Random Comments

The End of the 'Gulf Stream'?

2010-11-29T20:53:00.000Z

THE Gulf Stream currents that give Britain its mild climate have weakened dramatically, offering the first firm scientific evidence of a slowdown that threatens the country with temperatures as cold as Canada’s.

So reported the Times back in 2005 (and the Guardian). But is this the case? Scientists this year concluded that despite the 'unusual' temperature fluctuations (the UK in 2009 had experienced the worst snow fall in nearly 20 years and in January this year the UK temperatures plummeted their lowest in 50 years!) there is 'no evidence' to suggest that the Gulf Stream is weakening. This maybe the case. Freak temperatures disruptions can develop without warning.

While I don't profess to know whether there is any validity in either the evidence for or against the notion of whether the Gulf Stream is weakening, I can't help but wonder whether the climatologist are necessary correct.

The UK is currently experiencing the earliest 'significant' snowfall in 17 years and more heavy snow is being forecast for the next couple of days. Whether this is a coincidence I don't know but it does make me wonder if there is any basis in the Mayan Predictions for 2012

2010-11-22T22:20:00.000Z

Amount of spending the UK Government wants to cut
£6,200,000,000

Amount UK Government has offered in a form a loan to the Irish Republic
£7,000,000,000

Sheffield goes transparent

2010-11-21T18:08:00.004Z

A website run by 'concerned citizens' along with public data providers have recently published the first set of data from Sheffield City Council. The data ranges from the number of playing fields, to the quality of the air to the number of salt bins in the local area.

There is however, too much information and no contextualisation, save for the title to the different data sets. It can be argued that the sheer volume of raw data that is being released into the public domain (recently HM Government published 'hundreds of documents detailing public spending by government departments over the last six months') actual mystifies knowledge to such extent that it become meaningless. To quote Camus:

“Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism”

Are we becoming arm chair auditors under the aegis of the Big Society?

Scott of the Antarctic

2007-01-23T00:30:00.000Z

While I appreciate the enormous sacrifice Captain Scott (and his team) has done; losing his life in the process, I am somewhat baffled at the suggestion that his Antarctic hut should be persevered. On the face of it, it seems a reasonable request to make; he did after all trek through one of the world’s most arduous places and in the process helped to further our collective knowledge of the terra incognito. However, the cost to preserving his wooden, dilapidated hut will cost in region of £13 million (this is the figure quoted by the New Zealand Government). Surely, £13 million could be best spent on improving the country’s vital services or at best allocate the money to finance future expeditions (which I think would be most appropriate in honour the memory of such a courageous explorer).

China's Missile

2007-01-23T00:07:00.000Z

Last week the People’s Republic of China launched an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to destroy a redundant communications satellite (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6276543.stm for further details). Besides the obvious affects that such debris will cause to surrounding military and communications satellites (i.e. there is now an increase risk that these geo-stationary satellites could become affected by the additional debris caused), the launch has confirmed that China is a potential contender to the Hegemon of both United States dominance and European supremacy. While it is true that China is in regards to military technology twenty years behind the U.S and most European States, its military spending is of astronomical portions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_military_spending) it won’t be long until China is on par with U.S in virtually ever field; especially weapons technology. Clearly, with the rise in the demand for fossil fuels and China’s overwhelming population growth (a growth rate that is completely unsustainable due to the rash policies which have seen China modernise at the expense of developing arable land to feed its mighty populous) this rise in China’s military capabilities would present a clear and present danger to the security not only to the U.S but more importantly to Europe, ‘the epicentre of Western Civilisation’, as states compete for finite resources. Traditionally, when resources become finite or when states find it increasingly difficult to sustain its population growth war occurs. World War Two can arguably be viewed as that last major confrontation for economic resources, a war that Germany initiated in order to pursue its genocidal desire to create Lebensraum in the East.

To prevent this deadly competition between China and the West from occurring it is imperative that military action be taken against the People’s Republic of China now, before China catches which would jeopardise Western security. Military action should be used now before the opportunity passes us by.

Support for Cameron ebbs away

2006-12-03T14:40:00.000Z

It appears that Cameron’s attempt to hug Toynbee has largely backfired. A survey published today on the ConservativeHome website (and reported in the Observer) has revealed that there has been an increase in the level of dissatisfaction Tory grass-roots have towards the leadership.  According to the survey, which received more than 2,000 respondents “67% of members are satisfied with his performance (26% very satisfied, 41% fairly), the number dissatisfied has increased from 24% to 32% over the last month. 15% of this dissatisfied number are 'very dissatisfied'”
(http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/12/onethird_of_tor.html).

Dissatisfaction towards Cameron amongst the grass-roots appears to be rooted in the leadership’s failure to address core issues of concern to party members.  It must also be stressed that the recent comments made by Greg Clark (a key policy adviser to Cameron), that the party should ditch Churchill in favour of Toynbee may also have contributed to the upsurge in dissatisfaction towards the Cameron leadership.

As side note, the ConservativeHome Survey coincides with the YouGov opinion poll (published on 1st December in the Daily Telegraph), which shows little evidence of positive enthusiasm for either David Cameron or the party under him (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/01/ntory101.xml).

Is the wearing of the veil hamper community relations?

2006-10-23T23:59:00.000+01:00

The most conservative veils (which this debate is centered on), those that conceal all but the eyes, are not prescribed by the Koran and are rejected by many Muslims. They represent distinct cultural trends within Islam, not a symbol of the faith as a whole.

The central argument, which I will put forward, is that the wearing of the hijab (the veil) forms both a barrier to community integration and female emancipation and thus prevents the individual from making a significant contribution to British society. The all-concealing veil is a barrier to human interaction. It precludes the face-to-face contact that is essential in the development of trusting communication between individuals. More than other markers of religious identity - the turban, the skullcap or the headscarf, for example - it signals a will not to integrate.

It makes integration different as the full veil prevents having a proper face-to-face conversation with the wearer and thus limits understanding of what is meant rather than what is just being said. The veil forms a barrier that limits the creation of relationships. It unites those who nestle behind such garments and makes it harder for them to integrate with the bulk of the population.

As a result the veil worn by some Muslim women in Britain is a "mark of separation", which makes people of other ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable, this puts enormous strain on community relations and inter-faith integration, which in regards to Muslims generally has been slipping over the last couple of years.

The use of the veil highlights the cultural and religious differences between ethnic groups; it shows unwillingness to assimilate oneself to the community of which they belong. Consequently, the desire to be seen as different, which is exactly what the veil does (some can perhaps equate the wearing of the veil to chav wearing a baseball cup; both come from a socio-economic group that invariably underachieves and both which to demarcate themselves from society) hinders not the women from gainful employment, (a study, published in the Daily Telegraph last week, revealed that Muslim women who wear the hijab find it difficult getting passed the interview stage).

Ultimately, the wearing the veil is a personal choice, but it completely hides the individuals identity, and is far more effective at doing this than a hood, cap, dark glasses or even turban as some have tried to liken it to. The choice to wear it is a choice to segregate oneself from the larger surrounding society and effectively reject it.

Is the East still red?*

2006-09-09T17:20:00.000+01:00

Thirty years ago the “Great Helmsman” of China, Mao Tse-Tung died. Under Mao, China was radically transformed from an agrarian subsistence economy to that of industrial power. However, the economic transformation of China lead to numerous disruptions to lives of ordinary people.

In January 1958, Mao launched the second Five Year Plan known as the “Great Leap Forward” inspried by the Stalinist “Five Plan” which placed particular emphasis on the need to develop heavy industrial. Under this economic programme, the relatively small agricultural collectives, which had been formed to date were rapidly merged into far larger people’s communes, and many of the peasants ordered to work on massive infrastructure projects and the small-scale production of iron and steel. All private food production was banned; livestock and farm implements were brought under collective ownership.

Despite the fact that 15% drop in grain production in 1959 followed by further 10% reduction in 1960 and no recovery in 1961 as well as causing the worst human famine in history, the plan to develop China’s fledging economy was deemed to be a success. Unperturbed by the events of “The Great Leap Forward” Mao and the high echelons of the Communist Party of China embarked on an even more radical platform. In the early 1960s, Mao and his cronies launched “The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution”. Simplistically the idea behind the ‘Cultural Revolution’ was to ensure that “Mao Tse-Tung Thought” entered every arena of human consciousness.

As a consequence of the ‘revolution’ much economic activity was halted and thousands of cultural relics of China’s past were destroyed in the attempted to purify China from ‘bourgeois mentality’. Again, just this to like the “Great Leap Forward” is now regarded as an unmitigated disaster, one that could have been avoided.

Since Mao’s death in the autumn of 1976, China under the guidance of Deng Xiaoping has undergone a tremendous economic transformation that can only be described as ‘neck breaking’. There has been a major internal shift away from the Communist Party’s hard line ideological stance to position which champions innovation and the free market principles (a shift which has lead some political pundits to question whether China really is a Communist state*). Yet, social reform has been sluggish (tight monitoring of the press and the internet still prevails) and there is also growing concern over the environmental degradation, which has arisen as result of China’s economic growth. Concern too has been expressed over the sustainability of China’s growth.

*Inspired by the Maoist revolutionary song “The East is Red”, which was the unofficial anthem of the Cultural Revolution

**Communist state is quite possibly one of the biggest ironies ever to grace the world, as under true communism the state (as envisioned by Marx) would ‘whither away’ and would cease to exist. A more accurate theoretical description of states like China and for that matter North Korea and Cuba would be ‘socialist’. As the state (under the vanguard of the Party) would exist in order to bring about the necessary transitions which are acquired for the state to ‘whiter away’.

What is the difference between liberal ideology and the Marxist model?

2006-09-08T10:38:00.000+01:00

The liberal tradition's central theme is one of optimism towards human nature and that individuals should be free to run their own affairs. This belief that individuals should be free stems from the notion that all men are rational. Locke (a prominent liberal of the 18th century) argues that all people have "natural rights"; of these rights, the owning of property is seen to be important in creating a liberal society. Under liberalism, the economy should also be free to develop as it wishes. This view of a free (laissez-faire) market economy is strongly advocated by Adam Smith, who argues that the general prosperity of the country depended upon the willingness to accept the forces of the market based on freedom and competition. This liberal view is a sharp contrast to the Marxist model. The main theme to Marxism is that the owning of private property is tantamount to theft; this is a stark contrast to that of the Liberal view, which advocates that owning of property is necessary in order to maintain a prosperous and free society. The Marxist model unlike the liberal view is pessimistic towards capitalism and views that man as result of capitalism has become greedy and selfish and has no qualms in opposing others.

Another difference between these two ideologies is that liberalism is based on the empirical method, which claims to attain knowledge through an accumulation of data, whereas Marxism is supposedly based upon scientific analysis.

Does the Royal Prerogative deny democratic freedoms?

2006-09-07T01:32:00.000+01:00

Britain is a unique country. Britain is one of a few democracies that does not possess a written constitution. New Zealand and the State of Israel are the only other remaining nations that like Britain have no codified set of rules. Britain is regarded as having unwritten constitution as the rules to how the state is run are not codified, (there is no single document which will provides the rights of the country’s subjects). Although Britain has no written constitution, its constitution is arrived at through a variety of sources. These pieces of Britain’s constitutional framework provide an integral part to the country’s democracy and are derived for a number of sources, which over time have gradually become accepted. The sources, which the British Constitutions comes from, are as follows: structure of government, statute law, common law, constitutional conventions, and the Royal Prerogative.

The government of the U.K is made up of three different functions. There are the legislature (processes the law of the country), the executive (creates and implements the law), the executive is the government which by convention is the party which has the largest majority) and the judiciary (consist of the law courts and is involved in enforcement of the law). The head of these three arms of government is the sovereign, although, actual political power resides with the Prime Minister. This form of governance is known as the fusion of powers.

Statutes (or legislation) are laws passed by parliament. These are written sets of laws which are enforced by the Law courts (or the Judiciary). Over time, certain pieces of legislation have come to be regard as put of the cornerstone of British democracy. Examples of statues, which have developed constitutional significance, are the Magna Carta of 1215, which aimed to limited the power of king by law and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which states that individuals should be informed of the reasons for their arrest and the changes brought against them. Parliament as a result of it being sovereign (no body or law is above that of parliament) it can enact any law it wishes as nothing it does can be regarded as being unconstitutional or illegal.

Common law is the legal precedent set or made by the judiciary. Other courts of law if presented with same circumstance must follow decisions made by a court of law. Consequently, judges are bound to law of precedent, but this can be over turned. However, as result of not having written constitution judges can and have ignored the rules of precedent.

Constitutional conventions are informal and uncodified procedural agreements that are followed by the institutions of the state. These conventions are the unwritten rules relating to exercise of governmental power through the act of precedent, which is subsequently, considered binding. As part of the unwritten constitution, constitutional conventions of play a key role. They are rules that are observed by the various constituted parts though they are not written in any document having legal authority, there are often underlying enforcing principles that are themselves not formal and codified. Examples of the constitutional conventions in the UK are follows: the Prime Minster is by convention selected from the political party which the largest majority after the general election, that the monarch grants the Royal Assent to all legislation and that the House of Lords passes the any bills relating to the government’s election pledge (i.e. its manifesto).

This source along with the conventions of the constitutions is perhaps the most important aspect of the British political modal. It is the main instrument of Britain’s unwritten constitution and has over the years been at the centre of debate on parliamentary reform, in particular the debate centred on whether Britain should adopt a written constitution on the grounds that this piece of our constitution is “undemocratic”.

The Royal Prerogative contains special powers held by the monarch but exercised by the government on the advice of the Prime Minster and the cabinet in the name of the sovereign. It is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and is completely under the discretion of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council. Some of these power include; the ability to select and dismiss ministers, to dissolve parliament, the declaration of war, declaring a state of emergency and expelling a foreign national from the U.K. Since parliamentary authority is not required in the exercising of Royal Prerogative powers, this provides the executive with the ability to sidestep the legislature, but could if abused result (if there growing resentment within parliament) to a vote of no confidence, which could ultimately bring the Prime Minister and his government.

There has been, as mentioned previously, discussions on whether Britain should adopt a written constitution and whether the Royal Prerogative denies basic democratic freedoms. The arguments for Britain to have a written constitution are that it would provide a greater level of clarity as would enshrine the constitutional law and customs of this country giving the ability to scrutinise the whole political system. It would also provide more checks and balances giving greater influence to the judiciary, which would enable it to hold parliament and government to account more readily. Having a written constitution would safeguard the constitution itself for it would prevent any government which has an overwhelming majority from carry out any changes of constitutional nature, ultimately this would limited the power of the executive (governments need to have majority if they wish to make any bills an act of parliament).

A written constitution would also allow parliament to be able to hold to the account the executive, as it would prevent the government form the using Royal Prerogative powers, which by passes parliament. In the United States for example to change, any put of the constitution requires at least a ⅔ majority. Possessing a codified constitution would also offer protection from authoritarian groups, which could jeopardise the fabric of democracy in this country. The last case for a written constitution is in relation to the rule of law. The UK’s Parliament is subject to no authority beyond itself, there is no political or legal body above parliament, this according to those advocating for a written constitution goes against the principle of the rule of law.

There are number of opposing arguments against establishing a written constitution. The current political system of the UK has a high degree of flexibility and has within it a number of checks and balances. The flexibility of the British constitution allows governments’ to change the laws (providing it has the backing of parliament) with relative ease. The current system also has with it the necessary checks and balance to enable it to bring the executive to account. For example if the government wished to pass certain legislation it could only be come law if had the majority of parliament, opposition parties could join forces which could ultimately see the bill being voted down. Philip Norton (1984) argues that under the existing constitution, there is no mechanism, which could introduce a written constitution it would be virtually impossible. “There is body that can authorise or legitimise it. An Act of Parliament creating or stipulating the procedures for creating one would derive it legitimacy from the doctrine which it sought to destroy…Hence, to create a new, written constitution we would have start from scratch, disavow by some, our existing constitution.”

For instance in the current political system, according to Grant (1994), the judiciary is regarded as being apolitical. “Judges are largely separate from the executive and the legislature and they should be appointed on a non-political basis. Senior judges can be removed from office by a majority in both Houses of Parliament; their salaries are not subject to party debate”. Its decisions therefore are divorced from the realities of politics, ultimately it a written constitution could cause the Judiciary to make decisions on a constitutional nature, which could over rule an action or decision made by the government preventing it in the extreme case from carrying out its election pledge.

The Royal Prerogative is exercised without reference to any democratically constituted body and consequently it can be argued that the exercise of such powers denies democratic freedoms “the prerogative is all about the power of government over the people and virtually nothing to do with the power of the people over government” (Independent on Sunday, 17th July 1994)

This is arguably true in the short term. However, in the long term the government is answerable to parliament (which is the highest authority in the country) for its actions and ultimately to the electorate. Clearly any government must (by convention) therefore act with due regard to this and to this extent it is possible to argue that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative within the context of existing constitutional conventions does not necessarily deny our basic rights.

To help explain where power and authority reside in the U.K, three models have been developed to help illustrated who exercises power in Britain. These models are the pluralist model, the elitist and the Marxist model. Power according to the pluralist viewpoint, is exercised by the people as opposed to a small elite core. The pluralist model is arrived through two main arguments. Pluralist argue that if the vast majority of the people feel that their representatives in parliament are not listening to public opinion or are failing in the deliver of their election pledge, then the people can vote their representatives out of parliament and ultimately from government at the next general or local election. The representatives of the people thus need to act in accordance with their wishes or face exposition from public office. The second argument used by the pluralists to argue that power is in the hand of the electorate is that people are able to join various organisations (such as trade unions, political parities or charities), which then gives the people the opportunity to lobby their representative on matters which concerns them.

The elitist and Marxist models of power are similar to each and differ completely from the pluralist position. From an elitist perspective, power is maintained by a tiny minority, which according to this viewpoint holds power for their ends against the interests of the majority. Where pluralism argues that the people can exert power and influence through various organisations, elitist theorist on the hand argue that these groups (especially political parties) often prevent different views from being expressed if it contradicts the organisation’s ethos. Research into the British political system has led many elite theorists to argue that there is in Britain a small political class known as the “establishment” that maintains powers. This clique of people shares the social values, has the same educational background and invariable come from the social class. “A number of researches have found that the majority of those who occupy elite positions in Britain are recruited from a minority of the population with highly privileged backgrounds” (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995)

The Marxist model on power is similar in nature to that of the elite model. However, advocates of this of this political model argue that power reside not in the “psychological domination” of the ruling class over the people as argued by the elite theorist but resides in those who control the vast bulk the nation’s wealth. In short, those who have economic power also have political power. The Marxist model also argues that the whole democratic procedure of the U.K. is sham and does nothing more then maintain the status quo, preventing any really changes from occur.

Britain, depending on the viewpoint is one or all three of the above models. However, the model, which perhaps accurately displays the exercise of power in Britain, is the pluralist model. In Britain, the electorate (can if it so wishes) seek the removal of the government by voting against the party in power, members of Parliament, who are our representatives, can bring down the Prime Minister and the government by issuing a vote of no confidence if they feel the government is responding to the will of the people.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

2006-09-06T01:54:00.000+01:00

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States over the Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The crisis began on October 15, 1962 and lasted for thirteen days. It is regarded by many as the moment where the Cold War was closest to becoming a real war.

Soviet Strategy

The Soviet government determined in 1959 that any future war would be largely nuclear, and in that same year the Strategic Rocket Forces were founded. The Soviet government became increasingly militaristic in the face of Kennedy's rearmament program. In response, the Soviets decided to install nuclear weapons in Cuba, a Caribbean nation off the coast of Florida whose government had become Communist as a result of the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power; Cuba's government sought Soviet support after the collapse of its relations with the US due to the expropriation of US properties in Cuba and a subsequent CIA-backed attempt of invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Soviet reasoning was two-fold -- first, to defend this new Communist state from American or American-sponsored invasion, and second, to shift the nuclear balance of power away from the US.

American missile sites in Turkey

The US had recently begun to deploy missiles in Turkey, which directly threatened the western sections of the Soviet Union. Soviet technology was well developed in the field of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs), as opposed to ICBMs. The Soviets did not believe they could achieve parity in ICBMs before 1970, but saw that a certain kind of equality could be quickly reached by placing missiles in Cuba. Soviet MRBMs on Cuba, with a range of 2,000 km (1,200 statute miles), could threaten Washington, DC and around half of the US SAC bases with a flight time of under twenty minutes. In addition, the US radar warning system was oriented towards the USSR and would provide little warning of a launch from Cuba.
Nikita Khrushchev had devised the plan in May of 1962, and by late July over sixty Soviet ships were en-route to Cuba, with some of them carrying military material. John McCone, director of the CIA, warned Kennedy that some of the ships were probably carrying missiles but a meeting of John and Robert Kennedy, Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara decided that the Soviets would not try such a thing.

The U-2 flights

A U-2 flight in late August photographed a new series of SAM sites being constructed, but on September 4 Kennedy told Congress that there were no offensive missiles in Cuba. On the night of September 8, the first consignment of SS-4 MRBMs was unloaded in Havana, and a second shipload arrived on September 16. The Soviets were building nine sites - six for SS-4s and three for SS-5s with a range of 4,000 km (2,400 statute miles). The planned arsenal was forty launchers, an increase in Soviet first strike capacity of 70%.

A number of unconnected problems meant that the missiles were not discovered by the Americans until a U-2 flight of October 14 clearly showed the construction of an SS-4 site near San Cristobal. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. Initially, the US government kept the information secret, telling only the fourteen key officials of the executive committee. The United Kingdom was not informed until the evening of October 21. President Kennedy, in a televised address on October 22, announced the discovery of the installations and proclaimed that any nuclear missile attack from Cuba would be regarded as an attack by the Soviet Union and would be responded to accordingly. He also placed a naval "quarantine" (blockade) on Cuba to prevent further Soviet shipments of military weapons from arriving there. The word quarantine was used rather than blockade for reasons of international law and in keeping with the Quarantine Speech of 1937 by Franklin Roosevelt.

The American response

The officials discussed the various options - an immediate bombing strike was dismissed early on, as was a potentially time-consuming appeal to the UN. The choice was reduced to either a naval blockade and an ultimatum, or full-scale invasion. A blockade was finally chosen, although there were a number of hawks (notably Paul Nitze, Douglas Dillon and Maxwell Taylor) who kept pushing for tougher action. An invasion was planned, and troops were assembled in Florida (although with over 40,000 Russian soldiers in Cuba, complete with tactical nuclear weapons, the proposed invading force would have been in trouble).

There were a number of issues with the naval blockade. There was legality - as Fidel Castro noted, there was nothing illegal about the missile installations; they were certainly a threat to the US, but similar missiles aimed at the USSR were in place in Britain, Italy and Turkey. Then there was the Soviet reaction to the blockade - would a conflict start out of escalating retaliation?

Kennedy spoke to the US people (and the Soviet government) in a televised address on October 22. He confirmed the presence of the missiles in Cuba and announced the naval blockade as a quarantine zone of 500 nautical miles (926 km) around the Cuban coast, warned that the military was "prepare[d] for any eventualities," and condemned the Soviet "secrecy and deception." The US was surprised at the solid support from its European allies and also from much of the remaining international community.

When Kennedy openly publicized the crisis, the entire world was put in a state of terror. People began talking and worrying openly about nuclear Armageddon, and drills for such an emergency happened almost daily in many cities. The case was conclusively proved on October 25 at an emergency session of the UN, during which US ambassador Adlai Stevenson showed photographs of Russian missile installations in Cuba, just after Soviet ambassador Zorin had denied their existence.

Khrushchev sent letters to Kennedy on October 23 and 24 claiming the deterrent nature of the missiles in Cuba and the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union, however, the Soviets had delivered two different deals to the American government. On October 26, they offered to withdraw the missiles in return for a US guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any invasion. The second deal was broadcast on public radio on October 27, calling for the withdrawal of US missiles from Turkey in addition to the demands of the 26th. The crisis peaked on October 27, when a U-2 was shot down over Cuba and another U-2 flight over Russia was almost intercepted. At the same time, Soviet merchant ships were nearing the quarantine zone. Kennedy responded by publicly accepting the first deal and sending Robert to the Soviet embassy to accept the second in private - the small number of Jupiter missiles in Turkey would be removed. The Soviet ships turned back and on October 28 Khrushchev announced that he had ordered the removal of the Soviet missiles in Cuba. The decision prompted Rusk to comment, "We went eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked."

Satisfied that the Soviets had removed the missiles, President Kennedy ordered an end to the quarantine of Cuba on November 20. As part of the deal he agreed not to invade Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro and to withdraw the US tactical nuclear missiles from Turkey.

Aftermath

The crisis was a tactical victory for the Soviets but a strategic loss. They had been seen backing down, and the attempt to gain strategic parity had failed, to the anger of the Soviet military commanders. Khrushchev's fall from power a few years later can be partially linked to Politburo embarrassment at both Khrushchev's backing down from the Americans and Khrushchev's creation of the crisis by deciding to install missiles in Cuba in the first place. American military commanders were not happy with the result either. Curtis LeMay told the President that it was "the greatest defeat in our history" and that they should invade today.

Decades later it was learned that Cuba had tactical nuclear missiles available, though General Anatoly Gribkov, part of the Soviet staff responsible for the operation, stated that the local Soviet commander, General Issa Pliyev, was prohibited from using them even if the US had mounted a full-scale invasion of

The events of the Crisis are dramatized in the movie ‘Thirteen Days’ (2000), directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp.

British Government sends man back to face execution

2006-08-27T15:36:00.000+01:00

The British Government is considering deporting a man back to China after his application for political asylum was rejected, even though the individual in question faces execution. Yang Wengi, who had previously worked for Chinese state intelligence service left the country ‘illegal’ in 2003. He left the country after he refused to obey government orders that would see the Falun Gong organization being persecuted and instead fled to the United Kingdom.

A warrant for his arrest was issued by Shanghai police to the British Government and the government is no in the process of finalizing the arrangements to send Mr Yang back to China, where he will almost certainly meet the firing squad.

Yet, the British Government seems remarkably carefree in its handling of Mr Yang’s life. I find it remarkable that the government can allow this to happen, knowing full well that China has a blatant disregard for human life.

At least the British government cannot be accused of not being consistent. Early this year individual’s from Zimbabwe entered the UK hoping for asylum and a chance of a better life (as they faced persecution in Zimbabwe). But just as it did with Mr Yang, the British refused the applicants’ claim for asylum and deported them back to Magube’s Zimbabwe.

North Koreans detained in Thailand

2006-08-23T17:44:00.000+01:00

Thai police have today detained 175 North Koreans in a raid on a house in a suburb of Bangkok. It is the largest group of North Koreans ever suspected of illegally entering Thailand, officials say. The group, most of them women and children, will be charged with illegal entry and face possible deportation to a third country, according to police. Tens of thousands of North Koreans have tried to leave their country in recent years, fleeing hunger and repression. They often seek asylum at the embassies of third countries, but many are thought to be in hiding in South East Asia.

(Source: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5277046.stm)

General Alfredo Stroessner, last of Latin America's strong men has died

2006-08-17T12:08:00.000+01:00

General Alfredo Stroessner, the former President of Paraguay who died yesterday was one of the last of Latin America's old-style military dictators. He was 93 of years.

Stroessner came to power in a coup which toppled President Federico Chavez in 1954, and succeeded in being elected and re-elected for eight five-year terms of office after revising the constitution, which had banned him from serving for more than two.

In style, Stroessner's dictatorship most resembled that of General Franco in Spain. Like Franco, Stroessner provided stability after a civil war and near-anarchy; his motto, "Peace, Justice, Democracy", played to the hopes of an isolated society fearful of political instability

Under his rule the country became a haven for Nazi war criminals, peaceful opposition was crushed and the indigenous population was persecuted. In 1989, after 35 years in power, Stroessner was ousted by a coup d'état led by General Andrés Rodríguez, and he fled to Brazil, where he lived in exile for the succeeding seventeen years.

A brief history of....Somalia

2006-08-17T00:40:00.000+01:00

The British Somaliland was a British protectorate in the north part of the Horn of Africa, and later part of Somalia and presently the unrecognised Republic of Somaliland.

Egypt dominated the area in the 1870s, but withdrew in 1884, upon which the British established a protectorate and garrisoned it from Aden. The protectorate was administered from British India until 1898, then by the Foreign Office, and after 1905 the Colonial Office.

During the East African Campaign, the protectorate was "occupied by Italy" in August 1940, but recaptured by the British in March 1941. The protectorate gained independence as the State of Somaliland on 26 June 1960. Days later, as a referendum indicated support for unification with Italian Somaliland, it joined with that territory to form a new Somali Republic (Somalia) on 1 July 1960.

After the breakdown of Somalia's central government in 1991, the former area of British Somaliland declared independence in May 1991 as the Republic of Somaliland, which regards itself as a successor to the briefly independent State of Somaliland.

Somalia has had no effective national government since 1991. In the northwest and northeast, there are breakaway regions namely Somaliland and Puntland. In the rest of the country there are various warlords. In 2000, the international community recognised the Transitional National Government, originally headed by Abdulkassim Salat Hassan, as the government for the entire country. The government has not even been able to enter the capital because of the violence.

Somalia is the quintessential failed state. Peace has been established in some regions, but Somalia has only a limited government in the Northwest and no recognized government in the South. In these circumstances the private sector has been surprisingly innovative. Competition thrives in markets where transactions are simple, such as retail and construction. In more complex sectors, such as telecommunications and electricity supply, the private solutions are flawed but impressive: coverage has expanded since the 1980s, and prices are attractive compared with those in other African countries

To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises in Somalia have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia’s private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent.

On October 14, 2004 Somali members of parliament elected warlord Abdullahi Yusuf, previously president of Puntland, to be the next president. Because of the situation in Mogadishu, the election was held in a sports centre in Nairobi, Kenya. Yusuf was elected transitional President by Somalia's transitional parliament. He won 189 of the 275 votes from members of parliament. The session of Parliament was also held in neighbouring Kenya. His government is recognized by most western nations as legitimate, although his actual authority is questionable.

Many other small political organizations exist, some clan-based, others seeking a Somalia free from clan-based politics (such as the United Somali Front). Many of them have come into existence since the new president was chosen.

The limbo existence of Somaliland

2006-08-17T00:31:00.000+01:00

Unlike the rest of Somalia, which since the overthrow of Siad Barre in 1991 has had no effective government, the break-away province of Somaliland (although not recognized by any government) has maintained a stable existence, is slowly becoming a paradigm of stability which hopefully might spread across the rest of the ‘Horn of Africa’.

Somaliland unlike war-torn Somalia proper, boasts a constitution, a functional parliament and government ministries, an army, a police force, judiciary, and many of the signs of statehood, including a flag, currency, and passport. Nonetheless, it faces some significant problems to its continued survival. Like other Somali governments, it lacks a consistent taxation base and receives most of its support from private actors. Corruption remains a problem, women are virtually unrepresented in government, and there are growing concerns about voting patterns based on ethnic lines as well as the majority that United Peoples' Democratic Party (UDUB) has gained over both the regional councils and presidency as well as the parliament. Moreover, the large part of Somalilanders still harbour vivid memories of a predatory and extractive central state and are therefore wary of the construction of any strong central authority; this is evident in the importance placed on the role of the regional councils in dealing with local problems.

Having created a de facto state, and a democratic one to boot, Somaliland has sought outside recognition, based on its separate colonial status and its brief existence as a sovereign entity in 1960. The lack of international recognition towards Somaliland could potential hinder the ‘consolidation of democracy’ and may, if left unrecognised could collapse into a ‘failed state’ just as Somalia has done. If that happens it could very easily become a haven for ‘Islamic extremists’. This it is essential for governments especially those in the West to give Somaliland the recognition it so badly deserves

Beyond that continent, countries at the forefront of the fight against terrorism should not ignore its potential as a strategic ally. Among them, Britain, as the former colonial power, has a special responsibility to see that Somaliland's case does not go by default.

The Darfur Genocide

2006-08-17T00:04:00.000+01:00

As the guns fall slient in the Levant, the genocide in the Darfur Region of the Sudan still rages on, yet the world’s media seems to have lost interest (another example of selective media coverages). The conflict began in February 2003in the Darfur region of western Sudan, etween the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from local Baggara tribes, and the non-Baggara peoples (mostly tribes of small farmers) of the region. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supported the Janjaweed, provided arms and assistance and has participated in joint attacks with the group.

It has been estimated that the number of deaths as a result of the conflict range from the region of from 50,000 (World Health Organization, September 2004) to 450,000. Most NGOs use 400,000, a figure from the Coalition for International Justice. The conflict has been described by mass media as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"; the Bush Administration of the United States and the U.S. Congress have declared it to be genocide, though the United Nations has declined to do so.

What I find interesting is why hasn't the US sent a task force to the region to deal with the problem? I guess the reason is because no oil is to be found in the region

All quite on the Cameron front

2006-08-14T19:06:00.000+01:00

It has now been a good couple of months since David Cameron (leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition) visited the Artic and Afghanistan yet nothing seems to have come out of his little excursion to these far flung regions of the biosphere (trips I may add have been gladly paid for by the British taxpayer). I am somewhat curious as to what the purpose of these trips was when nothing is developed from it. It strikes me as me being nothing but a crude publicity stunt aimed at distracting the electorate and the media from the lack of substances to his policy. Indeed taken to the extreme it can perhaps also be said that this also distracts attention from the lack of any coherent policy. After over hundred days as leader of the Conservative Party, no official policy has yet to be pronounced. It is rumoured that some form of policy direction may develop when the ‘policy taskforces’ comes back with their findings (this, it has been suggested will not occur for another six or so months). Harold Wilson once remarked that a ‘week in politics is a long time’; clearly this is something which Cameron and his cohorts have forgotten.

As well as seemingly taking an eternity to develop any set of policy for the party, Cameron (and the Conservative Party as a whole) has been largely mute over the recent David and Goliath contest in the Middle East preferring instead to discuss the party’s change of logo. This to me shows that that the priorities of the Conservative Party are somewhat a drift and not in tune with the concerns of the electorate (let alone the concerns of the international community). It also suggests to me that the party has, like Labour moved into the arena of presentation. For if the party is spending more time on its appearance (the discussions on the potential change of logo for example) as opposed to policy formulation then this suggests that the party’s main concern is in its ‘glossy’ image not in developing a robust, coherent set of policies which have substances.

The hypocrisy of the 'West'

2006-08-03T18:08:00.000+01:00

The Western World seems to be ‘hell-bent’ on regime change.  It has attempted to ‘democratise’ the Middle East either through coercive means or by the use of ‘soft-power’ tactics.  And as can be seen daily on CNN (or any news-network for that matter) this (mis)-adventure has not exactly gone to according to plan.  Iraq, after the toppling of the Ba’athist party by the “coalition of the impotent” has made the country a haven for a variety of Islamic radicals, which not only pose a threat to British or American troops but also pose a significant threat to the country’s fragile existence. How long will be it for the sectarian violence to morph into a bloody war (which could ignite the whole region)?  Lebanon which had been a fiefdom of Syria (as well as being occupied by Israel in the south) recently had its first election; the first the country has held in over ten years.  This pressing for democratisation in Lebanon resulted in Hezbollah gaining a voice in the Lebanese legislature (it remains to be seen whether this fledging democracy will succeed, in light of the recent conflict).

In the Palestine Authority (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) the pattern is repeated.  International pressure had forced the ruling Fatwa party to have a more accountable democracy.  This resulted in Hamas not only having a voice in the parliament but the actual powers of government.

While the West seems to have a fetish in meddling in the affairs of Arab states in the vain hope that some form of democracy will develop (which based on the evidence so far, doesn’t go according to plan).  Yet, for all the West’s apparent sense of altruism in wanting to spread the discourse of liberalism across the globe it does seem to be based on shallow foundations. The West is quite selective in regards to its drive to spread ‘liberal democracy’.  To illustrate this, just look at how the West has dealt with China over the issue of human rights and Tibet, or the silence of the genocide in the Durfar region in the Sudan, or its lack of action over Zimbabwe.  In regards to China, Western criticism of human rights record (or should I say lack of human rights record) is muted so as not to harm potential economic investment in the country.  In regards to the genocide in Darfur and the political oppression in Zimbabwe the West remains silent, as there is no economic incentive to do so.

Zimbabwe: The 'sick man of Africa'

2006-08-03T00:19:00.000+01:00

The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has announced that the last three zeros are to be struck off the Zimbabwe dollar to help counter inflation which is currently at 1,200 per cent inflation rate, the highest in the world outside a war-zone, he economy has been shrinking for the past six years. The Bank of Zimbabwe has also laid plans to devalue the dollar the currency by 60 per cent as well as making it illegal to hold more than £22 in cash, in effort to bring some control to the country’s spiraling economic problems. The new official exchange rate will be 250 Zimbabwean dollars to one US dollar instead of 250,000.

President Robert Mugabe blames domestic and foreign "enemies", (notably Britain the imperial power for its plight) for his country's parlous economic state but economists point to the erosion of the agricultural sector after the controversial "land reform" programme under which 4,000 white-owned farms have been arbitrarily seized by the government.

Zimbabwe's inflation is hardly history's worst — in Weimar Germany in 1923, prices quadrupled each month, compared with doubling about once every three or four months in Zimbabwe. That said, experts agree that Zimbabwe's inflation is currently the world's highest, and has been for some time.

Chart showing the increase in the rate of inflation of the Zimbabwean Dollar

Zimbabwe, once the ‘bread basket’ of Southern Africa, now the ‘sick-man of Africa’

Castro hands over the reins of power to the younger generation; to his 75 year old brother, Raúl

2006-08-02T14:47:00.000+01:00

Castro, who has ruled the Caribbean island of Cuba since 1959, after the revolution swept away Batista from power has had to relinquish the duties of state to his younger brother after it was revealed, that Castro was suffering from internal bleeding (possibly caused by an ulcer). His brother Raul, who has for nearly half a century always lurked in his brother's shadow, both in terms of statue and charisma. As head of Cuba's armed forces, now leads this small island yet opinion is divided over the role he might play as Cuban leader.

It has been rumoured that the staunch communist might go down the path of Deng Xiaoping and being the process of economic reform that Cuba so badly requires. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, economic assistance to the country has all but disappeared resulting in a chronic shortage of basic supplies. Cuba’s dire economic position has been given a mild recovery by Chávez in exchange for Cuba providing military intelligence and medical expertise to Venezuela.

It remains to be seen whether Cuba will continue with its revolutionary path or whether some from of market-based economy will develop, as is the case in China. Equally uncertain is what are the long-term prospects for Cuba’s ruling communist party, how long can the party maintain its grip on power without Castro’s ‘iron fist’?

Isreal closes in on Hezbollah. Is victory in sight?

2006-08-02T12:55:00.000+01:00

The Israeli Army today has announced that it has seized a number of Hezbollah fighters in a raid in the township of Baalbek, which is located deep inside Lebanon territory (100km deep inside). After sustained air strikes on Baalbek, in which 11 people died, Israeli commandos landed by helicopter and fought a lengthy gun battle. Howver, according to a statement released on ‘al-Manar’ television, Hezbollah have said that those captured in Baalbek, were "ordinary citizens", not militants.

Tension mounts on the Korean Peninsula.

2006-08-01T17:47:00.000+01:00

As Israeli planes bomb Hezbollah targets in Southern Lebanon, the Korean Peninsula appears to be slipping into even more precarious position, yet the world’s media for the moment at least has shown little interest.

For the first time since October, 2005 North and South Korean soldiers have exchanged gunfire along the boarder ‘demilitarised zone’ (the world’s most heavily fortified boarder). According to South Korean military officials, North Korean soldiers fired two shots towards a South Korean guard post in the demilitarised zone. The incident comes a couple of weeks after North Korea carried out a number of missile tests (mentioned in an early posting; “Mr Kim’s Missile Test”), tensions between the two countries remained on tenterhooks as a result of this.

In response to the missile tests, South Korea suspended food aid to its northern neighbour and says it will not resume shipments until there is progress on the missile and nuclear issues

Lebanon's Guernica

2006-07-31T13:14:00.000+01:00

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz has said that, despite a 48-hour halt to air strikes on south Lebanon, Israel cannot agree to an immediate ceasefire. Talk of a ceasefire has come after international community raised concern over the scale of the bombing raid on the Lebanese city of Qana, which resulted in over 50 deaths. The air raid on Qana has resulted in a brief suspension of air strikes by Israel for 48 hours so that an investigation can be carried out into the Qana bombing.

The bombing of Qana has given rise to allegation that Israel maybe in breach of the Geneva Convention, which regulates the rules of warfare so as to limit potential loss to civilian life.

The United Nation Secretary General Kofi said "There is strong prima facie evidence that both [sides] have committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law”, this indicates that finger of blame not lies at Israel’s feet but also at the door of Hezbollah. According to the UN Humanitarian chief Jan Egeland, Hezbollah has been firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas and as well as accusing it of using civilians as cover. This provides credence to the belief held by senior Israel military commander that Hezbollah is firing some of its missiles into Northern Israel from residential areas.

Malaysia publishes list of 'band' names

2006-07-30T22:30:00.000+01:00

Malaysian authorities have published a list of undesirable titles to prevent parents giving their children names such as Hitler, smelly dog or 007. Such choices are not allowed, but there is a right of appeal. The list came as a response to the growing number of Malaysians who are applying to change their birth names. Malaysia's National Registration Department made the decision after consulting with various religious bodies in the country.

BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5229060.stm

Dozens killed in Lebanon air raid...And still it goes on

2006-07-30T20:22:00.000+01:00

More than 54 civilians, at least 34 of them children, die in Lebanon in Israel's deadliest strike of the conflict.

The search for the dead continues

The racism of the Daily Mail and the misuse of statistics

2006-07-30T19:08:00.000+01:00

“Secret report warns of migration meltdown in Britain”. That was the uncompromising headline the headline of the ‘Mail on Sunday’, sister paper to the racist newspaper that is the ‘Daily Mail’. Such vile contempt towards immigration was developed further in it’s first opening paragraph: “[A] massive rise in immigration next year could trigger a devastating crisis in Britain's schools, housing and welfare services”. The article is largely a “response” to the report commissioned by the government, which examined how Britain’s public services would cope if there was a significant rise in immigration.

While, I have yet to read the Government’s report on migration. I have already looked at the statistics surrounding migration in the UK (I did this as part of a statistics research project and university) and how these statistics are misused for political ends and how as result these statistics, especially in regards to immigration from particular policies. What follows below are my findings on the Conservative Party's stance on immigration at the the time of the last General Election, under the leadership of Howard.

In February 2005, the UK government published its five-year strategy entitled “Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain” (Home Office Website). Ahead of the May 2005 general election, the strategy had several aims: to restore public confidence in the government's handling of the asylum and immigration system; to set out the current system; and to put forward plans for future management.

The conservative party’s election manifesto (2005) concentrated on the issue of asylum seekers arguing that council tax had risen dramatically due to the Labour government ‘allowing’ unauthorised immigrants to settle in the UK and that the UK as a result “Britain [had] become a soft touch on asylum and immigration” (Conservative Party Manifesto, 2005). Consequently, the Party has argued that the government had ‘lost control of the system’. The party’s stance on immigration and asylum had changed very little from the policies laid out under the Hague leadership (1999 – 2001).

The Conservative Party’s policy on immigration was to introduce a Parliament approved annual quotas (linked to a points system) for economic migration. This contrasts sharply to the government, which argues that you cannot set quotas for either economic migration or asylum. According to the Conservative leader at the time, Michael Howard, quotas will restore confidence in the immigration system (BBC News: Immigration; Party Policies, Tuesday, 15 February, 2005). The Conservatives would also withdrew from both the United Nations Convention on Refugees and key elements of the European Human Rights Charter, which is felt by the Conservative Party to undermine the UK’s implement its immigration policy.

The increase in asylum claims over the past couple of years (of approximately 74,000 individuals) has been largely a factor of the Kosovo War (World Socialist Website). The Conservative Party of the last election (2001) claimed that the average household pays nearly £160 a year to help financial illegal immigrants in the UK (World Socialist Website). Migration Watch makes the point that (based on the Lords Hansard 8 Dec 2004 Column WA39) an additional 59,000 new homes will have to be constructed for the next 17 years in order to cater for an increase in immigration into the country. The precise wording however refers to international migration, not immigration per se.

What these two examples highlight is that both the Conservative Party and Migration Watch are treating immigration as an economic burden on the state. However, neither the Conservative Party nor Migration Watch make any reference to the fact that in regards to tax revenue, the foreign born population makes a relatively higher contribution rate compared to those born in the UK (Institute for Public Policy Research, 2005). In light of the high net fiscal contribution immigrants on average make, migration can help fuel economic dynamism, capital formation and labour flexibility. This is a factor that is ignored both by the Conservative Party and Migration Watch. Concentrating instead on the perceived economic burden of immigration (and asylum seekers).

The conservative party has used the issue of immigration as means whereby they hoped to rebuild their political support among voters by engaging in ‘populist rhetoric’ with the electorate. According to the latest opinion polls released by MORI, 23% (cited in the IPPR report) of the British public sees immigration and race as one of the most important factors for the country at the time of the general election and a 61% of the population according to the statistics commissioned by MORI, believe that there are “too many immigrants in the country”. Faced with these statistics, it is not at all surprising that the Conservative Party formulated a policy on immigration which would appeal to the supposed concerns of the electorate, for no simply reason than to gain political power (the Tory party had been out of office since 1997, and had suffered two landslide defeats by the Labour Party).

Another element the conservative party used to justify its position on immigration was the perceived mal-administrative practice of the government’s handling of immigration and as result, immigration into the country was seen to be ‘out of control’. This helped to build up a climate of fear surrounding immigration. A recent example of this was the release by the Home Office of its estimates of the number of illegal (unauthorized) immigrants in the country was between 310,000 and 570,000 (the Home Office’s own estimate is approximately 430,000).

The use of this data was to ‘highlight’ the total shambles that the government’s immigration and asylum policy had descended into. However, even if the number of illegal immigrants in the country is as high as 570,000, it is only one per cent of the total population (Home Office, 2001, p.12) which clearly does not provide the conservative party with same emotive argument.

The government’s release on the number of illegal immigrants does not however include either asylum seekers whose claims are being processed or those whose appeal to stay in the country has been refused (BBC News, Thursday, 30 June, 2005). Consequently, this may mean that the actually number of illegal immigrants might be slightly higher than what the government has cited. Incidentally the government used this data to argue that identity cards should be introduced, the rationale being that by having ID cards the government will be able to keep ‘track’ of those entering the country.

What the Conservative Party and indeed Migration Watch do not take into account is that the overall number of asylum applicants has been declining. In the most recent Asylum Statistics at the time of the last general election (Home Office, Asylum Statistics, 2003), it was revealed that there had been a drop in asylum applications by 41 per cent. There had also been a rise of 23 per cent of removals of failed asylum seekers from the country (BBC News Tuesday, 24 February 2004). Again, this is something the Conservative Party ignores in its press releases. The main premise to the Conservative Party’s immigration stance is that the government has ‘failed’ to remove unauthorised immigrants from the country; however, according to statistics obtained by the BBC there has been a rise of removals. This suggests in some way that the government is in control both in terms of immigration into the country and in terms of removing those who are illegal.

However, it has to be noted that because of the way the government puts its figures together, it can be difficult to know for sure how many people are finally rejected in any one month (BBC News Tuesday, 22 February, 2005 Analysis: Asylum removals on the rise).
Although the conservative party does not cite a particular statistic in its manifesto to account for this perceived view that immigration is ‘out of control’, it is reasonably clear that the party has been heavily influenced on the ‘findings’ of Migration Watch.

In 2003, MORI Social Research Institute was commissioned by Migration Watch to investigate British views on immigration. MORI’s results showed that 85 per cent of people in Britain disagree that the government had immigration under control. The surveys conducted by MORI (on behalf of Migration Watch) also showed that 67 per cent of the population felt that Britain’s immigrations laws should be tightened up. Two years later and a month before the last General Election, MORI was commissioned by both The Observer and The Sunday Mirror to look at the issues, which were concerning the electorate. The results should that there had been a decrease of nearly 10 per cent (to 58 per cent) of the number of people who felt that immigration laws should be tightened up. However, there does appear to be a slight inconsistency in these results.

The same survey also asked the same group of people if they agreed with the following statement: “immigration is generally good for the economy”, 14 per cent were ‘strongly in favour’ towards this statement, and 31 per cent ‘tended to agree’ with the statement. It is logically to say that those who were ‘strongly in favour’ were would, had this option not been there, would have opted for ‘tended to agree’. This would then provide us with the figure of 41 per cent of the population felt that immigration had a positive impact on the country’s economy. Yet, this appears in some way to conflict with the initial question of ‘should immigration laws be tougher’. You cannot have draconian measures on the one hand; yet at the same time agree that immigration has a positive economic benefit of the country.

It can be argued that position which that the Conservative Party took in regards to immigration and asylum at the last the election (2005) was partly due to the perceived concerns by the electorate in the increase of immigration into the country. A concern, which has been ‘fuelled’ mainly by the tabloid press, in particular the Daily Mail as well as the rhetoric of organizations like Migration Watch. Equally, it can argued that the Conservative Party was perhaps ‘forced’ into taking such a position on immigration in light of remarks often made by the BNP, which are both highly racist and divisive against society. In order then to prevent the BNP from exploiting the issue of immigration, the Conservative Party formulates a policy on immigration, which is tailored to be fairly ‘hardline’, and thus will appease the ‘core’ element of the party, yet does not fully pander to the racism of the BNP. Consequently, the Conservative Party’s policy on immigration can be perhaps be seen as a ‘counter balance’ between the agenda set by the extreme right (such as the BNP) and the concerns of ordinary electorate.

Bibliography

BBC News Tuesday, 22 February 2005, Analysis: Asylum removals on the rise
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4287501.stm (accessed 9th December 2005)

BBC News Thursday, 30 June 2005, Illegal immigrant figure revealed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4637273.stm (accessed 7th December 2005)

BBC News Tuesday, 24 February 2004, Asylum applications fall sharply:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3515677.stm (accessed 7th December 2005)

BBC News Tuesday, 5 April, 2005, Election issues, Immigration Party Policies:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4352373.stm

British Views on Immigration, MORI Social Research Institute http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/migration.shtml (accessed on the 23rd November 2005)

Conservative Party Manifesto, 2005
http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/manifesto-uk-2005.pdf (accessed on the 10th November 2005)

Home Office, Sizing the unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in the United Kingdom in 2001, Online Report 29/05:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr2905.pdf (accessed on the 19th November 2005)

Home Office, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2003 2nd edition 11/04
Tina Heath, Richard Jeffries and James Purcell 24 August 2004
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1104.pdf (accessed 12th November 2005)

Home Office, ‘Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain’.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/controlling_ourborders.html

Key Facts on Migration; Migration Watch:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/default.asp (accessed on the 21st November 2005)

Lords Hansard 8 Dec 2004 Column WA39: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/41208w02.htm (accessed on the 23rd November 2005)

Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), (2005), Paying their Way: The Financial Contribution of Immigrants in the UK, Sriskandarajah, D., Cooley. L and Reed, H.
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/ippr_payingtheirway.pdf (accessed 7th November 2005)

The crisis of British sperm donations

2006-07-30T18:31:00.000+01:00

An article in the ‘Independent on Sunday’ today has warned that the shortage of sperm in Britain’s ‘sperm banks’ could lead to a ‘national crisis’. According to the article, ‘thousands’ of women who are currently seeking fertility treatment could remain childless due to the acute shortage of sperm donors in the UK. In same cases, this has resulted in a number of fertility clinics having to turn couples away as they simply do not have enough sperm for insemination.

Not much sperm is getting donated

Infertility support groups have warned that unless the government takes action on this through governmental sponsored recruitment campaigns to attract more donor, the UK could very easily see a "national crisis". As few as 10 new donors a month are being recruited in Britain, and experts say sperm banks are so empty that couples are having to wait for up to five years for a suitable sperm match.

The abolition of anonymity last year has also led to tens of thousands of vials of healthy frozen sperm being destroyed because the donors have not agreed to be identified.

Perhaps, it is high time the Government looks at the recent amendment in the Human Fertilisation Act which allowed for the identity of the donor to be reveled

For information, please visit:

BBC News: ‘Sperm donor anonymity ends’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4397249.stm

The Independent: ‘Britain's sperm crisis’
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1204520.ece

Change of direction?

2006-07-30T09:31:00.000+01:00

The US state department has dismissed the suggestion by Israel that it has been authorised by the world to continue bombing Lebanon as “outrageous”. Does this signal a change of direction in the White House? If so, it would be the first major re-buckle of Israel since Eisenhower, who lambasted Israel over its invasion of Egypt in 1956 (see the post on ‘Suez’ for further details).

BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5223940.stm

The other event of 1956

2006-07-29T20:45:00.000+01:00

In my first post today, I talked about an event that helped to redefine the new world order. The event in question was the Suez Crisis of 1956 (some may dispute the significance of Suez). But there was another event which coincidentally also happened in the some month as Suez and I feel that it would be an utter disgrace if this other event is not mentioned. That event was the ‘Hungarian Uprising’ also known as the ‘Hungarian Revolution’. It was an anti-Soviet revolt, which lasted 23 October to 4 November 1956. The revolt was suppressed by Soviet troops, and to a much smaller degree the Hungarian State police. It is believed that between 25,000 to 50,000 Hungarian fighters and 7,000 Soviet troops were killed. The revolution led to a significant drop in support for Marxist-Leninist ideas in Western countries.

Political changes resulting in the death of Stalin in 1953, the rise of nationalist movements throughout the eastern Bloc as well as worsing social unrest due to poor economic conditions for the Hungarian populace created the necessailry conditions for a popular uprising in against the authority of the Soviet Union. On 23 October, 1956 hundreds of thousands of Hungarians rose up against the Hungarian government. Within days, a majority of Hungarians were either participating in or supporting the revolt. The revolt achieved control over a large number of social institutions and a large amount of territory.

The participants began to implement their own policies. Executions of pro-Soviet communists started. The Hungarian Communist Party made Imre Nagy Prime Minister. After negotiating a ceasefire with Soviet forces in Hungary, Nagy declared his intention to withdraw Hungary from the Warsaw Pact.

The Soviet Union activated contingency plans which had existed since early on 23 October 1956 for a police action intervention into Hungary's internal situation. The Presidium of the Soviet Party had been concerned with the internal situation in Hungary from April, when they heard of Rakosi's plans to eliminate a large number of intellectuals. Their concerns grew over autumn, as Gerő lost control of his party. The Presidium of the Soviet Party believed that the Hungarian Party's request for invitation indicated that Nagy held the confidence of the Party, and that the Hungarian Party still held the confidence of the Hungarian public.

The intervention of 23 October began using forces already in Hungary. These Soviet soldiers had become more accustomed to a Hungarian way of life. Their traditional mission was to defend the Soviet Union from a NATO invasion. This first intervention was politically confused: for example, when a column of tanks encountered a protest march on the parliament, the tanks accompanied protestors.Economic collapse and low standards of living provoked working class discontent, which was visible during soccer riots. Peasants were unhappy with land policies. The Communist Party was unable to unite its reformist and Stalinist wings. Journalists and authors were upset with their working conditions, and took control of their tradd union. Students were upset with academic conditions and University entrance criteria and established independent student unions. Nikita Khrushchev's speech on the Soviet government under Stalin caused much debate within the elite of the Hungarian communist party. As the Hungarian communist party was blinded by leadership debates, the population took action

Pentagon plan will see dramatic rise in troop levels

2006-07-29T19:02:00.000+01:00

The belief that American forces in Iraq would be scaled back appears to have been a distant memory. Yesterday, the Pentagon (US military complex) announced a plan that would see a dramatic increase in the number of troops operating in the failed state know as Iraq. While the United States has sought to reduce its presence in Iraq and increasingly hand over security to local forces, the announced made by the Pentagon’s plan for redeployment would see more troops sent back into the war zone, as opposed to being re-united with their families as was expected.

Get ready for more body bags

For more information, please visit:

Yahoo News article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_troops_iraq_1)

The Pentagon ‘statement on troop redeployment
(http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040504-0701.html)

Suez: The demise of Empire and the ‘special relationship’

2006-07-29T15:43:00.000+01:00

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the ‘Suez crisis’. The Suez crisis is arguably one of the major turning points of ‘world history’. For the events at ‘Suez’ marked the end for Britain as a world power, it confirmed that (and indeed was also instrumental in speeding up the demise of empire) Britain’s imperial legacy had gone.

.

Eden; the last PM to think Britain still had a role on the worlds stage

For France, a major colonial power (who at the time was fighting a ‘dirty war in Algeria) it confirmed that it could no longer rely on it allies (during the Suez crisis, French troops were under the command of the British). And for America, it confirmed its position as superpower rivalled only by the Soviet Union. The Suez crisis also changed the Israeli-Palestine problem into an Israeli-Arab problem.

The Suez crisis started in mid July 1956, when Nasser, President of Egypt began the process of nationalising the Suez Canal (which was at the time was under the control of a French company). As well as this, Nasser provided insurgents to fight France in Algeria, which hardened French attitudes towards Egypt. This clearly had the effect of directly damaging France’s interest in the region but indirectly, it effected Britain’s economic interest; as oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would be halted. This set in motion the plans for military action against Egypt. What was needed however was adequate ‘casus belli’ to justify military action.

It was decided that military action against Egypt would be fought on the pretext of a ‘peacekeeping’ mission. The idea, revealed in de-classified documents of secret meetings held in Paris at the time, was to use Egyptian incursions into Israel as the excuse; Israel would mount a land invasion into Egypt to end the boarder raids, Britain and France would ‘go in’ as peacekeepers and conveniently protect the shipping canal from harm. This aimed to get around the negotiations, chaired by the US, which strongly argued against war over the nationalisation of the canal. The pretext of a peacekeeping operation neatly provided the Britain and France the excuse they needed.

Eisenhower (the current President at the time) was deeply unhappy of the military situation. One concern for Eisenhower was that the US presidential elections were due in November, of that year, which Eisenhower intended to win as the incumbent of ‘peace’. He knew all to well that the America electorate would not be appreciative of him taking them into a foreign imbroglio in which the US had no direct interest. Another concern for Eisenhower was the potential for countries to move towards to the Soviet model, in response to the ‘bullying’ tactics of Britain and France towards Egypt.

The secret plan took affect on October 29th, 1956, when Israeli paratroopers led by Arial Sharon were dropped into the Sinai thus setting in motion that would led to Britain and France declaring war on Egypt. Eisenhower, who had been kept in the dark, was furious over the actions of Britain and France and the potential consequence that result from it. America demanded an immediate end to hostilities, was achieved by threatening to block the financial aid Britain so badly required from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Faced by imminent financial collapse, the British Government on the 7th November surrendered to American demands. The French as was to be expected, were furious but had no choice but to agree to American demands, since French were under British command.

AFTERMATH OF ‘SUEZ’.

For France, Suez had shown that it could no longer rely on the support of its allies (in this case, the UK). Consequently, France had to look elsewhere for more durable allies; a search that would see Franco-German relations restored in the Treaty of Rome (1957). The Treaty laid down the foundations of the European Community (EC).

It was to be in the EC that France would seek to regain its international prestige. As result of re-modelling it self as the natural arbiter of power in Europe; France in 1966 left the NATO command structure after it had successfully built its own nuclear deterrent (without American assistance) to counter-balance a potential Soviet threat.

Suez had badly hurt Britain the most. The Prime Minister resigned soon after Suez. The crisis exploded Britain’s lingering imperial pretentious and helped to speed the process of decolonisation of empire. Suez would be the last significant until 1982 during the Falklands War that Britain attempted to impose its military will abroad without U.S. support.

And finally the 'Suez crisis' also greatly improved Nasser's standing in the Arab world, helping as well to promote pan-Arabism and reinforced hostility against the State of Israel.

Getting beyond the "resistence" and "terrorist" dichotomy

2006-07-28T14:52:00.000+01:00

I read an interesting article on the ConservativeHome.com site (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/07/iain_duncan_smi.html#comment-20395684). The article was written by the former Conservative Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith. In the article, IDS argues that Israel has not acted ‘disproportionately’ in its policy against Hamas and Hezbollah.

I must, before I start, congratulate IDS on an excellent article. Israel is one of most vulnerable places in the world; no other country faces such hostility from its ‘neighbours’. To some extent it is also true that the media does appear to be biased against Israel.

However, we are now in the second week of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict with no sign yet that Hezbollah have been ‘smashed’. The only targets, which appear to be hit, are either residential areas, the Red Cross and most recently a UN outpost. It does make we wonder whether the use of force to this extent by Israel is conducive in the long term. If anything the Israeli campaign in Lebanon will harden the determination of groups like ‘Hamas’ and ‘Hezbollah’ to end what they regard as a ‘Zionist occupation’.

Only by understanding and appreciating the historical and cultural roots to the of problem the Middle East (in other words by understanding the rationale behind Hamas as well understanding the Israeli psyche) can peace in the region perhaps be achieved

By constantly labelling these groups as ‘terrorist’ we affectively ‘put on’ our “ideological and conceptual blindfold” which prevents from engaging with the situation realistically.

In response to IDS asking how we would feel if a nearby nation was funding terrorist activities against the UK, all I have to say to that is that it is well-known that the IRA received its funding from "rich friends in New York".

The irony of it all

2006-07-27T18:15:00.000+01:00

I must say, I do find it highly ironic that the State of Israel refers to Hezbollah (and others) as being a terrorist organisation, yet Israel continues to praises its own brand of terror organisations as “freedom fighters”. What got me thinking about this was an article I read on the ConservativeHome.com* website. The piece in question was by a representative of the Conservatives for Israel and was supposedly meant to be a ‘Guide to the current Middle East conflict'.**

The King David Hotel, bombed by 'Irgun'

I’m interested to know what really is the difference between the actions of Hezbollah, which views itself as a resistance organisation, and the Jewish terror groups (sorry “freedom fighters”) which fought both the British and the Arabs up until the formation if Israel. The terror group ‘Lehi’ was responsible for the murders of the U.N meditor Count Folke Bernadotte and the British government representative in the region, Lord Moyne. The group ‘Haganah’ carried out anti-British operations in Palestine. ‘Irgun’ (also known as ‘Etzel’) was a clandestine militant Zionist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine from 1931 to 1948. This was the organisation that blew up the King David Hotel bombing, in which 91 people were killed, most of them civilians. An event, which Israel recently celebrated.

Israel was born in blood and will continue to bathe in blood until agreement on all sides can be reached. I feel, that it is imperative that the State of Israel acknowledges its own ‘murky’ existence. By recognising that Israel was born out of the same tactics which Hizbollah et al use, may go some way in finding a common ground and hopefully a peacefully solution. If Israel continues to regard these groups as terrorist organisation no workable solution can ever be reached.

*ConservativeHome.com, is an unofficial website for ‘grass-root’ members of the UK Conservative Party. The views expressed here, are not necessarily the views of the party.

**To to view the article in question, please visit: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/07/victoria_kluk_g.html

Thailand's absent parliament

2006-07-26T18:33:00.000+01:00

For the past couple of months now, the Kingdom of Thailand has been run by a ‘caretaker government’ but has no functioning parliament. Up to now, Thailand has been ‘ticking over quite nicely’ but for how long remains to be seen. The country’s two main political parties (Thai Rak Thai and the current opposition the Thai Democrat party) have been accused of electoral fraud in the April election and both may face possible dissolution for what has viewed as being “unconstitutional” behaviour. To add to the growing political uncertainty, the election commissioners are currently facing trial in the criminal courts. This makes highly uncertain whether the fresh elections called for October will take place.

Yet, for all the political uncertainty, the current situation is having little effect on the country’s economic performance. Predictions by economists at the start of the year gave fairly less then rosy picture, but only just. Economic forecasts published by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) show that Thailand’s economy will grow from 4.7% this year to a staggering 5.5% in 2007. The increase in the global economy’s performance, especially in the East Asian countries is helping to provide Thailand with this economic buoyancy. However, recent surveys in Thailand show that consumer confidence has been dinted by the political uncertainty. Yet the irony is that the aggressive marketing of credit by banks is encouraging Thais to spend more, this is illustrated by the flashy shopping malls in the centre of Bangkok.

At the moment all seems to be well. However, the lack of a parliament in Thailand means that no budget has been passed for the new fiscal year due to start in October (the same time as the new elections). This is not necessarily a problem. The government (just as in the Philippines) can still continue to pay its civil servants and well as running basic services. The damage however will be felt in the longer term since the main effect may be to delay the start of major infrastructure projects.

Other measures potentially endangered as a result of new parliament (as well as lack of a credible government) are the free trade deals that Thailand is seeking with America and Japan. The Bush administration is rushing to sign deals before its “fast-track” negotiating authority from the Congress runs out next July. It is possible that Thailand could get sidelined if American negotiators find that they are making more headway with other countries, such as Malaysia.

For more information on Thailand's election fraud saga, please visit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5175438.stm

Europe's population demise

2006-07-26T18:31:00.000+01:00

The population of Europe is slowly ebbing away due the diminishing birthrate is dying. Approximately 25 years ago, birth rates fell below replacement levels across most of Western Europe and they have been locked in a broad downtrend ever since. In Spain for example, the fertility rate had fallen to 60% of replacement levels in 1997. If Spanish fertility rate at these levels, the population (if there is an absence of net immigration) will fall by 40% in a generation, as births fall below that of deaths. The rest of Europe, notably Germany, Italy, France and the UK also show the same pattern, albeit in a lesser degree.

Population projections have for years been consistently too optimistic for decades, and signs of recovering fertility have so far proved short-lived. Couples have been making lifestyle choices to pursue careers rather than starting families, and the proportion of women who will go through their reproductive lives childless is rising steadily. Efforts to encourage couples to breed have had a colourful history and, for many, recall fascist pasts. Mussolini heavily taxed single men in his Battle for Births and Hitler awarded medals to women with large families in his quest for a superior German race.

Increasing immigration into Europe, in theory, one option for Europe, but most agree it is politically unfeasible in the current climate. Although, others have stressed that it would not in any event solve the problem in the longer term - the migrants would themselves grow old and their own fertility patterns would start to match those of the country which received them. Another option is to increase the productivity of the working population, drawing more people into the workforce - and more controversially - making them stay there longer. But moves to raise the retirement age tend not to play well with electorates

Oaten steps down as MP

2006-07-26T00:12:00.000+01:00

Mark Oaten whose political career came to can end after the tabloids revealed that he had numerous encounters with rent boys (while married at the time) is to stand down as MP at the next election, so that he can concentrate on ‘development’ work. No doubt he'll have a rent boy in this new found adventure as well!

Oaten, Likes humiliating sex with rent boys

South Yorkshire's 'other' airport

2006-07-25T19:43:00.000+01:00

While support for Sheffield City Airport maybe justified, there are number of issues which have yet to be considered. Generalised statements have been made by local Conservatives about how the airport is good for the local economy, yet no evidence is provided to account for this. There is no public endorsement for the petition either from the business community as a whole or from the local Chamber of Commerce (I’m afraid that what my have been said in private (if anything) amounts to nothing, if it can be used).

There is yet no response to the council’s report that shows that the airport is losing a substantial amount of money per annum (this by the way, provides the rationale for the council setting in motion the closure of the airport and so would be logical to have a robust and coherent response). Based on the findings of the report financial losses at the airport reached over £1.1m in 2001, reducing to £230,000 in 2003.

Losses at the airport were only reduced as a result of cost saving measures implemented by the operator. Even though a financial loss has been reduced, the report predicts that it will continue to make substantial losses for the foreseeable future, what then is the conservative party’s position in regards to the airport’s financial loss? What measure would the Party implement to make the airport financial viable (if we accept that airport is making a loss, this is not necessarily inconsistent with the desire to maintain the airport)?

Second, there is no mentioning of the airport at Doncaster, which I may add is located on what was previously an RAF base and so unlike Sheffield has the capacity for further expansion. Supporting Sheffield’s airport from potential closure affectively gives support to having two airports in the region. Yet, no explanation is provided as to why having two airports in such close proximity is needed.

Another point, which equally has not been considered (as of yet), is this; if we are to have two airports in the region (one of which has the space for further development and the other has limited capacity for expansion) what then is the future vision for Sheffield’s airport as it clearly will not be able to compete with Doncaster, let alone Manchester’s airport.

This maybe a valid campaign, however, the lack of attention to the above points, in particular the fact that no coherent response appears to exist that challenges the report commissioned by the council (which looked into the airport’s commercial viability) makes me come to the conclusion that the position taken has not perhaps been thought out in a logical manner.

Consequently, this makes the position the Tories have taken over the airport come across as being ‘knee-jerked’ and lacking any credibility, due to the number issues which have failed to be addressed. If the Tories wish to present themselves as a credible political force in the city, they must develop policies to the full and not simply provide quick, generalised statements to the media (or for that matter in their own literature), which all to often gloss over the finer points of any policy decision.

Again, this does not in anywhere mean that the position is unfounded and should be abandoned. Far from it. But, a review of the position, looking at the areas which need to be addressed would certainly give this position the robust edge it so badly needs.

Collapse of trade talks after five years of long negotiations

2006-07-25T16:31:00.000+01:00

Five years of global trade talks have ended in total failure yesterday. The talks, which would have made trade between nations fairer and would have benefited the world’s poorest nations was affectively terminated by the hard-line stance adopted by the United States. Under the deal outlined at the G8 summit at St. Petersburg, the US agreed to cut back the subsidies the Federal Government gives to its cotton industry, provided however that the European Union did more to open up its heavily protected agricultural sector, and Brazil and India allowed in more foreign industrial goods.

Victory for ‘consumer power’ as food giants bow to public pressure over soya products

2006-07-24T23:47:00.000+01:00

A soya plantation, somewhere in the rainforest

Supermarkets and leading food producers throughout Europe are expected to make a pledge not to use of soya illegal grown in the Amazon basin. The move to ban soya from this region is largely in response to the growing evidence that vast swathes of the Amazonian forest are being felled for the crop. In a deal largely brokered by Greenpeace, European food companies will not deal with any Brazilian food company, unless the company can provide evidence that they are not sourcing soya from areas farmed illegally.

For more information on soya:
Greenpeace: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?CFID=5340141&CFTOKEN=69290894&IncludeRaw=search3&mode=Text

Institute for Science in Society: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LOG6.php

The government's target of getting more elderly people to sell their homes to pay for basic medical care is nearly reached!

2006-07-23T23:32:00.000+01:00

It has been revealed in a specially commissioned report by the BBC’s ‘Panorama’, that in Blair’s Britain, the elderly are forced to sell their homes in order to meet the raising cost of long-term medical care in a nursing home care, which should be catered for by the NHS (otherwise, what’s the point to it). Some of them have been forced to sell their homes illegal! This is the legacy of the ‘New’ Labour since 1997, the callous disregard of the plight of the elderly (this adds to the long list of the maladministrative practices Labour has presided over).

Only when you have deep pockets and are willing to finance the Labour Party (for an honour of course!) does Labour care!

The Labour Government wants more elderly people to sell their homes

Is Irving still alive?

2006-07-23T20:44:00.000+01:00

Does anyone know if David Irving is still alive? Since his arrest for speaking his mind in Austria, he seems to have gone into obscurity. I guess the recent events in the Levant (yes, I know it is a rather tad archaic that) and the potential nuclear stand off between the North Korea and the USA not to mention Iran’s desire to smash the “Zionist” state and acquire nuclear weapons technology have contributed in Irving being ‘knocked’ off the front pages.

David Irving, last seen in an Austrian gaol

The crisis in the Middle East escalates, as Israel moves closer

2006-07-23T01:37:00.000+01:00

According to the BBC, Israeli armed forces have captured a village believed to be harbouring Hezbollah fighters. The last time Israel was in Labanon in such large numbers was in the South Lebanon conflict, which lasted for 18 years (from 1982 till 2000) and resulted in Israel making a tactical withdraws (after the collaspe of the Southern Labanese Army, on the 24th of May) its troops from Southern Lebanon. The next day, (25th May), Israel withdraws fully from Labanon. The withdrawal of Israel troops occured more than six weeks before its stated deadline of 7 July and is widely seen as for Hezbollah.

Respect is never equal

2006-07-22T22:52:00.000+01:00

While in town today, I came across both a petition and a demonstration hosted by ‘Respect’ et al (‘Respect’ being the ‘hobby political party’ of Comrade Galloway; hmm that gets me thinking, I wonder if he still has his large, expensive villa in Spain?). Both the demonstration and the petition were drumming up support against the “war crimes” committed by Israel, as well gaining support against Israel’s “occupation”. Didn’t see any sign of a petition or demonstration demanding the release of the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hezbollah. Come to think of it I didn’t see anything about demanding Hamas and Hezbollah ceasing their terror campaign against Israel.

Bush panders to the religious right!

2006-07-22T22:35:00.000+01:00

So, President Bush has decided to pander to the religious right of the Republican Party by taking the ‘noble’ decision of halting medical advances in stem cell research, a technology that can give hope to ‘millions’ of people suffering from certain genetic problems. Clearly in Bush’s eyes its okay to send soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and to do nothing about the spiraling gun crime that is hitting American inner cities but not okay to use the cells of a fetuses, which could go some way in alleviating the suffering of so great many people.

Cameron's Bill of Rights

2006-07-22T22:21:00.001+01:00

I’m a bit confused as to how it is possible to abolish the human rights act, yet remain firmly committed to the European Convention of Human Rights. If we are to remain within the convention as well as having a separate Bill of Rights, which take precedence the convention or Cameron's 'Bill of Right'? To paraphrase the Lord Chancellor, "it's a recipe for confusion, not clarity".

As a side issue, what kind of human rights will be enshrined in the new Bill of Rights?? I cannot imagine that this Bill of Rights will be a radical departure from what is already enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

Targeting civilians is justified!

2006-07-17T16:39:00.000+01:00

While it is regretful that innocence is often caught up in war, in regards to the plight of Israel these actions are justified. That may seem harsh but I personally believe that the only you can fight fire is with fire this consequence means either that the terrorists (and their insidious creed) prevail, or Judeo-Christianity triumphs it is as simply as that.

As for the fact that "innocent" civilians are being targeted by the Israeli army, is of course regretful but since these terror groups employ the same tactics Michael Collins et al used against the British, it can perhaps be argued that a potential threat has been naturalised
Another factor worth considering is that the actions of groups such as Hamas go beyond the remit of the principles of war (i.e suicide bombing campaigns are deliberately targeted against Israeli civilians). Consequently, how can Israel be expected to abide by principles of war when the enemy it is fighting routinely violates such principles?

Israel Strikes Back!

2006-07-14T12:50:00.000+01:00

Israeli soliders defending the boarder of Isreal from the infidel

Today the State of Israel 'stepped up' its campaign against those responible for terrorist artocities by launching an intensified strike against Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon, in response to the kidnapping by Hezbollah of Israel soliders, as well the rocket attacks on to Israel proper.

Mr Kim's Missile Test

2006-07-14T12:44:00.000+01:00

Bit of a late post this. The North's missile test is somewhat alarming, although this kind of sabre-rattling is what is expected of the North. I just hope that the 'powers' that be (the US and Japan, and indeed China) remain calm and not do anything too rash which may escalate the situation. I think personally the missile tests have a dual purpose. First, it shows to the world that North Korea has the military 'capacity' and is able to carryout a military strike in the region but more importantly it perhaps also strengthens Kim-Il Jung's position within his own party and country (rumours have been circulating to the West for a while now, that Kim Il-Jung does not have the same level of political support in the his armed forces as his father, Kim Il-Sung once had).

It certainly is a precarious situation whichever way it is read.It reminds me of a film I once watched, starring Peter Sellers, called ‘The Day the Mouse Roared’ [1959]. The film is about an impoverished backward nation (which in the film is called ‘The Duchy of Grand Fenwick’), which declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose. The rationale behind this is that the country would hopefully gain from re-construction and investment, which Germany and Japan had after the WW 2. A masterpiece of late 1950’s war satire.

A random book review: Presidentialising the Premiership

2006-06-15T00:02:00.000+01:00

'Presidentialising the Premiership' by Sue Pryce argues that the core executive (that being the government) has over the past 40 years evolved into a presidential form of government where the prime minister acts and directs policy in an almost presidential manner. [B]y the mid 1970s there were clear signs that in respect to advice, the premiership was becoming presidential (Pryce p 195, 1997).

Pryce puts forward the idea that the office of the prime minister has developed presidential characteristics due to the increase in the level of outside advice (or alternative sources') that the prime minister can utilise, this Pryce suggests, has resulted in a decline in cabinet government and the collective responsibility of the cabinet due to the prime minister taking a much more interventionist approach in the formation of government policy. The themes to Pryce's book have also been echoed in the work of Foley's 'The Rise of the British Presidency' (1993). Foley argues that the increased media attention of the prime minister has resulted in a much more presidential style of governance.

The presidentialisation of the prime minister through extensive media coverage has been critical analysed by Rose in 'The Prime Minister in a Shrinking World' (2001). Rose argues that while there has been a visible increase in the media attention of the prime minister, the British political system has not moved to a ‘presidential’ style of governance, there are a number of political institutions (notably that of Whitehall) that prevent the prime minister from developing a hyper-presidential style (Rose). The arguments Pryce puts forward allow in some ways to critically analysis how and in what ways the British state has transformed (if indeed it has). This book would make an interesting read for all those interested in the nature of politics in the UK (this is an edited version of the essay which i did)

Thatcher's Legacy

2006-06-14T23:50:00.000+01:00

In pure output terms, Britain's economy did not exactly catch fire during the 1980s. It built up a head of steam in the late 1980s, but some way short of an all-out boom. In fact, average annual GDP growth during the Thatcher years was 2.2%, compared with 2% under John Major and 2.5% under Tony Blair.
(source: news.bbc.co.uk/. ../html/1.stm)

Rejoice, Rejoice!

2006-06-14T00:28:00.000+01:00

On this day, 14th June 1982, Argentine forces unconditionally surrender to British forces, thus ending the Falklands War.

"Rejoice, British commando forces have retaken South Georgia Island….God Save the Queen!"

And now for something completly different

2006-06-14T00:24:00.000+01:00

And now for a random passage from ‘Office, Organisation and Method’, a classic read, if there ever was one: “The decoration of an office can have a noticeable effect upon the morale of the staff; drab surroundings are depressing, pleasant surroundings are conducive to good work” (1972, p.275).

Wow, that’s truly amazing. I thought for minute that the reverse was true!

What can $1 trillion buy these days?

2006-06-13T16:37:00.000+01:00

1. Manned Mars mission: $1tr (informal estimate)
2. Apollo Moon landings: $150bn
3. War and reconstruction in Iraq (US only): $160bn
4. Additional total annual foreign aid needed alleviate global poverty: $50bn
5. Mars rovers: $820m

Helping the world's poorest? Forget it!

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3378837.stm)

Is there life on Mars??

2006-06-13T16:28:00.000+01:00

Thats the $640,000 question, isn't it? Is there life on Mars? Frankly, I've no idea, much less care but hey lets just spend vast amounts of money finding out instead helping the world's poor. I'm sure those starving in Africa are grateful that resources are being spent to find the answer to this question!

Mars, the 'red planet'...looks pretty lifeless!

The EPP and the Tories, an unholy alliance?

2006-06-12T18:47:00.000+01:00

The Daily Telegraph this morning, reported that David Cameron is still fixated by the desire to ‘pull out’ Conservative MEPs from the European People’s Party (EPP) on the grounds that it is ‘federalist’, thus fulfilling one of Cameron’s election

pledges for the leadership of the Conservative party. Cameron’s intention is to join a far more ‘euro-sceptic’ bloc within the European Parliament (EP), which will also be ‘pro-Atlantic’.

David Cameron wishes to pull out of the EPP

This is in stark contrast to the position of Michael Howard, who emphasised that Conservative MEPs should remain in the EPP Grouping so as to maintain influence in the in the EP.

The EPP is one of the largest party groups in the European Union, containing political parties of the ‘centre right’, a broad coalition with wide ideological differences with in it, which includes the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), Forza Italia and Fine Gael, to name put four large parties within the EP.

Quite frankly, I find the idea of ‘pulling out’ of the EPP ridiculous to say the least. It will result (as has be warned by senior leaders of British business) in a mute voice for the conservatives in Europe consequently this would mean a lack of influence within Europe which would highly damaging to British interests if the conservatives actually succeeded in forming a government in the future. Apart from the lack of influence and the inability to challenging prevailing discourse within the EP once Conservatives MEP are ‘pulled out’ from the EPP, another important factor which needs to be considered is the funding Conservative MEP will receive. Parties within the EP must be part of a pan-European bloc in order to qualify to receive funding for administrative costs. Pulling out of the EPP would result in Conservative MEPs not receiving any financial support.

So, in short, I urge you to reconsider your position on withdrawing from the EPP, Mr Cameron!

The Nuclear Debate

2006-06-11T23:57:00.000+01:00

The UK Government is currently in the process of renewing it energy policy, with the PM strongly in favour of a new generation of atomic stations endorsed. The review of policy also mirrors that of the Conservative party, which under David Cameron is having an overhaul of key Tory policy not least on energy. Although, the special ‘taskforce’ which Cameron has set-up in regards to energy have yet to deliver their findings, there is a strong possibility that the Tories’ long standing support for the ‘nuclear option’ will be shelved, in support of ‘greener’ initiatives. (A cynical ploy by the Tories to convince the electorate that the party has ‘ditched its nassty image and ready for government?).

This posting will look at the merits of the nuclear option as well as the potential problems associated with the nuclear option, as well as examining possible alternatives to nuclear. After a length search on the Internet for the pros of nuclear, I could only find one advocate for it, James Lovelock. According to Lovelock (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm) “[the only] immediately available source [that] does not cause global warming…is nuclear energy”. He then argues that any opposition against nuclear power is “…based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources”.The safest of all energy sources, he says?? Clearly, Lovelock seems to be totally unaware of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island to name two out of the 30 plus nuclear disasters that have occurred since 1952. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents)

Right, now onto the problems with nuclear, which surprising is quite a lot! According to Greenpeace, which recently published a paper on nuclear power and climate change (http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html#2), nuclear power is that it requires massive subsidy from the government, to keep it economical afloat, an argument which is backed up by the Sustainable Development Commission (http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html) its prone to a wide range of safety issue (see the ‘wiki’ link above for a list of nuclear related disasters) and finally there is no means available to deal with radioactive waste made from nuclear power.

Nuclear waste, as Greenpeace points out is produced at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle; from the mining of uranium to the reprocessing part of nuclear power.So, what’s the alternative? Both Friend’s of the Earth (FoE) and Greenpeace have put forward the following alternatives to nuclear power: Wind power, Solar Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal, Hydro-Electric Power, Biomass, Land-fill Gas. FoE has also put forward the use of cleaner coal to be used as part of our energy requirements.For a full explanation as to why the above alternative forms of energy are desirable over nuclear, please consult:(http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/media_briefing/nuclear_power_energy_review.pdf)