is a death or retirement etc. Thus the decision lies in the hands of new president Barack Obama to replace Souter. This is a sensitive decision, not least because judges are appointed for life, but also because of the scrutiny placed on the decision. Take the proposal put forward in 1987 to have Robert Bork appointed which was resoundingly rejected by the Senate. Meanwhile the appointment of Clarence Thomas was only passed with a small majority in 1991 following allegations of sexual harassment at work. This problem has even been parodied in 'Supreme Courtship' by Christopher Buckley.

In theory Obama shouldn't have the same problem, or at least to not the same extent. The strong Democrat majority in both houses and general popular support for the government means Obama's choice should get in. Nevertheless, the media will have a field day scrutinising the new judge. It is therefore perhaps of no surprise that it will most likely be October before he (or she) takes their seat.

It is my opinion that Obama needs to see this as more of an opportunity than a threat. With gay marriage being such a prevalent issue in American news at the moment, this could be the chance to enforce the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. In the past this has been headed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg but has often lost out to the more conservative wing.

The liberal wing has gained some minor victories in recent years and surprisingly it was Souter who took the lead part in some of these cases as in Lee v. Weisman hyperlinked above. This was a surprise to many as it was expected that Souter was a staunch conservative when nominated by George Bush Snr. Obama has the chance to strengthen the liberal wing but must make sure he doesn't get the opposite of Souter, i.e. a conservative with a liberal façade.

The problem with charity

2009-05-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

Arguably this latest blog takes laissez-faire capitalism to an extreme level not even particularly explored by the likes of Hayek or Rand. It concerns activities at a personal level which can affect the fine balance of the global economic system. A few years ago now, people from my school went on a World Challenge trip to Tanzania to help in a village which assumedly was suffering relatively worse conditions to here in the UK. I do not question their good deed per se but doubt their competency in relation to the wider political issues in Tanzania and Africa as a whole.

Compared to neighbouring Kenya, Tanzania is generally more economically successful. There is commercial development in provincial towns as well as new road and water projects. Furthermore, Tanzania can lay claim to a common national identity which is rare in many African countries. One only has to look at the debacle in Kenya last year for evidence. Even at elections the ruling party tend to dominate through its popularity and propaganda rather than guns and terror.

So why did this bunch of do-gooders go to Tanzania rather than say Kenya? Well it’s obvious really from the previous paragraph. In the words of the ‘Dogs Die in Hot Cars’ song they are “Godhopping for good times, when everything starts to go wrong”. In other words they are prepared to help out poor people in a politically stable country but not those who suffer from both political and economic strife.

The effect of this is potentially disastrous. Africa will become divided as a continent between those stable countries that receive aid and help from the developed world (Tanzania gets 40% of its government budget in aid) and those that are caught up by the ravages of war. I believe that when looking at issues of charity such as this it is important to look at things from a wider perspective and take into account the political situation.

Thus my argument states that the answer to Africa’s problem does not lie in the form of billions of dollars of aid but rather in the stability of a region; which must be achieved as a primary goal. It is no use sending more money to a country where the money will be spent profitably as opposed to where the money will be spent on arms because this only highlights the problem further.

What is the answer then? In order to create stability it is clear that corrupt governments need to be removed and proper democratic systems set up and established. This takes time and cannot be done by throwing money at the problem. It is possible for the Western world to do this directly by means of invasion and this was considered by Britain in relation to Zimbabwe. This could potentially work for countries that are in as dire a situation as Zimbabwe where the people are desperate but in most cases this would merely be seen as a return to colonial times and wouldn’t be appreciated either locally or globally.

I believe the answer lies in Africa itself. Through self-regulation and internal pressure the African community can really force their neighbours to be more open democratically. The possibility of economic embargoes imposed by such unions would also create much-needed pressure. If organisations such as the EAC were more closely knit and functioned as more than just a trading bloc then it would be possible for Tanzania to pressurise the Kenyan government into fairer elections. The effect would be mutually beneficial as the Kenyan people would be relieved of their political strife and would be able to begin developing as a proper economy whilst Tanzania would gain a reliable trading partner.

The Death of Capitalism

2009-05-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

This evening's comedy on BBC 1, 'Reggie Perrin', once again failed to make me laugh but did make one interesting point. Clunes' character suggested that society is resigned to capitalism because the other economic systems of Communism and thieving don't work. This makes an all too clear distinction between what is a grey area.

However the G20 protests suggested that some are becoming disenfranchised with capitalism and the economic downturn has unsurprisingly got some people questioning, at the very least, the Anglo-Saxon, laissez-faire approach to capitalism. Of course it would be absurd to suggest a Communist revolution or the destruction of the criminal justice system but many are beginning to look at the continental approach for guidance in these tough times. Countries like Germany and France seemed to have held up well despite the current climate and although there have been shortfalls in relation to industry and employment this is nothing compared to the situation in Britain and America.

Is the French model the one to pursue in the future then? The answer is probably not and I think the reason for this will become evident in the near future when the global economy begins to recover. Whilst it is predicted that Britain and the USA will make a swift recovery and may even be stronger on the other side of the recession, other countries such as France will make a slower recovery as they pay the price for their welfare system which for the time being has protected employment.

Ahmadinejad doesn't help the cause

2009-04-22T12:30:00.001-07:00

It is a badly kept secret that I vociferously support the plight of the Palestinian people in their rightful claim to their own country. In order for this to succeed in the long-term we have to fight effectively a PR war which at the moment Israel is winning hands down. This is not surprising as the power of the Israel lobby in the US is unbelievable and is arguably more sympathetic to the Israeli cause than Israel itself. Nevertheless, since the turn of the century the supporters of Palestine have certainly become more vocal and finally the public is beginning to see the injustice. In the past any criticism of Israel was seen as anti-Semitic but now this pathetic argument has all but dissipated and it is Israeli politicians who are being criticised for labelling Ahmadinejad to "Hitler the Nazi" (Shimon Peres).

The Arabic states are often seen as the advocates of the Palestinian cause and despite being previously hostile to Israel this has now cooled to some degree. They though are also part of this PR war and the hard work of campaigners for Palestine both here and in the West is put to nothing when Ahmadinejad uses a 'racism conference' to attack Israel. There is in my opinion some credence in what he said but a UN conference was not the place to air these views. Now the world has more of a reason to hate the Iranian nation but also to give support to Israel which can play the 'victim' card.

QPR

2009-04-15T13:44:00.000-07:00

The question of Paolo Sousa's sacking was not 'if', but rather 'when'. Unsurprisingly, F1 magnate Flavio Briatore could not even wait until the end of the Championship season to get rid of the Portuguese manager and I feel obliged to speak out as a long time advocate of giving managers a fair chance in their jobs. Admittedly I didn't ever believe Sousa would do a good job at QPR as the Championship is a tough league to play in and needs someone who is au fait with the style of play. The job at Loftus Road is by no means impossible but is harder than Briatore would like to think. We know from the current economic crisis that throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away and the same is true to an extent here. It is ridiculous to expect instant success from a Championship club even if the manager does have millions to spend. Firstly there is the problem of attracting big names to play at that level and secondly all teams need time to bond.

Who should take over this accursed position then? In my opinion Dennis Wise would be a good person for this job. He's already shown he can do wonders for lower league teams who are infamous for playing rough football such as Leeds and Milwall. It does have to be conceded that the style of football would not necessarily be pretty and one columnist has already pointed out that Wise's teams used to get booed when winning! Nevertheless I believe Wise would get results and would be the ideal person to appoint at the start of the summer. The one issue surrounding this though would be that Wise would not tolerate any boardroom interference and this could ultimately cost him his job. The existence of such influences at the club have been made clear when Sousa went to the press saying he knew nothing of the loaning of Dexter Blackstock. Thus Wise is the obvious candidate for a job at QPR but far from the obvious candidate for a Briatore employee-of-the-month award.

I like QPR as a club but just hope they haven't sold their soul for a bit of spending money and a managerial revolving door.

Newport 4-0 Fisher

2009-04-06T12:30:00.000-07:00

Long trip to Wales waking up at 6am and still missing a train at 7.45. I mean the tubes at the weekend are so useless I could have walked to Paddington quicker! As a result I ended up on the 8.45 with Leyton Orient (not Milwall) fans on their way to Cheltenham. The smell of cheap alcohol at that time of the morning is sickening but was compensated late on in the journey by getting to see old people complain to the staff after they had got off :D

Newport's a lovely city and everything but nothing special and tbh I'm half glad I didn't have to wait around for ages. I found the ground and it's a good couple of miles from the city centre but a really nice sports complex. Whilst I waited there were other people playing sports in the vicinity. I picked the woman's hockey for reasons which are too obvious to mention.

There were 4 Fisher fans in all including me, the mascot, the mascot's dad and some other random guy. I didn't see them during the first half as I was going to do the traditional non-league thing of waiting behind the goal we were shooting at. This was pointless for 2 reasons. (1) there's an athletics track surrounding the pitch meaning 'behind the goal' is like 100 yds back (2) we didn't exactly threaten the county goal. I therefore positioned my self 3/4 of the way up the pitch and had a good view (see pics). I encouraged the team personally by name but my I gave up on 'COME ON FISHER!' after the first effort was derided by about 50 taffs.

We were never going to win but weren't helped when Chris Saunders got sent off after 10 mins. So final score 4 zip but a good day out.

England

2009-04-01T14:19:00.000-07:00

Right new blog for the first time in a couple of weeks but it's not going to be very long. In fact it's more of a test to see if this automatically gets posted on my twitter like I told it to.

Anyway the footballs just finished and I'm pleased to report a win for all the home nations (Wales doesn't count). Obviously being half Irish I like to see them do well also and I would certainly take 1-1 with the Italians. It's also good to see Robbie Keane slapping one home and keeping in form for the back end of Spurs season.

Despite this I'm a little disappointed by England. Of course the result is good and the press will be happy tomorrow but it would be a completely different story if it ended 1-1. The only player who showed any class was (dare I say it) Rooney and some of the tactical decisions by Capello were at best mystifying. Anyway best be off, apologies for the excessive tweeting during the football. I'll shush my mouth a bit more tomorrow