North Korean Aggression Causes International Outrage, But why now?

ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus: The Comment Space's International Relations specialist

The most secretive state in the world has launched a shelling attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. US President Barack Obama has been ‘outraged’ by the actions of North Korea, and even The Kremlin has issued a clear statement of condemnation.

The South Korean military had been carrying out a routine exercise when they were fired at with a number of shells which landed on the island, killing two soldiers and wounding both military personnel and civilians. Needless to say, the South returned fire, yet casualties in the North are unknown.

Kim Jong-Il: believed to be in poor health

The crisis is feared to escalate so quickly that the US State Department quickly issued a statement in full support of their allies in South Korea, sending out a message that they would be willing to use force and the 28,000 US armed forces personnel based in South Korea would be deployed should it be deemed necessary.

United Nations Security General, Ki-moon is said to be “deeply concerned by the escalation of tension” and has even called it the worst incident on the Korean peninsula since the war between the two Koreas.

The two Korea’s are hardly known to get on well, yet tensions have not escalated into a crisis for a while now. Yet, deeper analysis would certainly suggest that the timing is certainly not unsurprising: it has been widely speculated that the Dictator Kim-Jong-Il is in poor health (often thought to be a result of heavy drinking) and he is in the process of handing over power to his son, Kim-Jong-un. The incident would have undoubtedly given him an insight into the international sphere of politics, even if North Korea has an extremely isolationist outlook.

One could even speculate that the North Korean military took such action as a way to show discontent with the passing down of power. One member of the US delegation aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis believes that the armed services are even hostile to the succession from Kim Jong-Il to his son.

Another convincing argument for such aggression is linked to worries about aid. The South Korean government has reduced aid to their Northern neighbours to very insignificant levels, and seeing as the North has been hit with natural disasters affecting the harvest, combined with UN and US economic sanctions, which has left its economic system close to collapse.

The BBC have suggested that the attack is to refocus attention from the international community back onto the dictatorial regime, as their economy is in desperate need of aid, and they want nuclear talks to resume. Needless to say, this does not appear to be a rational decision should they desire such sympathy.

It seems however, that it is ultimately South Korea who must decide how to act. The President may choose to follow a diplomatic route, attempting to gain sympathy from the United Nations as well as allies in the West.

However, I’m sceptical about the chance of them actually doing, especially since the sinking of the South Korean battleship in March was not resolved successfully in a peaceful manner.  It seems fair to say, in my opinion, that they President Lee Myung-bak will place conditions on the continuing trade between the two nations, likely to be that the North must follow nuclear disarmament- such a sanction will cause outrage by Kim Jong-Il and could see yet further tension in the area, or even a second Korean war.

If North Korea are in the midst of handing over power from the leader to his son, it is unlikely that they will be cooperative, and if anything will want to show military strength and prowess.

It is certainly a tense state of affairs, and the next weeks will be crucial in determining the course of Far Eastern relations for the years to come.

***

In Washington this week…

As the 2010 Mid Term election cycle has recently come to an end, political commentators have already begun to look forward to the Presidential elections in two years time. Fox News has speculated that Obama may face a contested Primary Election season, which means that there is every chance he becomes only the third President to fail a re-election bid. Blue Dog Democrat (the right-wing faction of the Democratic Party) Russell Feingold lost his Senate seat earlier this month, but mysteriously said “its onto the next battle, in 2012” after his defeat. Feingold has an intricate knowledge of the economy, and one would expect him to play on this in the primary season, should he stand. Whilst all speculation at the moment, Barack Obama cannot be looking forward to the prospect of a long fought and bloody primary battle, which could yet further damage his reputation.

In an incredible statement today, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has said that she wanted to eliminate earmarks (additions to legislation, which are often costly and provide little benefit to the country as a whole- usually specify what state/area is involved) from the Bill currently being debated on Capitol Hill, regarding farming subsidies. Not only would her state benefit, it has traditionally been the  Republican Party who oppose such earmarks. Perhaps a sign that she has seen US Politics as a whole leap to the right, jumping on the conservative and TEA Party bandwagon?

Democrat Congressman, Bill Owens (New York state) has admitted that he is not sure who he will vote for to be the new House of Representatives Speaker when the 112^th Congress starts on January 3^rd after the mid-term elections which saw the GOP gain 62 seats.  He seems keen on the idea of Republican candidate, John Boehner taking over from Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Should he defect from his party, he will be the first Congressman to do so since 2001 when James Traficant (Democrat) voted for Denis Hastert.

The Judicial branch of the US Federal Government: The Supreme Court was at the centre of a controversy last week after two justices clashed and exchanged strong words when debating whether capital punishment was unconstitutional and should therefore be outlawed. Antonin Scalia, 74 is currently the longest serving Justice, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan is considered to be the most right-wing Judge shot down Stephen Breyer (a more liberal leaning Justice), arguing passionately that the death sentence “definitely does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment” (which is one of the terms in the Constitution). This public disagreement further emphasises how political the Court has become, even if it is supposed to be ‘above Politics’.

(Picture with courtesy of Chattahbox.com)

From Inside the Sheffield University Occupation - Siobhan Bligh Reports

UPDATE by Siobhan Bligh

On the 24th of November, the Education Activists Network organised an event that brought 120,000 people onto the street of their cities in Britain, in opposition to the rise of tuition fees and the cuts as a whole. In Sheffield, we staged an occupation in a lecture theatre, the demands can be found here; http://sheffieldoccupation.tumblr.com/
The day had started with 2000 students and college kids protesting outside the Town Hall, the protest was driven by anger towards the loss of EMA. The education maintenance allowance gave teenagers in poorer families to gain £30 per week if they went to college or 6th form. The mood was ecstatic, the teenagers chanting and venting their anger. The entire scene highlighted the belief that there is a new form of political dialogue that is hitting the streets of Britain. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the “massive uk debt” cannot be used to mandate such a huge cut in services. Children and their parents, workers and their bosses are discussing the role of politicians, education and welfare systems on a daily basis. Although I may not like the answers some people present in response to debates around welfare and the role of the state, the level of discussion makes this a truly exciting political period.
After the protest, students amass in the Hicks Building to start the occupation, hours of debates and votes later, the demands are finalised and released to the press. The adrenaline of the day results in a great vibe, the strength of opposition and updates of student action from around the UK keeps everyone in good cheer. Everyone has a smile on their face, from the anarcho-communist in the corner to the ex-lib dem passing from lack of sleep on a lecture table. The police are present, but never officially intervene with the peaceful protest. The night passes by with snow gently drifting outside the hicks windows, as the television updates us with student solidarity from around the country. Around 40 universities staged a sit in last night, some are still active. The BBC focuses on the London riots, and the kettling of protesters by police, but the day seems to be filled by coverage of people on the streets supporting the students. Change is happening in Britain, the resilience to fight against injustice is returning to the student masses.
A ITV journalist interviewed me, and asked whether the occupation was going to disrupt education in the university. The occupation was not a threat to higher education, the con-dem cuts in higher education most certainly is, with 100% cuts in arts, humanities and and 40% in sciences effective immediately. What have doctors, politicians, historians, writers, chemists and artists ever done for us anyway?

Really, Should We Have A Monarchy?

OPINION By Ben Mackay

They are often a hapless bunch, but broadly the people of the United Kingdom support them. The British Monarchy is an institution that has existed for most of this country’s history and yet a minority argue that it is an anachronism, clashing with modernity’s desire for an end to class.  Although there are issues to be addressed such as how much money goes to the Royal Family or whether Charles has been interfering in the construction of a building, the monarchy is largely an impartial and politically neutral entity which can unite the people. 

In a time of much politician-hating it cannot be said that any one party or person holds the allegiance of most or even a lot of the country. It is difficult for those who do not care for a Prime Minister Cameron to smile happily as he opens their hospital, or visits their military base. If a politician was the head of state this would only breed disunity and a discomfort with who represents our country. The Queen and the Monarchy has a majority support in the population. In a 2007 poll as many as 78% of the population support them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649.stm). This is an incredible level of popularity and shows a rare satisfaction with a national institution. If we want to get rid of something so popular we really need to have good reasons.

A republican may point out that the head of state need not be a politician but could be elected by the people. Anyone could stand and it would be a purely symbolic role bereft of political responsibility. Thus we might get a King Stephen Fry or a Queen Helen Mirren; the possibilities are endless and wondrous. However one of the benefits of the monarchy is that the Queen is a sign of stability. If we had regular elections then we would lose this long-term connection with our symbolic representative. The monarchy brings a continuity between past and present – as governments rise and fall it will always be there either in the form of one person or in the form of a family. Also, elections for a head of state could become a popularity contest which sucks away the dignity of the office – would we really be happy with Queen Katie Price or King Wagner? Furthermore if the Queen is already popular and people want her as head of the state then what need is there to have elections.

Does having a monarchy harm us in anyway? If the monarchy was demonstrably causing problems for us as a country; maybe if it was a too obvious example of class distinctions and this was preventing a meritocratic society functioning. The class system needs to be broken up and it would be great to see higher inheritance and land taxes for unearned wealth, however nobody is seriously arguing for a total removal of the heritage that aristocratic families have built up in property and status. We can try to ameliorate this inequality, but we cannot destroy it. The Queen should pay more in taxes and should increase opening of her palaces however I don’t see why this cannot be done with the monarchy still existing. The family can become normalised but still take on public roles if they wish.

We should be happy with the monarchy, because it is an actively politically neutral institution which we can rally around, most people are happy with it and it is a stable sign of continuity with our past. It provides stable flows of finance to numerous charities such as the Prince's Trust, and in our society, even if a Presidency were to be established by republican movements, then there would be great room for the Monarchy to continue as a social establishment.

Austerity Or Charity? A Tough Decision For Ireland Which Could Impact Us All.

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

The problems that the UK faces with debt and budget deficits are quite meager compared to those faced by Ireland and currently worrying economists across the EU. The Irish government has an underlying structural deficit (fundamental imbalance between government tax and spend sheets) of 12% GDP which is discouraging inward investment and destabilising the financial sector to an almost complete standstill, as well as the nearly collapsing the housing market.  Unemployment is high, and the budget deficit (the precise amount of what a government is overspent by and therefore in debt by) currently stands at around 32% of GDP, for this year alone. A very good quality lay-out of exactly what Ireland faces financially and how that came to being can be found here on the BBC.

Yesterday Olli Rehn, the European Union monetary affairs commissioner, announced that he had held talks in Dublin over two days as was satisfied that the Irish government and parliament were doing all they could to meet the fiscal targets set out by the EU, and that they subsequently had high chances of meeting them. However, he also stated, as all aware of the situation know, that the Irish economy was still in a very fragile state, and that the EU had to make stabilising the economy their top priority, the key aspects of his address to the press can be seen here.
The EU has now opened the door to the Irish government for a form of 'bailout' handout, should they request it; lessons have evidently been learnt from the Laissez Faire approach taken toward the Greek economy when it was in a similar situation. The financial package looks appealing to those in Ireland struggling to make ends meet and business happen, but the government and parliament seem to be unfavorable towards the idea. Why? Because in order to take from the EU, you have to give a lot back, and that's something the Irish people aren't easy with.

As with any financial loan deal there are snags to the loanee, and the proposed EU bailout is no exception. As part of any EU bailout deal, the EU high commission will request in depth inclusion into the running of the Irish economy, and the usage of the bailout funds. This would be seen as quite a natural clause, the bailout would come directly from EU funds, and therefore from EU member states including the UK. If such a bailout were to go ahead, then the participating countries would want to ensure that the money was being spent in the right places, and that the neccessary steps were being made for full repayment and eliminating the possibility of a repeat bailout being needed. This would very much infringe on the Irish government and people's sovereignty over there nation state. This form of 'fear of losing control' over Irish affairs is really the driving force behind the anti-bailout feeling throughout Ireland.
The Irish Enterprise Minister Batt O'Keeffe recently told journalists "It has been a very hard-won sovereignty for this country and the government is not going to give over that sovereignty to anyone." Those on the street proud of their Irish heritage and in full memory of the campaign for Irish independence also support an Ireland that will not turn humiliated to the EU cap in hand, but instead can resolve its financial crisis by its own ways and means.

Thus, Ireland proposes a different manner than borrowing to get its economy back on track; much like the Coalition government here in the UK, the Irish government will shortly be announcing an austerity drive to combat the colossal debt problems plaguing the economy. The figures that are being announced round the ball park are quite staggering, with plans culminating to bring the structural deficit down to around 9% GDP by 2011. The fear is that although this may encourage inward investment once more into the Irish economy, the real economy (small businesses and local employment infrastructures) will suffer greatly from the loss of disposable income and government funding for grassroots business, sending demand plummeting, unemployment rising, benefit costs soaring, and thus the Irish economy back into recession.

By taking either proposed route to promised economic safety, the Irish government and subsequently citizens will be facing tough consequences for their bankers' actions; do the government save sovereignty and debt and try to save the Irish economy through an austerity drive which runs the real risk of tipping the economy back into recession, or do they accept the bailout from the EU to kick start the economy at the cost of dignity and influence? As a proud and dignified people, the Irish would seem to be moving towards the former like many EU and worldwide capitalist economies. The real question is, can their real, grassroots economy take the strain as well as its richer MEDC counterparts? Economies such as the USA and the UK have previously recovered from financial unstabilities through measures of austerity after artificial (government fiscle stimulus created) growth has restarted econimic growth. However, economics is highly contextual and relies on 'confidence' of the public and inevstors alike; if any country emabarks on a voyage of high levels of cuts and taxing, then they run the risk of stunting growth and stagnating the economy; to none so more is this relevant than to economies, like Ireland's, that havent started growing at a consistant pace once more. If this turns out to be the case for Ireland, it will be a bigger bailout, bigger humiliation, and bigger loss of sovereignty over to Brussels.

The Big Question - How Can the Tuition Fee Raise Be Justified?

OPINION by Joe Ahern

The recently published Browne review recommended changes to higher education funding in England. Some of these changes are to be taken on by the current Conservative and Liberal government. The report recommended that the cap on student fees be removed, but with a levy on those universities that charged over £6,000 in order to cover the cost of student finance on those courses, with repayments starting after graduate's pay passes the £21,000 yearly threshold. The justification for this being that this places the cost of a degree onto the student rather than the taxpayer, the current system being unaffordable due to the poor state of public finances. It is this proposed change to the system that has been met with fury by the National Union of Students, the University and College Union, and others.

The arguments put forward against this are that this will inhibit or at least discourage poorer students from taking a degree. If the Browne review is implemented, it is said, it will harm meritocracy and higher education will become either simply dominated by the well off, or a two-tier system where the rich will attend elite universities, and the poor will attend cheaper universities of a lower standard. 

It is my view that these worries are misplaced. Firstly, the government have made it clear that the cap will not be removed. It will remain in place; probably we are told at around £9,000. The whole cost of tuition will still be covered by low interest loans from the government. It also seems apparent that most of those concerned about the changes have not read the other proposals in the Browne review that are likely to be adopted.  Students will only have to start repaying their loans when they are earning £21,000 a year, and then at a rate of about £7 a week. Maintenance grants are to be both increased for poorer students and the top income bracket for those eligible for them increased.

It is unlikely that these changes will price anyone out of university. However I must admit, if they go some way towards eliminating the view of university as simply the default option, then they will be a good thing. It is reasonable to make students incur the cost of their own education not just out of fairness to those who are eventually footing the bill, the taxpayers, but because it makes economic sense. Free or heavily subsidised services increase demand for those services exponentially. The often quoted figure of 50% of students going to university is no accident; it is a result of offering students educational opportunities at considerably below cost. University and the degree itself have been for too long held up as the be all and end all of post 18 education. Alternatives such as apprenticeships, colleges and paid work have been over looked for too long, that is one cost of our past policies on higher education. The other is of course hundreds of thousands of graduates flooding the job market with skills that employers do not require, sociologists end up in starbucks, historians at call centres etc; this needs correcting.

I will summarise by saying that these changes are to be welcomed, we can look forward to a better funded, and perhaps even less crowded, higher education system. We can also take heart that they may go a small way to curing this country of its crippling public sector debts. A final word about the recent protests: Violence is to be deplored in a democracy, I would say this even if I agreed with the proposals so I expect others to say so too. However I think that the irresponsible and inflammatory response to the proposed changes by the NUS, particularly Aaron Porter, made such outbursts inevitable. I applaud that he has condemned the violence, though others in the NUS have not, but for matters of expediency a bill for the damage at Milbank tower should arrive at the door of NUS HQ post haste.

The Big Protest - Feelings From The Ground

UPDATE from Siobhan Bligh

On a sunny but cold autumn day, 52 thousand-students and activists took to the streets to fight for the right to a fair system of higher education, and I was one of them. The sight of the Houses of Parliament over the heads of thousands of students, that usually fills me with a sense of awe and humbleness, looked insignificant in the shadow of student solidarity. As we shuffled down Whitehall, the towering sandstone blocks shut themselves away from the truth, that the coalition has created rage in people (well over double the 20-thousand expected attended the march) , and that the pleas of “but New Labour left us in this mess”, only carries so much weight behind it. Upon returning home from the protest it became apparent that the news was about one story only, the anarchists that blockaded Millibank Tower. The 52-thousand voices of peaceful protest remain unheard, their efforts destroyed by the actions of balaclava-clad hooligans.

Outside the Millibank tower, (head quarters of the Conservative Party) there was a fiery air of excitement. We all knew we were doing something out of bounds after walking past pale-faced stewards, who pleaded with us to turn around and “stay out of trouble”. The cheerfulness of the day turned to hysterical delight at the chance to show the Tories, how angry we were with their cuts to education directly; many of us had spent the day chanting “no ifs, no buts, no education cuts!” Drums pounded a carnival beat and the chanting increased, bodies pushed close together got more and more hysterical as fires were lit and flares were sparked. As one of the two-thousand students outside Millibank, I can vouch that the trouble was started by a few individuals. The vibe was good, myself and friends dancing whilst releasing our anger at the Tories in a peaceful (albeit loud) way.

After the building was broken into, the mood changed, and when the fire-extinguisher was thrown at the police, the crowd below was horrified, and started shouting “stop throwing s***!”, angrily at the anarchists and ajoined students sucked into the craze up on the roof. We walked aside to take some photos, and saw the riot police. It then became quickly obvious that some people had gone too far, they had smashed their way into Millibank and created senseless havoc. The news quickly became flooded with stories about students rioting, and police failure. It is appalling that people could not contain their anger to the dancing and chanting that was peaceful and strong. Shame on those that resorted to violence to express their anger. Most students are angry that their peaceful efforts have now been sabotaged. We needed to show that we are angry and willing to fight these cuts, but violence undermines the strength of our unity and peaceful message. We must call upon Liberal Democrat MPs to break party ranks and vote against this rise in tuition fees, this can only be done with a clear mind and a non-violent protest.

Harriet Harman the Horrible - An Analysis of the Shadow Deputy Leader's Fortnight from PR Hell

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

In the space of two weeks, Harriet Harman has managed to plummet from being the reputed appointed Shadow Deputy Prime Minister down to the most unpopular and disowned  member of the upper echelons of the Labour Party Hierarchy. Harman has always been outspoken, strong, and sometimes controversial in her political career; a trait which won her the respect and positions in Blair and Brown's governments alike, but has now cost her the respect of the Labour back-benchers, and one would presume the leadership sooner rather than later.

What precisely has Harman said these past weeks to create this swell of anger and distances against her, politicians in the British sphere are expected to release non-sensual, outspoken and ideological comments in the face of logic and reason to justify policies or beliefs are they not? Well, firstly there was the comment which enraged half the population of Scotland and its leadership, that which related to her slating of the Chief Secutary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander;

"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel. But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."

More recently, there has been the disowning of the recently 'sacked' MP Phil Woolas after it emerged that he may have broken electoral rules when winning his seat this election;

"It is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected,"

These two comments are seemingly well representative of the Labour Party's, and Harman in particular, traditionally highly aggressive political nature, but have both caused outrage. Harman has appologised to the Chief Secutary personally by phone, and some members of the Labour Party have supported Harman in her disengagement from Woolas, claiming it sensible. So why do storms still rage over these issues?




The former comment was made to the Scottish Labour Party, in all its Westminster and Hollyrood form, in and amongst a damning assessment of what the Liberal Democrat Party were doing in coalition with the Conservative Party. The comment caused fury amongst the red-headed population of Scotland, who called the insult completely 'anti-Scottish' and that Harman had no right to be dismissing someone's political works or beliefs due to their hair colour and instead should formulate a proper argument. The SNP called her insult "childish", and  Shirley-Anne Somerville (MSP) that;
[Harman's] “silly remark isn’t anti-Danny or anti-Lib Dem, it’s anti-Scottish”.
The Scottish Liberal Democrat Chairman also weighed in on the issue in defense of 'Danny' , pointing out the lowness of the comment, adding;

"There are no depths to which the Labour Party will not stoop. They aren't fit to be in opposition, let alone in government."

All in all, the reaction from Scotland that her remark provoked will not the the one which Harman and the Labour party would have hoped for. No doubt this move will have annoyed the various electoral and policy brains of the Labour party, as they attempt to latch on to anti-Liberal Democrat feelings in Scotland: a traditional Lib-Dem strong area. With this now under question, the rival parties In Scotland are jumping at the opportunity to gain ground on the Labour Party. Seemingly the comment has been leapt upon by the SNP and Lib Dem parties, fearful of a Labour resurgence, as an opportunity to demonstrate just how distant from the public at large the Labour Party still remain, indeed this view can be seen in the latter part of Somerville's reaction to Harman's comment;

“Coming from the doyenne of po-faced political correctness, these remarks show she and Labour have lost the plot since losing the election."

The latter comment was in response to an election court ruling that one Mr Woolas had 'spread lies' in his eventually successful election campaign, by 103 votes, in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Harman immediately released 'the official Labour Party line', suggesting that even if Mr Woolas managed to get the decision overturned, his suspension from the Labour Party would not end, and they would not welcome him back into the Parliamentary Labour Party. Harman stated that such an overturning;

"won't change the facts that were found by the election court, which was that he said things that were untrue knowing it, and that is what we are taking action on - because it is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected."

The disowning of Mr Woolas backfired hugely on Harman and the senior members of the Labour Party who decided to take this line, with many back-benchers infuriated at the lack of support shown to the lower tiers of the party by the seemingly distant upper members. The feelings are not simply of disengagement from Harman, they are real feelings of hatred and anger, one MP in a private meeting has been said to have called Harman 'a disgrace' to her face. Others are suggesting within the party that Harman should be 'considering her position' as Deputy Leader.
Why the great backlash from the Parliamentary Labour Party? Mr Woolas was seen as a stalwart of the grassroots Labour Party by many, and although never recognised by the senior membership, the back-benchers always we favorable towards his views and respected the 'great service' he had given to the party over the years. In short, it has become a battleground for the PLP against what has been seen as a dissociated, authoritarian, and irresponsible Labour Leadership spanning back to the turn of the century.


In all honesty, it would really appear that much of the rage and fury surrounding Harman's latest two 'gaffes' are not much to do with Harman herself or her views, but have been taken as opportunities by two differing sets of politicians to create a battleground against the Labour Party Leadership, of which admittedly Harman is a big part; The Lid Dem and SNP parties have called out Harman and the Labour Party as having 'lost the plot' and being 'anti-Scottish' for the red-head comment in an effort to quash the recent poll climbing of the party, and the PLP has used the disowning of Mr Woolas in an attempt to bring down the Labour Leadership from what they feel as almost a separate, self proclaimed higher entity, and back down to representing the views and beliefs of the grassroots Party. Still, what remains is the fact that Harman did make the rather childish and nigh on discriminatory comment in Scotland, and then went straight on to controversially shun Mr Woolas. If perhaps not guilty of being a raging, arrogant fool, she certainly is not tactful.

Liberal Democrats In Power - A Reasoned Defence of Clegg's Coalition Gamble

OPINION by Ben Mackay

When David Cameron and the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, millions of people around the country had one thing to say about Britain’s third largest party: they called them traitors. For many on the left the Conservatives are the Evil Party, and any partnership with them is tantamount to, if not worse than, marrying the devil. Amidst all the ripping up of membership cards and incandescent rage, honest analysis of the Liberal Democrat position was lost.

The Lib Dems definitely had a bad election. They won only 57 seats. For Lib Dem and Labour voters the much-desired coalition between the two parties would yield 215 seats, exactly equal to the Conservatives and Democratic Unionists. There was the possibility of pulling ahead of the enemy, with a mixture of Alliance Party and Social Democratic and Labour party MPs. This would have left the hoped for coalition with a stunning majority of four. Many people might say “we’ll take it. Anything to stop the dreaded Conservatives!” In the 2005 parliament there were sixteen by-elections which resulted in the Labour government losing four seats. If a similar thing was to happen to a Labour-Liberal Democrat government then they would be tied with the Conservatives and Unionists.

What about the Green party MP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP? They would support a coalition that didn’t include the Conservatives and this would mean the government has the implicit or complicit support of 326 MPs, a majority of the House of Commons. However this argument runs into problems. Plaid Cymru and the SNP are regional parties that are in government to represent their parts of the nation. With a weak government reliant on their support, it is likely they would put pressure on introducing policies beneficial to Wales and Scotland, such as less severe spending cuts in their regions, meaning larger cuts in other parts of the country. There is the possibility that a Labour- Lib Dem government could threaten the smaller parties into supporting their government or have to deal with a Conservative government. But immediately this is bringing a great deal of risk and uncertainty to a government beginning at a time of economic trouble. Add on top of this the list of Labour MPs who wanted Labour to go into opposition and you have got a ludicrously unstable government. I doubt it would have lasted longer than a week. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7708071/Labour-MPs-fear-Browns-plan-could-destroy-the-Left.html)

So it seems clear that a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition is ruled out in any way, shape or form. The country needed a government and the Lib Dems had only a few options: allow a Conservative minority government to try to get policies through on an individual basis, give support to a minority Conservative government in return for Liberal Democrat policies or enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives.

Many commentators have argued that a minority Conservative government would have resulted in another election around now. I think that in reality this would have most likely resulted in a Conservative majority government, 'the worst of all worlds' so say the left. Why would this be so? 1) The Conservatives would have had a lot more money than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 2) The Conservatives could easily argue the need for another election was because minority governments did not work – the public would want something decisive and electing a Conservative government would be the clearest option. 3) The Lib Dem vote could have collapsed as people saw that, in the state of a hung parliament, they didn’t seem to do anything. Most Lib Dem seats are Lib Dem – Tory marginals so this would have benefited the Conservatives. It is not clear the Conservatives would win but it seems a likelihood. The Coalition prevents this from happening.

Now, preventing a Conservative majority is one argument for the Coalition, but there are other positive arguments. The Liberal Democrats, like any party, want power so they can implement policies. This Coalition has allowed them to gain a referendum for AV, a Pupil Premium directing money to the poorest students, a cut in income tax for the lowest earners, an end to detention of children for immigration purposes and a halt in the deportation of gay asylum seekers. These are valuable gains. It is true that many Lib Dem policies have been and are being left out of the Coalition. Reversals over tuition fees and how to approach the national debt are hard to stomach and there are strong arguments that these should be fought. However if we consider the case of whether the Lib Dems should have gone into Coalition we can weigh up: a Coalition government with Lib Dem policies versus a minority Conservative government likely calling an Autumn election and a good chance of them winning it outright.

The US Mid Term Elections: A Complete Analysis

ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus

So Obama has suffered an irreversible setback. Well you’d think so wouldn’t you? I don’t buy into that argument at all. Yes, the Democratic Party’s appeal has so quickly dissipated since Barack Obama’s election to the White House in 2008, but the Republican’s success certainly does not mean that they are to go on and effectively challenge for the Presidency, or even come together as a united force to block anything Obama wants to pass through Congress.

This election has certainly been characterized by the extraordinary rise to prominence of the Tea Party Movement, a right-wing grass-roots movement who have policies such as anti-abortion, restoration of traditional moral values, and perhaps most importantly anti-tax (as a way of reducing the size and scope of the Federal government). Needless to say they are vehemently opposed to Obama’s plans to increase the welfare state and health-care coverage. Supporters of the movement have openly called Obama a dictator with communist ideas.

Whilst this group have enjoyed considerable success during this mid-term cycle: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida have ensured that the movement is represented in Congress, which has certainly caused a headache for Obama as he seeks to continue to push through his left-wing agenda, he however

must be encouraged to see that some Tea Party-backed candidates have failed to achieve electoral success: Christine O’Donnell, the extreme right wing candidate who has extreme views such as anti-masturbation and sees any sort of welfare state as socialist, was defeated by a Democrat in Delaware (a traditionally liberal state) despite electoral support from the heroine of the Tea Party movement, none other than Momma Grizzly (Sarah Palin).

All 435 seats from the House of Representatives were up for re-election (except one seat filled by Puerto Rico, which has a four year term), and the results make for depressing reading for any Democrat sympathiser or supporter. The party lost more seats at any election since 1938, and their healthy majority has been replaced by a Republican-controlled House.

So why have the American population lost faith in Obama’s Party, especially since there was so much faith in them just two years ago? There is no simple answer to this. Whilst on one hand, almost a third of Americans in a CNN Poll think that they would suffer should Obama (a liberal Democrat) pass his full agenda and continue to plow money into his economic recovery plans, most do not blame him for the rapid decline in American prosperity. Many conservative American activists have exploited this and effectively shown the danger in allowing the Democrats to continue their dominance of the Federal government in Washington D.C.

The figures for the Senate paint a different picture: whilst the staggered elections (where Senators serve a six-year term) meant that only thirty-seven seats were up for election, voters gave the Democrat Party a (razor-thin) majority. Whilst not all the results have been announced when this article was written the Democrats have reached 51 seats in total); it has baffled many pollsters and analysts that this has happened.

However, to fully understand the reasons for this one must look at the unicameral powers of the upper, arguably more influential chamber on Capitol Hill. The Senate has extensive powers relating to foreign affairs and ratifying Presidential appointees to influential positions throughout the Federal government, thus I would speculate that many voters see the Democrats as a responsible force in this field, and one might even argue that they are pleased with Obama (and the Democratic Party’s) progress in taking decisive action in foreign crises and international relations in general.

As many outlets in the press have argued, the importance of these mid-term Congressional elections has been that they have been a referendum on the progress of Obama’s administration in its first couple of years. I would once again take a sceptical view of their importance: the turnout in elections has been typically lower than those in Presidential elections showing that many voters are still not willing to negatively judge Obama, and will perhaps give him longer to prove himself in improving the economic situation.

Undoubtedly, the 112^th Congress (which begins on January 3^rd 2011) will have lengthy, and bitter disputes with the President, and ultimately try to make his life exceptionally difficult. The reduced Senate majority makes it possible for an individual Senator to filibuster a Bill (taking up all the floor-time available for debate talking about trivial matters) but perhaps even Republican Senators will realise that the sole purpose of the stimulus packages are for the greater good of the nation, and taking a ‘laissez-faire’ could prove disastrous and put any sort of recovery in jeopardy.

Whilst Obama might be concerned about his party’s poor performance in the polls, he should not be too worried about his own electoral prospects just yet. Let us not forget that Bill Clinton faced exactly the same problem in the 1994 mid-terms when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich’s and his ‘Contract with America’ made life difficult for him, and some even suggested the prospect of his defeat in 1996. Of course, as history recalls this did not happen, and after Clinton changed his priorities and electoral promises, he will be remembered as a strong personality and one who was hugely successful.

Even more importantly, his opposition have yet to come up with a credible opponent. There are talks of Sarah Palin putting herself forward for the Republican nomination. This could prove to be disastrous for the party, as there is every possibility that she will alienate the GOP’s more moderate supporters. No need for Barack Obama to run scared just yet. In fact, Obama needs to stand his ground and ensure that his programme has every chance of being passed by taking decisive action and use strong rhetoric.

Crime,Votes, and Punishment - Voting for Inmates on the Table

ANALYSIS by Patrick English

The right to vote, should it be extended to all citizens, or should it only be handed to the law abiding, responsible citizens of the UK? This is the question being posed to Mark Harper, the Constitutional Reform Minister, ahead of Ken Clarke's eagerly anticipated Justice Review. Traditionally on social policy, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties stand on much more liberal, freedom invoking ground, promoting civil liberties and rights. However, to what extent is a convicted criminal a citizen worthy of rights?

The European Court of Human Rights in 2005 ruled that the 140 year old law banning prisoners from voting in general elections was unlawful under the Human Rights Act. They insisted that, law breaker or not, the right to vote should be extended to inmates. Lord Faulkner spoke out against the ruling of the ECHR, and the Labour Party ignored the ruling under Faulkner's guidance until they were removed from power in 2010. However, Harper has had to take a second look at the ruling as the new government sets out its justice and constitutional agenda.

Firstly, the very aspect of punishing a criminal by taking away their right to freedom of movement and action is in fact denying them real citizenship already. Surely then, the denying of a vote for inmates is simply extending the punishment of 'belittled citizenship'? If a man has simply a history of stealing cars, it shouldn't hinder his ability to make an informed judgement about who to vote for in a general election. So on that logic it would be wrong to deny the vote for inmates on an intellect or capability level, so the anti argument must purely be ethical or moral. So therefore, if a man has taken the life of another man, surely it cannot be just for him then to be able to vote for the party which could and probably will then go on to decide and impose the levels of severity of the punishment placed on him and legislation concerning his release and prison life? It surely is a good enhancement to deny said killer the simple right to vote, as a reminder that he has done serious wrong? In a radio interview, Mick Gradwell, a former Deputy Superintendent for Lancashire Police, said that giving inmates the right to vote using the Human Rights Act would be 'distasteful'. He stated;

“the Human Rights Act is again being used to give rights to criminals, when you rarely ever see it being used to give rights to the law abiding people.”

Faulkner himself said that, aside from moral arguments against giving prisoners the vote, there would also be immense costs in administering the removal of it, setting up the a voting format for inmates, and compensating those already denied. So surely it would be much easier and more moral to simply continue denying prisoners the right to vote? Some, including probably most of the Labour Party, would agree, but others would not.




However, prison is supposed to be as equally orientated with rehabilitation of criminals as it is the punishment of them. Those in favour of giving inmates the vote have claimed that denying criminals this right is treating them as if they were not adults, as the vote is obtained at 18 with adulthood, which in no way helps the rehabilitation process. A good argument perhaps from the pro-enfranchising side is that, in fact, some inmates already are given the vote. Those awaiting retrial for instance are allowed to vote in general elections, as are those imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters. If these offenders are handed the vote, how easy would it be to extend it to all inmates? Faulkner would argue that such an extension would occur with great difficulty, but Harper seems to be favouring implamenting the law and therefore making this extension. David Cameron has also moved into the debate, widely suggesting that the government should consider making this move, but is expected to resist and proposed changes to the law which will allow the most serious offenders, serial killers or child murderers for example, being given the vote.

It would appear then that the government will indeed be extending the enfranchisement to criminals, but perhaps not all. As far as one can tell from the arguments, there are two possible routes that the government can take; it could either upset the ECHR and continue to deny the right to vote for inmates on moral and cost grounds, or it could maintain and uphold its largerly liberal views on social policy and allow the less serious offenders who are imprisoned, to vote.



quote and info source: BBC Report Article inc. Gradwell's Interview