If climate change protest is to work, it must be realistic

There has never been a more acute sense among the student population that climate change is worth protesting about. Barely a week passes without students protesting at a coal-fired power station or lobbying and environmentally reckless company.

Environmental concern has fuelled the creation of groups such as Camp for Climate Action which was responsible for the protests at an E-On owned plant in Nottinghamshire at the end of October, in which University of Manchester students participated. A widespread consensus has emerged that government concern for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is limited, and that environmental politics must be upheld by other methods.

Student protest is a key factor in the climate change protest movement. At a time when national politicians take such a disinterested and pathetic stance on the environment, activists have a responsibility to ensure protest movements due not lose sight of the grave threat post by reckless pollution. But such protest must be relevant, and acknowledging the shortcoming of overly-ambitious green proposals must be at the core of action on climate change.

The political community has once again failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation. At the recent Copenhagen climate change summit, the US suspended desperately needed decisions on emissions targets. The Guardian reported: “Britain’s climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, tried to put a brave face on Obama’s move, insisting it is still possible to reach a broad political agreement on carbon emssions targets, but senior Labour Mps admitted they feared the necessary momentum for a detailed agreements would be sucked from the Copenhagen event of politicians know a deal has been postponed to the next scheduled meeting in Mexico City next year.”

Political point-scoring has had the effect of crippling meaningful environmental decision-making. In particular, the US government has been intimidated by the interests of corporate America, which mounts a formidable opposition to any meaningful action on cutting emissions or weaning America off its addiction to cheap oil and high emissions.

International climate conferences are, in reality, little more than a PR stunt for the new ‘green’ America. In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit, several poor African nations threatened to walk out of the conference unless they saw meaningful promises from Obama that their own sacrifices would be met by guarantees from the US that it would take a closer look at its own environmental shortcomings.

It is, of course, welcome that the US is attempting to tackle the issue of emissions cuts seriously. The years of climate change denial that characterised George Bush’s presidency exacerbated tensions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions among the developed states, whose responsibility it is to set an agenda that is meaningful and realistic to poorer states. Without the US on board, any climate change proposals are seriously undermined simply as a result of America’s economic clout and its colossal impact on the environment in terms of emissions.

Prior to the Copenhagen summit, the Times reported that Obama intended to “wait until the final stages of the negotiations” in order to “achieve maximum political impact” through his announcements on emissions cuts. The US “was not expecting smaller countries to cut their overall emissions but it wanted to see specific commitments from them on reducing their growth in emissions.”

But political messages do precious little if they are not backed up by hard commitments. It is imperative that pressure is applied to the most industrially advanced developing states - namely China, Brazil and India - to make urgent commitments to reducing emissions. The political and economic sensitivity of such demands - given developing states’ reliance on high levels of fossil fuel consumption - must not detract from the urgent need to address the dangerous pollution trends associated with these states.

There is an important distinction between these states and those at the very bottom of the pile - the small African and Asian countries that make a much smaller impact environmentally. Whilst quality of life is undoubtedly poor in many areas of the industrial powerhouses such as China, overall economic deprivation is much more acute in smaller states that have been frozen out of global climate dialogue because they lack political clout.

If action is taken by the better-equipped industrialised members of the developing countries, the tendency for the worst-off countries to feel ’victimised’ by richer nations may well be reduced. It is true that for decades the developed world has applied breathtaking double standards on climate change. Western countries have demanded that the developing nations curtail their rate of industrialisation to an extent that would have been economically crippling had the same rules been applied to them.

But this environmental hypocrisy is not only restricted to climate change deals between states. There is a tendency in the climate change movement to set unrealistic targets for emissions cuts. This is most visible in the sustained attack on the aviation industry, with the increasing trend for cheap air travel becoming the scourge of environmentalists.

Indeed, air travel is a major polluter, accounting for a sizeable chunk of transport-based emissions of Carbon Dioxide - 10% in the US, for example. But the difficulty in reducing aviation emissions is linked to its necessity as the only means of travel for rapid inter-continental travel. While high speed rail is at last becoming a reality in many developed states, geographical and logistical realities mean it can never replace air travel as a effective transportation method across vast distances.

Countries must look at realistic measures to tackle pollution at as simple a level as possible. Congestion charging has proved that, at a local level, emissions can be reduced as people switch from cars to buses or trains. In Manchester, proposals to take cars off Oxford Road would relieve congestion and enable increased public transport efficiency to the main student areas. International climate change proposals must deal with the continued problems of domestic pollution by the richest nations before embarking on overly-ambitious projects that could seriously destabilise the economies of the poorest states.

Future climate change proposals must take a realistic look at how emissions can be reduced domestically, and remain credible by demanding investment in alternative power sources and transportation by all states.

The importance of Green America

Today the Times carries an article claiming that Obama is on the verge of committing to substantial cuts in US greenhouse gas emissions. The news comes as the climate change UN summit in Copenhagen risks descending into a bloodbath as poorer African nations threaten to walk out unless serious guarantees are made by the developed world.

Obama's intentions are welcome. But the report also reveals that the President may

wait until the final stages of the negotiations

in order to achieve

maximum political impact

through the announcement.

The fact the the US is finally taking the issue of cuts seriously is welcome. The years of climate change denial that characterised George Bush's presidency exacerbated tensions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions among the developed states whose responsibility it is to set an agenda that is meaningful and is acceptable to poorer states. Without the US on board, any climate change proposals are seriously undermined simply as a result of America's economic clout and its colossal impact on the environment in terms of emissions.

But the US should not be waiting around in order to maximise the political clout of environmental announcements. It is Obama's responsbility to set out an agenda that is transparent at the start of negotiations. The report highlights that the US

was not expecting smaller countries to cut their overall emissions but it wanted to see specific commitments from them on reducing their growth in emissions

It is imperative that Obama applies pressure to the most industrially advanced 'developing' states - namely China, Brazil and India - to make urgent commitments to substantially reduce their own emissions. Such demands are politically and economically sensitive, as they rely heavily on fossil fuel consumption to expand their economic output.

There is an important distinction between these states and those at the very bottom of the pile - the African and Asian countries that make a much smaller impact environmentally. If action is taken by the well-equipped industrialised members of the 'developing' group, the tendency for the worst off countries to feel 'victimised' by richer nations may well be reduced.

A stronger commitment from Obama may draw the battle lines for a war of emissions that is essential if climate change is to be taken seriously. But he cannot wage such a war on his own.

President Blair

From Student Direct

Well they were warned again and again and now - finally - they seem to be listening.

The wheels of Tony Blair’s Presidential bandwagon appear to be fast coming loose as European leaders turn on the former Prime Minister. France and Germany, the major European political powerhouses whose support is widely acknowledged as being essential if Blair is to win the post, appear to be cooling to the prospect of his controversial appointment as President of the EU. Angela Merkel, whose re-election as German Chancellor has greatly increased her European clout as a result of her increased electoral majority, is withholding her vital support.

And rightly so. The EU is facing a serious crisis of credibility in the wake of the bloody battle over the Lisbon Treaty, which - if ratified - will make significant changes in the way the Union operates. Eurosceptics are furious that the treaty has been ‘railroaded’ through to its final stages of ratification, despite initial opposition from Ireland, which first voted against the Treaty in a national referendum only for the result to be reversed after pressure from Brussels to hold a second vote. Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President and ferocious critic of the Treaty, has been leading a concerted campaign to stop ratification which has won support from various nationalist politicians around the continent.

The emergence of Blair as a serious contender has been viewed with dismay by centre-left parties throughout the EU; who are desperately looking for an alternative contender. The most obvious stain on his record is the Iraq war, with the forthcoming inquiry likely to be heavily critical of his support for the US in bypassing the UN and pressing ahead with the military intervention.

But Blair’s refusal to consider British membership of the Euro or the open-border Schengen arrangement also calls into question his European credentials. The role of EU President must be to represent the majority view held by member states that single currency is an economically sound decision. The logic of European integration is that member states cooperate on projects that are of interest to the Union as a whole. Blair, as Prime Minister, embedded Britain’s status as an EU pariah, ruling out discussion on Euro membership and pursuing an unrelenting approach to foreign affairs that clashed with the more cooperative agenda of the other major Western European member states.

The socialist grouping the European parliament, with which Blair is theoretically aligned, is rightly hostile to his breathtaking arrogance regarding the position he is seeking. According to the Independent, Gordon Brown’s arrival at the two-day EU summit in Brussels the other week was marked by a “shouting match” between Brown and Martin Schultz, the leader of the Socialist group, with Brown defending Blair’s supposed record as a “passionate pro-European”. The Times reported that Blair was only interested in the position if it is “substantial…requiring clout on the world stage.” Allies of the former Prime Minister have confirmed that he would not consider the position if it is seen as having only limited possibilities in terms of global influence.

This is hardly surprising. Blair’s period in office was marked by an imperious leadership style through which - like Thatcher before him - he aimed to sideline opposition within his own party and cabinet, and instead run the country as he personally saw fit. His huge electoral majorities of 1997 and 2001, which brought with them the potential for serious reform, were thrown to waste as the government embarked on socially and economically suicidal programmes that have only embedded the inequality that was the trademark of Conservative government.

Admitting Blair’s toxic brand of individualism to the heart of European decision-making is the recipe for unmitigated disaster. The debate over the Lisbon Treaty has been cynically exploited by a range of far-right parties, represented in Britain by the BNP and UKIP. They have, with some success, equated membership of the EU as adversely affecting the democratic rights of European citizens. The more hysterical members of the anti-EU clan have even attempted to paint a picture of Brussels as the capital of a Europe-wide empire of bureaucracy that will, if the Treaty is ratified, stifle the last remnants of opposition.

Most of this, of course, is grossly exaggerated. While concern about the EU’s democratic shortcomings are well founded - members of some institutions in Brussels such as the Commission are not elected - the notion of a battle for democracy is preposterous. The EU has in fact played an important role in upholding, not suppressing, the rights of its citizens. The European Court of Human Rights has seen its caseload increase dramatically in recent years, with the backlog standing at 70,000 as of early 2007. Many of these cases relate to human rights abuses in central and eastern Europe, where judicial rigour is sometimes questionable. The Court was also responsible for upholding the right of gay men and women to serve openly in the military in Britain.

Sending Blair to Brussels would have the effect if exacerbating the influence of virulent Eurosceptics who pedal this misinformation. The Labour party, struggling for electoral survival, could not score a more sensational own goal than supporting the candidacy of this discredited and morally bankrupt man.

But this is precisely what it is doing. On the BBC’s Question Time, former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stated that Blair was “accountable to the 27 member states” of the EU and that he was the only candidate capable of making people “listen and engage.”

Accountable to who exactly? Blair will be appointed, not elected, and his record on European integration is a far cry from the integrationist and co-operative approach required to succeed. Journalist John Sergeant supported Smith‘s position, accusing “small-minded” politicians of descending into a “silly squabble” about “how we don’t like Tony Blair”, he advocated Blair’s candidacy because “it’s always important to make sure that as many Brits as possible are in the senior positions [in Europe]”. It is precisely this flawed nationalistic view of the EU - that Britain is right and the other member states are wrong - that has limited, not extended this country’s political influence in Brussels.

Blair’s interest in a high profile role in Europe will not allay the fears of many European citizens who are angry or perplexed by the workings of the organisation. A more low-profile candidate, focused on addressing the EU’s failings rather than advertising it to the world, may well reduce the sense of detachment felt by many people in its member states. Speaking on the ITV’s News at Ten, Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s Deputy Prime Minister, noted the “link for the coming generations between Iraq, Bush and Blair. Sometimes in politics you have to show that you can bring thing together and not divide them. There are better candidates than Tony Blair.”

If EU politicians have any sense, they will realise that the solution to Europe’s problems lie with a more humble and honest politician that Tony Blair can ever hope to be.

The truth about the 'special relationship'

Published in Student Direct

Delusion is rife in Westminster. With President Obama busily attempting to complete reforms on climate change and healthcare, the British government is convinced that the ‘special relationship’ between itself and Washington is as important as ever. Brown, since the American election last year, has tried to paint himself as a force for ‘change’ in British politics, a hopelessly vague agenda that seeks to please everyone, but actually has resulted in alienating his own party and plunging ratings in opinion polls that now seem irreversible.

The notion of the ‘relationship’ dates back to the Second World War, when British and American cooperation against Nazi Germany become symbolic of their populations’ disgust at Hitler’s fascist policies. Churchill first used the phrase during a speech in March 1946 on the development of the ‘Iron Curtain’ developing between West and East. During the Blair years, Anglo-American partnership in foreign policy seemed solid, with Britain staunchly defending George Bush as he waged his monstrous neo-conservative ‘War on Terror’ campaign. The partnership was also visible between Blair and Clinton during the Kosovo war, with the ‘progressive’ pair promising that Anglo-American attempts to secure an end to the conflict could be the only solution.

But the reality is that Anglo-American relations are spectacularly one-sided. The political changes being wrought by Obama are largely independent of any cooperation or input from Britain. Obama came to power with a promise to look again at the failed policies of the Bush years, particularly in terms of addressing the country’s economic problems. But pressure for an alternative policy on these issues has come from the global community as a whole.

The richest countries are becoming increasingly alert to the devastating effect that global warming is having on the planet. Whilst poorer countries naturally object to more stringent controls on Carbon Dioxide emissions, because of their economic value, there is a growing consensus that climate change is a massive threat to the world’s population. A simple change of government in Australia in 2007 brought about a swift U-turn in policy, with the current prime minister Kevin Rudd enthusiastically signing up to the Kyoto protocol shortly after taking office.

During his election campaign, Obama signalled a desire for increased co-operation with the EU, as a major global financial and political player. At a speech in Berlin, he promised American cooperation in global issues, hinting at an end to American single-track foreign policy so commonly associated with his predecessor. The Obama campaign noted, importantly, that “The Bush administration’s policy of “divide and rule,” splitting Europe into those who were “with us or against us,” has been counterproductive. The United States has an interest in a strong united, and peaceful Europe as a partner in global affairs.”

Obama’s realisation that multilateralism is the way forward in terms of conducting global affairs has laid the building blocks for the development of relationships between Washington and other states in a more meaningful manner than has occurred in the past. With the defeat of the Tories at the 1997 election, Labour embarked on a healing process with the EU, cooperating on the Social Chapter, which deals primarily with social policy and workers’ rights. But this effort was undermined by the critical mistake made by Blair in following a unilateral stance on foreign affairs that strongly resembled Washington’s.

Obama has also signalled a desire to look again at the Middle East crisis and offer a more even-handed approach to the problem, in strong contrast to the staunch support offered by Bush to Israel. But the fact remains that Obama’s desire to broker a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is overshadowed by the virtual impossibility of altering Israeli government policy. The Israeli right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has so far expressed strong resistance to American demands that negotiations on the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are a beginning in the process of resolving the conflict.

Michael Heseltine, speaking on the BBC‘s Question Time, condemned the supposed ‘special‘ Anglo-American relationship as “the most naïve delusion fostered on this side of the Atlantic; hardly ever referred to on the other side.” He accurately identified the real relationship of importance: “If America has a ‘special relationship’ it is with Israel. But outside that they have relationships of all sorts of different countries.”

The British obsession with the ‘special relationship’ has caused ruptures within its political parties over the years - the bitter division of Labour party supporters when Tony Blair elected to support Bush on the Iraq war demonstrated that disillusionment with the ‘special relationship’ runs through the political establishment as well as being vented by demonstrators opposed to the American foreign policy doctrine. Whilst the British government is keen to re-affirm its support for the White House, it must realise that in doing so the government potentially ties itself to a political agenda that does not meet British political interests in the long run.

With the general election looming here in Britain, David Cameron and the Conservatives must acknowledge the pitfalls of blindly associating with the White House, whatever Obama’s good intentions. If he wins next year, Cameron must urgently address his party’s bitter divisions over EU membership. Obama is also likely to face trouble, with the Democrats divided between the fiscally conservative ‘blue dog’ camp and the more liberal wing of the party.

These divisions could well derail Obama’s plans to act decisively on global issues such as the Middle East and climate change. His party, long the wet-blanket party of American politics, is incapable of thought or decisive action. The next British government must realise that in the American political establishment, Obama is the exception - not the rule. In aspiring to appease American wishes, the next British government must realise that it runs the risk of further electoral disillusionment. It must acknowledge that the ‘special relationship’ has been exaggerated, and that with Obama’s time in office comes the possibility of increased cooperation on global scale. Neither Labour nor the Tories can afford a cataclysmic internal battle - and adopting compromises with the EU and other major world players such as China and Japan is surely a better key to success than blind faith in Washington.

President Blair

Disturbing report in the Times that David Cameron is prepared to deal "reasonably" with Tony Blair if he is, as expected, appointed EU president.

Cameron's relaxed take on Blair's appointment in in strong contrast to criticism from across the political spectrum in Britain and the EU that the man responsible for bypassing the UN, the British electorate and a substative section of his own party in committing British troops to Iraq should be given this influential and powerful role.

In the Guardian the most damaging aspects of Blair's involvement in the Iraq debacle are highlighted.

Truly horrifying.

Steer clear of the zealots

The EU is flexing its political muscles as D-day for the Lisbon Treaty approaches, with the Irish referendum scheduled for October 2. But the Times reports that Brussels is in a panic because the Czech government is planning to delay signing the treaty for up to six months even if Ireland approves it second time round.

The controversial Czech President Vaclav Klaus is apparently manouvering to upset the referendum, which will see fundamental changes in the way the EU operates, such as the introduction of increased powers for the European Parliament. The six-month Presidency rotation among member states would change to a two-and-a-half year period, allowing countries to more effectively stamp their authority on their time in charge.

Without doubt, the treaty is controversial. It smacks of arrogance - beaurocrats in Brussels dishing out laws with greater ease to an increasingly Europhobic popoulation whose disillusionment with the Union is increasing markedly. Lisbon also makes provisions for the position of EU Council President - a role Tony Blair is said to be tipped for, and a proposition the Liberal Democrats have rightly denounced for a multitude of reasons.

But there are differences when it comes to opposition of the EU.

The original rejection by Ireland of the treaty was the culmination of protests by a variety of organisations and political camps who viewed it as fundamentally undemocratic. This argument has foundations in a fear for the democratic rights of EU citizens whose involvment in EU decision-making is limited because members of some institutions such as the Commission are not elected.

The Czech opposition, however, is very different. President Klaus is a fervent climate change denier and has been embroiled in corruption scandals - indeed, his privatisation projects in his home country have been linked to a rapid spread of corruption. His opposition to the treaty is clearly influenced far more by a selfish opposition to its moderate proposals on tackling global warming than any genuine concern for the democratic rights of his people.

The problem with criticism of the Union in the member states is that it is dominated by nationalist zealots who generally make selfish proposals that serve only to fuel their own political agenda - UKIP is a prime example. There is undoubtably a need to address the democratic shortcomings of the EU, but groups aiming to do so must be wary of being led astray by the fanatics.

The education bloodbath

Published in Student Direct, 21st September 2009

The summer has been a sizzler for universities and their government cronies. As the burden of debt looms large over this year’s crop of freshers, the wheeling and dealing that has become the trademark of New Labour’s Higher Education policy has swung into motion.

Behind the scenes, vice-chancellors are salivating over the prospect of squeezing students to the tune of £20,000 a year in tuition fees – an astonishingly incompetent proposition that ignores the financial reality confronting students in the recession.

For prospective students, the financial outlook is bleak, with the impending review of tuition fees hanging like a black cloud over their studies. The recession has been shamelessly used by university vice-chancellors and politicians as an excuse for the latest round of fee increases. Last year saw sporadic demonstrations breaking out on campuses around the country as students reacted in horror to the lunacy of the government’s proposals.

Aside from ignoring the sheer financial implication of having to pay up to £60,000 for three years at university, the proposals reveal the increasingly bullish stance taken by the political establishment on the issue of higher education funding. The NUS president Wes Streeting has slammed the arrogance of vice-chancellors who are “fantasising about charging their students even higher fees.”

But this arrogance is nothing new. In 1997 Tony Blair boldly promised “Education, Education, Education.” Labour, he said, would uphold the interests of youngsters at school and university. Gone were the days of Conservative cuts in education funding. The party would right the wrongs of the previous 18 years and restore commitment to education as the lifeline to a successful career. But in reality, the government’s corrosive education policies have turned common sense on its head.

Instead of upholding its pledge to the electorate – and more importantly, to students – Blair and Brown have successively taken an axe to the equality of opportunity that should naturally give any young person wanting to go to university the chance to do so. An obsession with targets and performance saw Labour make the incredible suggestion that 50 per cent of school leavers should attend university shortly after it took power.

In its desperate attempt to be seen as the party of ‘equality’, Labour opened new universities and cobbled together new degree programmes at breakneck speed. Throwing caution to the wind, courses were set up simply for the sake of it, with minimal consideration to the financial implications that duly came in the form of crippling tuition fees, demanded by universities in order to fund these aptly named ‘Mickey mouse degrees’ – anyone for Surf Studies or Golf Management?

The government’s record reveals a staggering degree of incompetence and disregard for the views of the student population. In 2001, David Blunkett assured students that “there will be no levying of top-up fees in the next parliament if we win the next election.” Yet in 2004 they were introduced, and by 2006 universities were already pressuring the government into increasing fees, claiming they needed more money.

This policy of misinformation has not been limited to the Labour party, with the Conservatives readily jumping on the bandwagon. In 2003, then party leader Iain Duncan Smith said: “we will scrap university tuition fees – a tax on learning. The fees have penalised hard-working families who simply want their children to get on.”

In 2004, David Cameron assured his party that it would act as a bastion of opposition to the fees, and yet in 2006 bluntly announced a U-turn, claiming, “the money’s got to come from somewhere.” The repeated sell-out of students by the political establishment suggests that in terms of importance, young people are as usual bottom of the pile.

If the government would momentarily depart from its fantasies, it would realise that fewer student attending university is not necessarily a bad idea. Reduced numbers of students would reduce the need to charge students for the privilege of obtaining a degree. Whilst the higher education system creaks under the financial strain of Labour’s ludicrous targets, the skilled trades such as plumbing are crying out for recruits. Less students attending university would divert badly needed funds into apprenticeships and training schemes.

Meanwhile the crippling cost of education has meant that whilst more youngsters now choose to attend university, poorer students are increasingly discriminated against in the process. 20 years ago, a potential medic or barrister from a working class background could count on a reasonable grant to see them through the university process. Now, thanks to Labour’s education catastrophe, that same working class applicant may well decide that the cost of their training simply isn’t worth it – a trend that is seemingly confirmed by the House of Common’s spending watchdog report earlier this year that confirmed there was little to show for the whopping £329m spent on tempting poorer applicants to university.

The coming academic year promises to be a bloodbath. The evidence so far has shown the government’s blatant disregard for the student voice on the issue of fees. With the discontent growing, alternative plans are hastily being wheeled out: UCL Professor Malcolm Grant’s suggestion that fees should be replaced with a graduate tax, payable varying to students’ future earnings, at least suggests that some in the academic world are thinking on their feet.

But piecemeal opposition to Westminster’s bullying is futile – and the government knows it. Grant claimed in The Guardian that: “We have moved a long way from the ideological divide…but…people are increasingly nervous about debt because of the recession.” Yet the reality is that ideological division is essential if the student body is to take a stand against the profit-driven agenda of the political establishment. The NUS’ ill-fated decision to fight to keep the tuition fee cap rather than take a tougher stance and oppose tuition fees outright, gave the government the green light to push on with its plans. An entire rethink of the way higher education is managed and funded is badly overdue and is essential if the railroading through of education reform without student consultation is to be stopped.

Tinkering with the system is not sufficient. The government must realise that its attempts to boost the chances of bright young people have failed miserably. As students flock to university in ever-increasing numbers, the worth of a degree is eroded and downgraded. Gordon Brown’s increasingly dire poll ratings may prompt him to think about the future of Labour’s education policy. An abandonment of fanciful targets might just persuade the average student that Labour is indeed on their side, and not totally driven by targets and profits.

If Labour is to win the student vote at the next election, then change is desperately required. The political establishment must be held to account by students and prevented from exacerbating the financial misery that threatens to engulf higher education. Top of the agenda must be young people from the poorest backgrounds who have been failed by an education system that seeks primarily to maximise profit, seemingly at any cost.

“Education, Education, Education” is dead in the water. Now it’s time for “Reform, Reform, Reform.”

Labour's suicide

While the media and political pundits endlessly debate the spending cuts outlined by Gordon Brown at the TUC yesterday, the real catastrophe - the ongoing suicide of the Labour party - is being given less attention.

To be sure, job losses are bad news - and Brown's inability to satisfactorily articulate his plans for scaling back the nation's debt are giving the Tories and the Lib Dems all the ammunition they need as the next general election looms.

But the real problem with Brown is that he is simply not taken seriously by Labour voters - his own foot soldiers - whose desertion to other parties will hit the party hard at the next general election. These foot soldiers include low-income earners and trade unions associates - once the bedrock of Labour support and still a key financial lifeline to the party. When Labour announced it was scrapping the 10p tax rate last year, the party rightly faced a barrage of criticism for abandoning its core voters and, more importanty, its core values.

At the heart of Labour's decline is this abandonment of key bastions of support. Brown must surely acknowledge his political time is nearly up, with the Conservatives breathing down his neck in all polls and members of his government relentlessly plotting against him. But he displays a staggering inability to acknowledge the resentment felt by a large percentage of Labour voters at many of the policies he champions.

When he promises to "cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary programmes and cut lower priority budgets", there is a collective wince among Labour troops, becuause they know, instinctively, that these "cuts" refer to underhand economic tactics which punish those at the bottom of the pile and do little to restrict the obscene salaries raked in by those at the top. When Brown was looking to shore up middle class support last year, it was the 10p tax band that aided lower income people that was first up for the guillotine.

But Labour is apparently unwilling to confront this reality. The uneasy "coalition" of New Labour that was elected in 1997 was skewed decidedly in favour of "Middle England". If yesterday's speech is anything to go by, it is Middle England that still holds Brown enthralled. He is afraid of a backlash - but if he does not pay attention to his rank and file, he may find Labour's meltdown and bitter division at the next election more devastating that any poll can predict.

Unhealthy intimidation

The lunacy of the American Right appears to have reached new heights with last weekend's protest in Washington against Obama's healthcare package. The Guardian reports that protesters deemed it necessary to compare the President to Hitler and portray him as a terrorist.

The report notes:

"The organisers of the march represent a ragbag coalition of disparate groups, joined at the hip by their hatred of Obama's perceived radicalism. They include right-wing thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute, small government campaigns like Americans for Tax Reform and Tea Party Patriots, and internet-based protest networks such as ResistNet."

The debate over healthcare reform has drawn out some unsavoury remarks from Republican ranks in recent months, with a concerted effort to portray Obama as a "socialist" - a threat to the American way of life.

But the real threat comes from the political establishment. The Democrats, as usual the wet blanket party of American politics, have allowed themselves to be intimidated by both the Republican party and the fringe fanatics who bang the rightwing drum. Already the plans are being watered down as a result of threats from fiscally conservative "Blue Dog Democrats" that they will withold support for reform if Obama's plans are seen as too "radical."

The Guardian notes:

"Democratic commentators were quick to dismiss the protest as the ranting of an intensely motivated but electorally marginal rightwing alliance. The Obama administration is intent on pressing ahead with selling health reform to the US public, despite all the rightwing noise."

But Obama must realise that his own ranks may prove far more dangerous than this rabble in the long run.

The nuclear reality

From Student Direct, 9th March 2009

Iran’s latest announcement regarding its nuclear ambitions has caused a fresh wave of panic to break out among Western leaders. The recent revelation that the country plans to install 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium over the next five years, with Russian help, has produced the predictable sabre-rattling that is now sadly associated with the West’s spectacular mishandling of the Iranian nuclear “crisis”.

Let’s be frank: Iran is not going to go away. While George Bush and Tony Blair made every effort to isolate and threaten the regime with sanctions, the country’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was cleverly winning the dangerous mind games played out in the Middle East under the spectre of nuclear weapons. If Western intelligence is to be believed – questionable, after Iraq – then Ahmadinejad’s government is closing in on the ultimate prize, which could be the lethal spark in a catastrophic regional war.

But the West’s portrayal of Iran is over-simplistic. The widely held US view of a despotic dictatorship relentlessly plotting Israel’s demise is a fantasy cooked up by the foreign policy hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv. It is not in Iran’s interest to develop a nuclear weapon, which would further antagonise relations with archenemy Israel and cause greater instability. Nor is it advisable for Ahmadinejad to pursue a nuclear bomb at a time when his best chance for establishing diplomatic relations with the US is over the next four or eight years under President Barack Obama. But the fact that Iran is actively pursuing a bomb is a direct consequence of the fatally flawed Western foreign policy that has developed in recent years.

The mangled wreckage of George W. Bush’s presidency saw America renew its unwavering support of Israel. The Middle East peace process stalled, save for a farcical attempt at achieving a settlement at the Annapolis summit in November 2007, which constituted no real agenda for achieving a peace that Palestinians could accept. While the war in Gaza raged at the end of last year, Bush sat back and gave a green light for Israel to continue the massacre, as did EU leaders. It is this unwavering support of Israel and the appalling lack of judgement on the part of Western leaders that has been the ammunition for Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions.

Across the Middle East, Arab fury at the West’s lack of action on the Middle East peace process has seen support surge for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ordinary Arab citizens have been increasingly drawn to a more radical agenda, often associated with the intolerant Sharia law and the consequent ultra-conservative policies that suppress human rights in Muslim states across the region.

Whether Iran develops a nuclear bomb or not, the West must accept that it is at least partially to blame for the current situation. It must stop the intimidation. It must stop the reckless military plotting that saw Israel carry out a full-scale mock attack on the country over the Mediterranean last June. It is precisely this sabre-rattling that so rightly infuriates Arab public opinion and throws the doors open to further violence.

The chances of a resolution to the Iranian problem are at present desperately slim. While Obama himself has signalled that he will negotiate with Iran at some stage, the presence of such right-wing foreign policy juggernauts as Hillary Clinton – who last year threatened to “obliterate” the country – in his administration, make his ambitions seem rather fanciful.

While there are positive signs of EU frustration over the lack of progress, and bold moves by some Arab states such as Turkey, which offered to mediate relations between the Iranian regime and the White House during Bush’s presidency, a fundamental rethink of strategy is required if Iran is to be tamed. An even handed approach to the issue by the West, with a real attempt at establishing diplomatic relations with Ahmadinejad’s regime, might just be the catalyst for a more positive relationship with the Arab states though this has, for so long, appeared desperately remote.

The Lame Blame Game
From Student Direct, April 24th 2009

CRUNCH! THAT’S the sound of HMS New Labour crashing spectacularly into one of the many icebergs currently plaguing the waters of the financial world. The jaw-dropping revelation that former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin is set to receive a whopping £650,000 pension has sparked a furious debate in political circles, with allegations of greed and corruption flying left, right and centre.

In a desperate effort to recover lost ground after its supposedly successful management of the economic crisis, Labour set all guns ablazing and boldly announced it would attempt to claw back some of Goodwin’s extortionate pay packet.

So far, so good. But the Goodwin episode is not as simple as it might at first appear. In a shameless effort to grab public attention and plant Labour firmly on the side of the poor, the Government has tried to play up a farcical conflict between itself and the banking industry that has made so much money out of this economic catastrophe. Aware of the impending electoral disaster were it not to intervene, Labour sent in Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, announcing that Goodwin’s pension was not acceptable in the “court of public opinion” and that she – saviour of the poor – was to right this wrong.

This is shameless hypocrisy, plain and simple. Just two months ago Harman herself proposed a parliamentary order that aimed to exempt MP’s expenses from being subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The result was thousands letters and emails of objection from the public and pressure groups alike. The fact that the Labour ministers’ breathtaking double standards – attempting to hide their own criminally exorbitant pay packets while hitting out at others’ – are now common knowledge has been a key catalyst in the party’s desperate attempts to “help the poor” and backtrack on a decade of economic policy. The reason Goodwin’s pension is so exorbitant is affected less by his personal greed – no doubt a factor – but far more by New Labour’s philistine economic agenda that has seen the gap between rich and poor skyrocket since their first election win in 1997, which was preceded by Peter Mandelson’s infamous announcement that his party was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

If Tony Blair was Thatcher’s child, then she must be at the front of the queue to adopt Gordon Brown. Blair did open the dam to the contaminated floodwaters of privatisation and neoliberal economics flowing into the education and healthcare system, forcing already hard-up voters to settle for second-class services unless they had plenty of money stashed in the bank. But Brown went one step further and cut out the 10p tax band upon which so many poorer families relied in order to scrape by on already criminally low wages. This, he assured sceptics, would help keep “middle England” aboard the dangerously floundering New Labour ship. The truth is that in Labour’s attempt to shape itself as a “Third Way” party, representing everyone’s interests, the poor are the ones made to walk the plank.

If the economic crisis has proved a point, it is that the main political parties in Britain are being held hostage to a perverse economic agenda in which the rich, such as Fred Goodwin, benefit as the worst off sections of society are pauperised still further.

Labour’s tentative announcement that it will raise the top income tax band to 45% for those earning over £150,000 if it wins the next election is a promising sign – but it is too little too late. Having prioritised the interests of the well off with massive tax breaks and profligate spending on military projects such as renewing the Trident nuclear submarine system, Brown is now realising that the very voters Labour is supposed to represent are turning to other parties in droves. Shaming Frank Goodwin is the decent thing to do, but Labour will sooner or later have to accept that in doing so it is only shaming its own decade of economic irresponsibility.

Welcome

A warm welcome to my brand new blog, mainly covering political and social issues. I'll be updating regularly with daily commentary on stories from Britain and around the world. Above are a couple of articles from Student Direct, the paper I write for, to give you a taste of what's in store.