Look for your legacy elsewhere Gordon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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".