The EU may learn something from Glastonbury

A STORMY atmosphere hung in the air as loyalties were tested and alternate concepts battled for supremacy.

David Cameron may well have watched the coverage of the Glastonbury festival and seen a comparison with his recent chaotic defeat in the EU Parliament.

While the storm clouds broke over the muddy field in Somerset sunshine looks a far off option for Britain in the EU. 

A contentious headline act started off by garnering the critics ire before bringing them around and ending up with full throated support. Metallica and Jean Claude Juncker could have the makings of a breakout combination. 

If Mr Juncker is the Metallica of the European Union show then David Cameron must surely be the Prince type figure, throwing a tantrum because he hasn't got his own way and threatening consequences and retribution in the future. Unlike Prince though Mr Cameron knows that he needs the support of the other acts. His teeth grating congratulations to Mr Juncker has shown that for all his bluster he faces the humiliation of working with him in the future.

"I'm terrified," singer Hannah Reid told the BBC, two hours before showtime.

"You struggle to feel worthy for Glastonbury. I'm like 'oh no, I'm really a fraud. I can't sing at all and everyone at Glastonbury's going to know'."

It must not have been too far from the way Mr Cameron felt on Friday, realising that defeat, and with it a loss of credibility for the UK, was inevitable.

Ahead of the festival Metallica faced a boycott campaign, which they knew from the start would fail. Through personality and character they turned it to their favour though and won the crowds over. While Mr Juncker may not have done it with so much style his conciliatory tone and willingness to discuss compromise effectively swept the feet from under his critics. By the time of the show Mr Cameron was left with nowhere to go, relegated to the outlining stage to play to a crowd of one.

Glastonbury has an incredible ability to bring together thousands of people from different backgrounds, taste and style and create an electric atmosphere. The EU doesn't have quite the same effect. With so many competing interests and strongly held views the MEP's aren't going to be getting together in the beer tent to praise each other's music tastes. More likely the glasses will be thrown as they argue over whether they should have watched Jake Bugg or Metallica. 

Fortunately the strength of Angela Merkel has kept the crowd together for the most part, jumping from one side to the other and playing more than one stage, think Kaiser Chiefs and their three set triumph.

It hasn't all be pitch perfect for Glastonbury though, and here the real link with the EU comes in. Accused of being out of touch, controlled by the middle aged middle class and inaccessible to most people it may have more in common with the EU parliament than anyone had ever thought. 

British interests linked to Ukraine agreement

SENIOR British politicians have warned Russia of the serious implications if it continues to instigate unrest ahead of Ukraine's historic EU treaty signing today.

Earlier this week Foreign Secretary William Hague was reported as saying: "We urge Russia to take the necessary actions to stop the flow of arms across the border, to stop supporting illegally armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, because in the absence of actions by Russia the case for stronger sanctions from European Union nations will of course become stronger.”

Mr Hague's statement on Wednesday came as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko prepared to sign the controversial  "Association Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area", which will commit Ukraine to EU standards, including new customs regulations, quality controls and free market competition.

Speaking ahead of the signing Mr Poroshenko said: "This is what we have fought for over recent months and years. This work will be as difficult and responsible, but I am confident that we will do it very well."

Russian officials have condemned the signing amid concerns that it could be detrimental to trade between the two countries.

Russian Finance Minister Aleksey Ulyukaev told the media that if Ukraine signed the deal it would become a "second rate EU state".

"By signing the Association Agreement the countries must restructure their laws to comply with European standards and open the markets. However, in return, they don’t receive any influence on European legislation or policy,” Mr Ulyukaev said.

Sergey Glazyev, an economic aide to Russian President Putin warned of dire economic consequences if Mr Poroshenko pushed ahead with the treaty.

“For Ukraine, signing the agreement is economic suicide,” said Mr Glazyev.

“There is no doubt that by signing this agreement it will result in an acute devaluation of the hryvnia, an inflation surge and in turn hyperinflation, and a drop in living standards."

British interests in the region have already been damaged by the ongoing crisis, which has seen sanctions imposed on Russia in retaliation for its support of pro-seperatist groups in Ukraine.

While Britain imports a large proportion of its steel and manufacturing resources from Russia it has a large export trade selling the finished products back to its supplier.

Russia is currently the single largest importer of Ukrainian products, roughly totalling the same as the country's entire trade with the 28 nation EU bloc. Threats from Russian authorities to raise tariffs on imprints and restrict business, in an attempt to stem a potential flow of EU goods across the Ukrainian border, could damage an already unstable economic situation within the country.

The treaty means more than just currency for the Ukranian President, however, having already precipitated the overthrow of Mr Poroshenko's predecessor Victor Yanukovych through his failure to sign the deal in February.

 The European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has praised the decision to go ahead with the signing.

"The agreements, the most ambitious negotiated so far by the European Union, aim to deepen political and economic relations with the EU," said Mr Barroso. "We will need to remain active and vigilant regarding our eastern neighbourhood, in particular after the signature of the association agreements where our responsibility increases and not diminishes."

Whether or not enhanced trade with the EU will be enough to make up for the loss of its neighbour is yet to be seen. What seems certain, however, is that the increased ties to the rest of Europe will provide Mr Poroshenko with much needed backing as he continues to try and restore stability in his divided country.

Cameron making Britain look like petulant child in EU

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron's gamble to claw back a eurosceptic votes looks set to fail today as support disappears from allies.

Mr Cameron has fought an increasingly belligerent battle to block the Prime Minister of Luxembourg Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming the next head of the European Union Commission. With EU leaders meeting today that battle looks all but certain to end in failure and potentially cause long term damage to British influence within the 28 nation bloc. 

With more than 20 years experience in politics, holding influential posts in the EU among others, and as the primary candidate from the largest group within the parliament on paper Mr Juncker's qualifications for the role are indisputable. 

Mr Cameron fears, however, that his "pro-federalist" stance ignores the "pro-reform" message delivered by voters in May's elections.

As well as drawing criticism from fellow European Leaders Mr Cameron's refusal to back down and reach a compromise has drawn the ire of stalwarts in his own government.

Pro-Europe Conservative Kenneth Clarke told the BBC that while Mr Juncker was “not the most vigorous reformer”, he was not an “arch-villain”. 

"No one knows what he’s supposed to have done wrong,” Mr Clarke said.

Business Secretary Vincent Cable added his voice to the condemnation claiming that Mr Cameron's tactics "had not helped Britain punch it's weight in Europe."

The ongoing debate has caused tensions to run high among leaders, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel becoming increasingly exasperated by the British position.

"We have to have a majority vote. It's not a drama if we decide by qualified majorities only," she said during a speech in Berlin this week . "Germany supports Jean-Claude Juncker."

Mr Cameron may have hoped that the increase in anti-Europe feeling among MEP's may have helped his cause. These hopes have been dashed by UKIP MEP, an leader of the right wing Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), Nigel Farage.

“The prime minister has gone to war over the appointment of the next commission president -- a war that he’s clearly going to lose,” Mr Farage told Bloomberg news agency.

"There is an increasingly bad relationship between Britain’s leaders and the leaders of many other European countries

“UKIP winning the European elections is putting huge pressure on Mr. Cameron’s position,” Farage said. “In terms of the United Kingdom being able potentially to renegotiate anything of significance, the appointment of Juncker makes that look far less likely.”

As Mr Cameron seeks ever more desperate ways to stop the appointment, including dredging up obscure 1960's decrees to protect "national interests" a Downing Street source has warned that there will be "consequences" if Mr Juncker is confirmed.

“It is a big issue and, if it happens, we do not want to minimise it,” the source said.

“The Prime Minister has been reflecting a great deal on it, there have been a lot of discussions and in terms of his own agenda, the reforms he wants to see in the EU, this is a significant step in the wrong direction.”

For his part Mr Juncker, whose centre right European People's Party won 28 per cent in the parliamentary vote, has remained relatively detached from the debate, other than to say one of his priorities as commission president would be to find a “fair deal” for Britain on its relationship with the EU, saying “we have to do this if we want to keep the U.K. within the European Union -- which I would like to do.”

With defeat looking set to be inevitable the far reaching consequences of the Prime Minister's desperate ploy to appeal to eurosceptics are yet to be seen. What seems certain, however, is that for the time being Britain will be seen as the petulant child of the EU throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.

Coulson's verdict is in but Cameron's is yet to come

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron looks set to come under more fire today over his decision to employ disgraced former News of the World editor Andy Coulson.

Having been found guilty yesterday after a drawn out eight month trial, of phone hacking Coulson's tattered reputation has tainted the Conservative leader at a time when he needs all the political power he can muster.

Facing off against Labour Leader Ed Miliband today at Prime Minister's Questions Mr Cameron may find that he has to explain that decision with greater clarity if he wants to salvage some of his own tarnished image.

Following the guilty verdict handed down yesterday Mr Cameron rushed out an apology to try and stem the inevitable flow of criticism over his choice of communications director.

 In a statement to the media, Mr Cameron said he accepted "full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson".

"I did so on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and those turn out not be the case.

"I always said if they turned out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology and I do that today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong decision," adding:

"I would say that no one has made any complaints about the work that he did for me, either as leader of the opposition or here, in Number 10 Downing Street. But knowing what I now know and knowing those assurances weren't right, it was obviously wrong to employ him.

"I gave someone a second chance and it turned out to be a bad decision."

This hasn't stopped opposition MP's from pressing ahead their attack however. Questioning Mr Cameron's claim that he was giving Coulson a "second chance" Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said: "That does not wash. He was not somebody who'd admitted what he'd done and was turning over a new leaf."

Ahead of their confrontation later today Mr Miliband added his voice to the growing condemnation of Mr Cameron, arguing that he had "brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street", claiming that he "must have had his suspicions about Mr Coulson and yet he refused to act".

"We now know that he put his relationship with Rupert Murdoch ahead of doing the right thing when it came to Andy Coulson."

Coulson's conviction has not put an end to the storm surrounding accusations of hacking within the media as a further 12 trials are due to take place, with yet more charges still being levelled at the former editor. So long as they continue a long shadow still falls over journalism.

Reacting to yesterday's verdict Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, said:

"It has felt as if the whole of journalism has been put on trial over this period, when instead there should have been an investigation into what was happening at the top of News UK, where a dysfunctional culture was created and presided over by the Murdochs and their lieutenants. 

“This should be the time to draw a line under the bullying behaviour in newsrooms which put journalists under pressure to act unethically. Plus, there are still many journalists, who were arrested, whose lives have been put on hold because of the fall out of what occurred at the News of the World."

For now though it is Mr Cameron who may be looking to move forward and put this all behind him as he gears up for his battle over Europe.

'No more austerity' lack purpose, not coverage

SATURDAY'S "No more austerity" has reignited debate about British politics, just not the one the protestors envisaged.

Campaigners have complained that the march against the government's spending cuts did not receive the coverage they had wanted due to a "media blackout". News organisations hit back, stating that the lack of extensive coverage was down to a lack of interest in the story.

According to the group, the People's Assembly, 50,000 people turned up to the march. The problem according to some commentators, however, is that they weren't saying anything new, or providing solutions to their grievances. Instead many were there for a day in the sun and to take advantage of the after-protest festival, rather than any substantial political action. 

Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, was among those who criticised the coverage of the event. 

"By any reckoning, this was a major national protest and it seems to me that the BBC's coverage did not reflect this," said Burnham in a letter to the trust.

"Indeed, other major news channels seemed to reach a different editorial judgement, covering the story in more depth and interviewing participants."

The problem facing Mr Burnham is that without a clear message the only thing the march showed was how little people know about politics, rather than how much they cared about the campaign.

Writing on the 'People's Assembly' website comedian Russell Brand, who has an estimated net worth of $15million, said: "The People's Assembly will bring down any government that doesn't end austerity. Austerity means keeping all the money among people who have loads of it. This is the biggest problem we face today, all other problems radiate from this toxic swindle.

"We can organise a fairer, more just society than they can, these demonstrations are the start, it will be a right laugh."

Without giving a clear agenda, and by making the whole affair sound like a day out at a festival some critics have pointed out that Mr Brand removed any purpose for the British Broadcasting Corporation to cover a "non-story".

Defending the corporations editorial decision a BBC spokesperson said: "The BBC has covered the protests against government spending cuts and NHS changes that took place in Manchester, with coverage across all platforms on Sunday including the BBC News Channel, radio news, within the lead story on both the News at Six and News at Ten, and a full report on BBC News online."

On the 10th July six key unions are planning a coordinated strike involving approximately 1.5 million people. It will impact business, harm public service and transport and cause chaos across the country, all in the name of making a political point. If the 'People's Assembly' want coverage then they need to realise that this is a protest, not a festival, and actually deserves coverage. 

Hard fought freedom proven a farce

SENIOR British Politicians have condemned Egyptian authorities over today's sentencing of three Al Jazeera journalists.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that he "was completely appalled" by the seven year sentences for two of the men, with a third given ten years, for effectively reporting in the situation within Egypt.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has reportedly summoned the Egyptian Ambassador to discuss the disturbing development in the country's slide back to an authoritarian state.

The three men, who continue to protest their innocence, include Australian Peter Greste, Al Jazeera's Kenya-based correspondent, Baher Mohamed and Canadian-Egyptian national Mohamed Fahmy, Cairo bureau chief of Al Jazeera English. They were accused of aiding the former political party the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been categorised as a terrorist organisation by Egypt's current leadership, and reporting false news.

A further six Journalists, two of whom are British, were convicted in abstentia. Mr Hague has called upon the Egyptian authorities, along with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, to review the sentences. 

Attempting to cover the news of their imprisoned colleagues journalists from Al Jazeera were forced to rely on information from other broadcasters after being banned from operating in the country.

In a statement following the ruling, Al Jazeera English's managing director Al Anstey said the sentence "defies logic, sense, and any semblance of justice".

“Today three colleagues and friends were sentenced, and will continue behind bars for doing a brilliant job of being great journalists.  “Guilty” of covering stories with great skill and integrity.  ”Guilty” of defending people’s right to know what is going on in their world.   

“Peter, Mohamed, and Baher and six of our other colleagues were sentenced despite the fact that not a shred of evidence was found to support the extraordinary and false charges against them.

"There is only one sensible outcome now.  For the verdict to be overturned, and justice to be recognised by Egypt.  We must keep our voice loud to call for an end to their detention.  Alongside us is a worldwide solidarity, a global call for their release, and a demand for basic freedoms to be respected."

Human rights group Amnesty International have classified the three imprisoned journalists as "prisoners of conscience" and condemned the ruling, based on trumped up charges and no evidence, as an attempt to silence what is left of freedom of speech in Egypt.

 "This is a devastating verdict for the men and their families, and a dark day for media freedom in Egypt, when journalists are being locked up and branded criminals or ‘terrorists’ simply for doing their job,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. 

“The only reason these three men are in jail is because the Egyptian authorities don’t like what they have to say. They are prisoners of conscience and must be immediately and unconditionally released. In Egypt today anyone who dares to challenge the state’s narrative is considered a legitimate target.”

A shadow hangs heavily over the hopes which so many had following the Arab Spring and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. While Mr Hague appeals to the Egyptian government to respect press freedoms there will be many who see this as a direct assault on liberty. Today's guilty verdicts will be seen as further evidence of President Sisi's hardline attitude to anything which may threaten his authoritarian power, and lead to renewed calls for genuine freedom and democracy in the country.

Time to talk about a problem like Ed

LABOUR's recent boost in the polls may not be enough to counteract the "Ed Miliband problem" according to political analysts.

In the latest survey conducted by polling agency YouGov Labour had a six point lead with 38 per cent of the vote, compared the the Tories 32 per cent.

While this is being hailed as a sign of support for the party's policies there are fears that if Ed Miliband remains as leader the results will not translate into a General Election victory.

Mr Miliband is currently at his lowest point in ratings according to the alternative Guardian ICM poll at the weekend, which saw his satisfaction rating drop from -25 to -39, lower than Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg at -37.

Despite the results Mr Miliband still appears to have the support of party stalwarts to keep threats of a leadership contest at bay.

Rachael Reeves, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, told the Guardian: "I am incredibly proud to serve under Ed. It would be with huge pride that I would serve in a Labour government under his leadership. When Ed is prime minister, we will see change we haven't seen for a generation. That change will profoundly change the lives of people who, for too long under governments of all colours, have been really struggling and left behind."

Also weighing in to defend his party's leader Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, was reported in Huffington Post as saying: "He is the only man and he is the only man because he is our leader. Nobody is going to challenge him, he is in a unique position, actually because Tony Blair was bedevilled and in the latter days so was Gordon Brown. Ed is free of that," he said.

Mr Miliband's poor ratings may not be affecting the Labour leader now but as the election draws closer it could start to be a different matter.

According to research conducted by the Centre for Research in Elections and Social Trends: "Leaders have become the human face of election campaigns, while electorates have become dealigned. This has lead to the suggestion that in parliamentary elections many voters now vote for the party leader they like best in much the same way that in presidential elections they vote for the candidate they like best."

With 60 per cent of those polled by YouGov thinking that Mr Miliband would not be up to the job of Prime Minister and 56 per cent believing that he is out of touch with voters he could find that he becomes more of a hindrance than asset for the party in May.

Speaking in Wales on Saturday Mr Miliband told reporters: "I am not only determined, but I am confident that we can win the next election. We need to because the stakes are incredibly high for the country."

If the polls stay as they are though Mr Miliband might be leading the party to a catastrophic defeat in the next General Election. One which Mr Blunkett has warned could see Labour relegated to the political wilderness for the next 15 years.

Ukraine's tough road to peace

THE decision of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to sign a controversial European Union bill could see the crisis in the country enter a new stage.

The failure of former President Victor Yanukovych to ratify the deal was one of the primary instigators leading to his overthrow in February.

The bill is widely unpopular amongst pro-Russian supporters who want to see closer ties with their powerful neighbour, something they fear increased links with the EU would prevent.

President Poroshenko's decision comes along with his announcement of plans to bring the burgeoning civil war in Ukraine to a close.

Announcing a 14 point peace plan the new leader is stepping up attempts to bring the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk back under government control.  

Under his proposals a 'peace corridor' would be set up to allow those who had disarmed to leave the embattled regions, changes to the constitution to decentralise power, an amnesty for anyone "without blood on their hands" and, perhaps most controversially, the closure of the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Without support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, it seems unlikely that any moves would help calm the current situation.

World leaders have called on President Putin to help de-escalate tensions and support the path to peace. The pleas may fail to have much affect though as reports warn of an increased build up of Russian forces along the border and Russian tanks being used to support the pro-separatist movement.

NATO Chief Anders Ramussen has warned Russia that any attempt to intervene in the crisis could lead to tougher international sanctions against the country.

Elsewhere in the country a spokesman from the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that they have been in contact with two teams who were abducted in the Eastern region last month. Any chance of a peaceful solution to the situation which meets with international approval may well hinge on the safe return of the OSCE observers.

The United Nations currently estimates that 356 people, including 257 civilians, have been killed in fighting since the 7th May.

President Poroshenko may find that his attempts to bring stability to the country and prevent further bloodshed will be a hard fought battle. His signing of the EU bill on the 27th of June is a strong statement but may be meaningless if he cannot show that a peaceful resolution can be reached with his opponents. 

 

UKIP tightens ties with far right

NIGEL Farage's claims that the United Kingdom Independence Party are not a far right group have been called into question by recent alliances within the European Union Parliament.

Despite stating otherwise during the election campaign links between UKIP and hardline right wingers in the parliament have reignited concerns that the party is moving towards an increasingly xenophobic agenda.

Mr Farage has invited two MEP's, Kristina Winbery and Peter Lundgren, from the Swedish Democrat Party and former French National Front candidate Joelle Bergeron to join his Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD).

In a statement on the formation of the voting group Mr Farage, who will be president of the EFD, said: "I am very proud to have formed this group with other MEPs and we undertake to be the peoples' voice. We will be at the forefront working for the restoration of freedom, national democracy and prosperity across Europe.

"I am excited about working together with other delegations to be effective in exerting as much change as possible in Brussels while labouring at home to alert people to the harm that EU regulation does to the lives of ordinary people. Expect us to fight the good fight to take back control of our countries' destinies. We have struggled against much political opposition to form this group and I am sure it will operate very well."

Since it's formation in 1988 the Swedish Democrat party has been riven with accusations of racism and neo-fascist views, despite attempts in recent years to re-establish itself as a more moderate political force.

A source from the EFD was reported as calling members of the party, which was founded by a former Waffen SS member and white supremacists, as "nice people": "They are a party that has changed dramatically over time. They have acknowledged their mistakes. We have met the two MEPs, they seem two very decent working-class people. They are nice people, they are not extreme. They are Swedish patriots who want the best for their country."

The alliances have been condemned by senior Liberal Democrats, who argue that UKIP is finally showing its true colours through the move. One source told reporters: "Regardless of your views on Europe, it is hard to see how British MEPs hanging around the European parliament with the dregs of the far right is going to be of any benefit to British jobs and growth."

Mrs Bergeron was elected as an MEP with the far right French National Front party, which has faced repeated condemnation over alleged fascist views, however resigned from the party after calling for immigrants to be granted some voting rights.

An EFD press release said: “Although elected on a Front National list at the last European elections she has admitted that she had joined the party with great hopes but realised that their philosophy was very different [...] Joelle Bergeron has joined the group as an independent and declares herself an Anglophile, with the desire for democratic self-determination and a respect among different nations."

Farage's new Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group includes MEP's from Italy's anti-establishment 5-Star Movement led by the comedian Beppe Grillo, Lithuania's Order and Justice Party, the Sweden Democrats, along with single members from the Czech Republic, Latvia and, perhaps most notably for its power potential, France.

Vincenzo Scarpetta, a political analyst with pro-reform think tank Open Europe, told news outlets: "With millions of subsidies on offer, the European parliament's rules create strong incentives for parties to form groups, even when these parties are not natural bedfellows."

While Mr Farage may claim that UKIP is not a hardline right wing party his current choice of allies may make it difficult for him to prove otherwise in the long run.

UKIP tightens ties with far right

NIGEL Farage's claims that the United Kingdom Independence Party are not a far right group have been called into question by recent alliances within the European Union Parliament.

Despite stating otherwise during the election campaign links between UKIP and hardline right wingers in the parliament have reignited concerns that the party is moving towards an increasingly xenophobic agenda.

Mr Farage has invited two MEP's, Kristina Winbery and Peter Lundgren, from the Swedish Democrat Party and former French National Front candidate Joelle Bergeron to join his Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD).

In a statement on the formation of the voting group Mr Farage, who will be president of the EFD, said: "I am very proud to have formed this group with other MEPs and we undertake to be the peoples' voice. We will be at the forefront working for the restoration of freedom, national democracy and prosperity across Europe.

"I am excited about working together with other delegations to be effective in exerting as much change as possible in Brussels while labouring at home to alert people to the harm that EU regulation does to the lives of ordinary people. Expect us to fight the good fight to take back control of our countries' destinies. We have struggled against much political opposition to form this group and I am sure it will operate very well."

Since it's formation in 1988 the Swedish Democrat party has been riven with accusations of racism and neo-fascist views, despite attempts in recent years to re-establish itself as a more moderate political force.

A source from the EFD was reported as calling members of the party, which was founded by a former Waffen SS member and white supremacists, as "nice people": "They are a party that has changed dramatically over time. They have acknowledged their mistakes. We have met the two MEPs, they seem two very decent working-class people. They are nice people, they are not extreme. They are Swedish patriots who want the best for their country."

The alliances have been condemned by senior Liberal Democrats, who argue that UKIP is finally showing its true colours through the move. One source told reporters: "Regardless of your views on Europe, it is hard to see how British MEPs hanging around the European parliament with the dregs of the far right is going to be of any benefit to British jobs and growth."

Mrs Bergeron was elected as an MEP with the far right French National Front party, which has faced repeated condemnation over alleged fascist views, however resigned from the party after calling for immigrants to be granted some voting rights.

An EFD press release said: “Although elected on a Front National list at the last European elections she has admitted that she had joined the party with great hopes but realised that their philosophy was very different [...] Joelle Bergeron has joined the group as an independent and declares herself an Anglophile, with the desire for democratic self-determination and a respect among different nations."

Farage's new Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group includes MEP's from Italy's anti-establishment 5-Star Movement led by the comedian Beppe Grillo, Lithuania's Order and Justice Party, the Sweden Democrats, along with single members from the Czech Republic, Latvia and, perhaps most notably for its power potential, France.

Vincenzo Scarpetta, a political analyst with pro-reform think tank Open Europe, told news outlets: "With millions of subsidies on offer, the European parliament's rules create strong incentives for parties to form groups, even when these parties are not natural bedfellows."

While Mr Farage may claim that UKIP is not a hardline right wing party his current choice of allies may make it difficult for him to prove otherwise in the long run.

Liberty and security, a tightrope balancing act

CONTROVERSY over social media surveillance has hit new levels following confirmation of monitoring by British security services.

In a statement released by Charles Farr, the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, GCHQ is legally entitled to intercept UK residents’ Facebook and Google communications 

because they are defined as ‘external communications’.

The news comes as concerns rise over the systematic use by terrorist organisations, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), of social media to spread propaganda and recruit fighters.

"ISIS is making effective use of startling images depicting their operations, notably including mass executions of Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit last week. Their fearsome reputation, bolstered by such images, has translated into success on the battlefield, with Iraqi security forces fleeing strategic towns and cities rather than engage the militants directly," Jordan Perry, an analyst at risk advisory company Maplecroft, has been reported as saying. "It is very likely that intelligence agencies in Europe, the US and elsewhere are monitoring the online chatter of Islamist groups – including Isis – very closely indeed."

The balancing between privacy rights and the need to forestall potential terror campaigns is not a new issue. Following leaks by former United States intelligence analyst Edward Snowden concerning the level of government surveillance observers have questioned how much liberty can be sacrificed in the name of security.

In his statement Mr Farr says: "Any regime that … only permitted interception in relation to specific persons or premises, would not have allowed adequate levels of intelligence information to be obtained and would not have met the undoubted requirements of intelligence for the protection of national security."

Meanwhile privacy rights campaigners and politicians have hit back, calling for an overhaul of the 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) to block, what they claim, is an attempt by security agencies to circumvent the law.

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, was reported by the Guardian newspaper as saying: "Mr Farr's statement is the best argument I have seen for a thorough overhaul of surveillance law to bring it into the modern age. When Ripa was enacted, social media didn't exist.

"It is fatuous to pretend that elderly laws can cope with modern communications, as Mr Farr convincingly demonstrates. No doubt our intelligence agencies take their legal duties seriously, but the problem is that those legal duties fail to address the 21st century. We need new laws to counter new threats, carrying public confidence with them."

The debate over how much access to people's private information often overlooks certain considerations, however. The open nature of access to social media and the unfeasible prospect of monitoring millions of different accounts are often quoted as reasons for people not to fear scrutiny of their individual accounts.

So long as groups, such as ISIS, continue to expand their use of social networking sites to recruit impressionable young members it seems unlikely that any restriction of abilities to stop widespread terror attacks will gain the needed momentum to bring about a significant change in the law.

"I think it was obvious very early on that they (ISIS) launched their offensive with a social media campaign well planned in advance. This wasn't an afterthought. This wasn't something that they made up as they went along," said American analyst John Little, who monitors national security, conflicts and technology at Blogs of War.

An evolving argument on creationism

CALLS to have creationism banned in all science lessons have renewed following allegations of fundamentalist teaching in some British schools.

The ongoing storm about extremist Islamic views in schools in Birmingham has led to questions about religious ideology being taught as fact in other areas.

Speaking on the British Broadcasting Corporation's Newsnight program President of the

Association of Science Education, Professor Alice Roberts, gave substance to claims that some schools are still teaching a fundamentalist Christian belief as scientific fact.

Currently approximately 30 schools in the UK use the Accelerated Christian Education syllabus during science lessons. 

ACE teaches children creationism over evolution, that the world is only a matter of thousands, rather than billions, of years old and that the bible is the final authority on scientific matters.

Professor Robert's has made previous calls for creationism to be restricted to religious education, rather than being included in science lessons.

“There should be regulation that prevents all schools, not just state schools, from teaching creationism because it is indoctrination, it is planting ideas into children’s heads,” she told TES in January. “We should be teaching children to be much more open-minded.

“People who believe in creationism say that by teaching evolution you are indoctrinating them with science, but I just don’t agree with that. Science is about questioning things. It’s about teaching people to say, ‘I don’t believe it until we have very strong evidence.’”

In a statement on its website Christian Education in Europe, which sets out the ACE curriculum, defended its stance.

"Like all curricula, there are areas that may be considered sensitive and contentious depending on one’s personal social, cultural or religious beliefs, but we encourage the teacher/parent to handle these with love and sensitivity. Our curriculum does point to God as the creator; this is a view we are entitled to hold as there is enough robust debate around the question of evolution/creation within the scientific community itself to make this a valid decision, based on personal choice."

In January the UK Department of Education ratified moves to ban the teaching of creationism as science, and to remove funding from free schools which continue to do so. This has not stopped some private schools from continuing to follow the controversial curriculum. 

The debate has not been limited to the UK, however. A recent Gallup poll revealed that 42 per cent of Americans still believed that the biblical interpretation of creation held more weight than evolution. According to reports some ACE textbooks state:"The evolutionist needs some kind of a god with rules to explain what exists today, or he cannot explain it; and yet, he rejects such a god.

"It is more responsible and more reasonable to presuppose that God exists and then pick up the Bible and read 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' (Genesis 1:1).

"Then you can see purpose in Creation, understand change, accept miracles, and know that His purpose has a goal." 

 

   

Blair's blame game

AS THE conflict in Iraq escalates comments made by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have caused outrage among observers.

Reports of mass killings of Iraqi soldiers by members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added fuel to calls for the international community to take action in the violence ridden state. Aid groups have warned that America and Britain need to intervene to prevent a wide scale humanitarian crisis emerging, telling leaders that they must take some responsibility for leaving the country ill-prepared to deal with threats following the 2003 invasion.

Meanwhile Mr Blair, who was made United Nations envoy to the Middle East in 2007, told the British Broadcasting Corporation that the current situation was inevitable and the West cannot be held accountable.

Claiming that the concept Iraq would be more stable if former leader Saddam Hussein had been left in power was simply not credible".

"Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and you had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq," he said.

"Indeed, you can see what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened with Assad now. The problems don't go away."

Mr Blair's statement has been heavily criticised by politicians, aid agencies and former military and diplomatic officials.

Writing in the Telegraph on Monday London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad. He wrote an essay on his website on Sunday that struck me as unhinged in its refusal to face facts. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help.

Tony Blair now believes that all this was “always, repeat always” going to happen. As an attempt to rewrite history, this is frankly emetic"

The British Ambassador to the United Nations at the beginning of the American led 2003 invasion, Sir Christopher Meyer,  was reported as saying: ""We are reaping what we sowed in 2003. This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule."

Both Britain and America have ruled out sending ground troops to support the embattled Iraqi forces of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. 

Mr Blair's blinkered approach to the situation may further inflame anger that his role in the 2003 invasion has not been fully investigated, and that reports on the war remain partially obscured to the public's eyes.

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.

Press freedom prevails over secret trials

SECRET trials have been ruled out by the British court of appeals following action by media groups.

Prosecutors had originally pushed for the trial of Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar to be closed to the media and public, claiming it was a matter of national security. 

According to reports by the British Broadcasting Corporation Mr Incedal is charged with preparing for acts of terrorism, contrary to the Terrorism Act 2006 and a further allegation of collecting information useful to terrorism. Mr Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has been accused of possession of false identities and collecting information useful to terrorism.

In a statement following the verdict judges from the Court of Appeal said: "Open justice is both a fundamental principle of the common law and a means of ensuring public confidence in our legal system; exceptions are rare and must be justified on the facts.

"Any such exceptions must be necessary and proportionate. No more than the minimum departure from open justice will be countenanced."

The prosecution has previously stated that if reporting was allowed on the trail then it may be forced to abandon the case.

Ahead of the hearing Anthony Hudson, representing the media groups, was reported as saying: 

"We submit that the orders made mark such a significant departure from the principle of open justice that they are inconsistent with the rule of law and democratic accountability," adding. "This case is a test of the court's commitment to that constitutional principle in the admittedly difficult and sensitive cases where the state seeks to have trials involving terrorism heard in secret and relies in support of that on grounds of national security."

Despite striking down arguments that the entire trial should be held in secret strict rules have been laid down for what can and cannot be reported.

According the ruling journalists will be allowed to cover the swearing in of the jury and reading the charges, part of the judge's introductory remarks and a portion of the prosecution opening speech. If the defendants are found guilty then coverage of the verdicts and sentencing will be permitted.

The news has been welcomed by the press and human rights groups which had condemned the original decision as against the principles of British justice.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's, wife Cherie Blair, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer, has given her view on the subject during an interview with a legal publication. 

"Secret courts can occasionally be justified. It is all about proportionality and where you draw the line. And who draws the line," explained Mrs Blair.

Previous attempts to hold secret trials in the UK have brought widespread condemnation from charities and the public. During one attempt in 2012 Amnesty International released a strongly worded statement criticising the government's plans.

"These proposals are dangerous and should be dropped," said Tara Lyle, Policy Adviser at Amnesty International UK.

“They will allow the government to throw a cloak of secrecy over wrongdoing, including matters as serious as the alleged involvement by UK officials in rendition, secret detention, enforced disappearances and torture."

Turkey may force action in Iraq

AS ISLAMIST insurgents gain ground in Iraq America may find its hand forced if Turkey takes action.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has taken control of Iraq's second largest city Mosul and the home city of former dictator Saddam Hussein, Tikrit. The group, led by former Al Qaeda hardliner Abu Bakar al-Baghdadi, has also announced intentions to push on to Baghdad and beyond.

During the taking of Mosul insurgents kidnapped 49 members of the Turkish consulate, including three children. The attack follows the taking of 31 Turkish lorry drivers on Tuesday in the region.

 Turkish officials have threatened severe consequences if any of the hostages are harmed. 

"All those involved should know that if our citizens are harmed in any way, they will be the subject of harsh reprisals," Turkish media quoted Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu as saying at the United Nations in New York.

As a member of the United Nations Security Council Turkey's actions may have wider implications for the growing conflict.

In a statement UN officials said that they "strongly denounced the taking of hostages at the Turkish Consulate and insist on the immediate and safe return of all personnel.  They condemned acts of violence against diplomatic and consular representatives, which endanger or take innocent lives and seriously impede the normal work of such representatives and officials."

Meanwhile United States Ambassador to the UN Samantha Powers said that she "strongly condemned attacks in Mosul by the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant and its efforts to turn back clock on Iraq's progress."

Turkish influence may put pressure on American President Barack Obama to take a firm stance against the terrorist campaign being waged in Iraq. 

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has informally called on the United States to provide air and drone support as ground forces attempt to repel the rebels. Battle weary America has not made any signs it will seek to become engaged in another conflict in the country, from which it withdrew troops in December 2011, preferring to provide aid to Iraqi forces to maintain its own security. 

Some American officials have already expressed concerns about becoming too involved. Instead they blame Prime Minister Maliki failure to include the Sunni population in politics for the current crisis. 

"He's obviously not been a good prime minister," the Associated Press reported Senator Bob Corker, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as saying. "He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population, which has caused them to be more receptive to al-Qaida efforts."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been hesitant to become embroiled in the situation, releasing a statement in which FCO Minister Hugh Robertson said: "We fully support the Iraqi government in its fight against terrorism, and call for the safety of all civilians to be ensured. It is vital that all Iraqi authorities co-operate to tackle the challenges Iraq faces, and we call for a new Iraqi government to be formed quickly to allow political leaders to work together to tackle the causes of insecurity in Iraq."

With the situation looking only to escalate and Turkish involvement plausible Britain and America may find that they are forced to do more than condemn and instead take action.

Tory's braced for storm over Oxfam backlash

CONSERVATIVE condemnation of Oxfam's latest advertising campaign has shown how out of touch the party is according to commentators.

The charity is currently facing investigation following a complaint by Tory backbench MP Conor Burns over the advert which depicts a 'perfect storm' of zero hour contracts, high prices, benefits cuts, unemployment and childcare costs causing poverty in Britain.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph Mr Burns said: "Many people who support Oxfam will be shocked and saddened by this highly political campaigning in domestic British politics.

"Most of us operated under the illusion that Oxfam's focus was on the relief of poverty and famine overseas. I cannot see how using funds donated to charity to campaign politically can be in accord with Oxfam's charitable status.

"For that reason I have asked the Chairman of the Charity Commission to investigate Oxfam as a matter of urgency."

Oxfam Campaigns and Policy Director Ben Phillips defended the advert, saying:  "Oxfam is a resolutely non-party political organisation, we have a duty to draw attention to the hardship suffered by poor people we work with in the UK.  

"Fighting poverty should not be a party political issue, successive governments have presided over a tide of rising inequality and created a situation where food banks and other providers provided 20 million meals last year to people who could not afford to feed themselves. This is an unacceptable situation in one of the world's largest economies and politicians of all stripes have a responsibility to tackle it."

The furore comes in the same week as the release of a joint report from Oxfam, Church Action on Poverty and the Trussell Trust revealed a startling rise in demand for food charity in the UK, with more than 20million meals provided in 2013, a 54% increase on the previous year.

The claims have been further supported by research conducted by Save The Children, which warns that if the current situation is not tackled by 2020 approximately 5 million children, one third of children, in Britain will "be sentenced to a lifetime of poverty".

Since the news broke social media has been ablaze with criticism for the complaint as users warn that the government is dangerously out of touch with the needs of the poorer elements of society.

 "@suemitton1: @Ed_Miliband MPs very unhappy with Oxfam poster 'The Perfect Storm' they say the truth hurts! Well done Oxfam! "

"@jasongorman: This is why the gov't was so keen to gag charities in their lobbying bill "

"@lizzjones18: Actually condemning Oxfam for telling the truth about Austerity Britain the perfect storm ! SHAMEFUL say Gov.."

"@Helen121: Tories attack Oxfam Perfect Storm poster as 'shameful' for exposing results their policies. You couldn't make it up."

With less than a year to go until the General Election the government may have found that by complaining it has drawn unwanted focus to the growing problem of poverty and inequality in the UK. 

America's tea break is over

DESPITE many commentators predicting that the Tea Party Movement had run its course yesterday's victory has reinvigorated the right wing group. 

Tea Party supporter Dave Brat's surprise victory over Washington power house Eric Cantor has provided a much needed boost for the flagging grass roots movement. 

Brat was quick to dismiss claims that he was actually a member of the Tea Party, claiming instead to believe in Republican values. 

He told America's Fox News: "I'm not holding anyone's feet to the fire but it wasn't a contest between the tea party and the Republicans and all this," he said. "Although I have tremendous tea party support and just wonderful people in the tea party and grassroots helping me out, and they're clearly responsible for the win... I ran on the Republican principles."

The defeat of Republican Majority Leader Cantor, who had been widely tipped to succeed John Boehner, has created uncertainty in beltway politics as officials on both sides of the divide fear it could harm the smooth running of government.

The Tea Party's proven track record of holding the nation to "hostage" on issues such as raising the debt ceiling has in the past led to concern that America could have been plunged into a further economic crisis. 

Unlike more moderate Republicans, such as Cantor, the Tea Party's unwillingness to compromise on key issues could make cross party agreement on key policies unlikely.

Speaking from the Richmond Hotel following news of his defeat Mr Cantor told supporters: "I know there's a lot of long faces here tonight. It's disappointing sure but I believe in this country. I believe there's opportunity around the next corner."

What that "opportunity" may be for the future of American politics is a question which many may now be asking. 

Brat's win against such a respected and powerful character as Cantor in a Republican safe seat despite being vastly outspent is being seen as a worrying sign that core Republicans are moving further towards the right wing of the party.

"The good news is dollars don't vote, people do," announced Mr Brat. "I've been a conservative my whole life," he added. "There's nothing hard right or far right about anything. I just believe in the ideas and that ideas matter in history."

Whatever the future holds for compromise on the hill one thing seems certain the tea break is over for the Republicans.

Defining Britishness is more than a sound bite Mr Gove

EDUCATION Secretary of State Michael Gove has announced this week that "British Values" will be instilled in school children in an attempt to combat extremism.

His statement came in the wake of allegations of attempts by Governors in five Birmingham schools to push forward an 'Islamic agenda'.

As part of his program of values Mr Gove's department will focus on religious tolerance, opposition to gender segregation and respect for the "primacy of British Civil and Criminal Law".

Critics have accused Mr Gove of using the situation in Birmingham as a smokescreen for larger issues, while causing a potential rise on Islamiphobia in the country. Meanwhile British Prime Minister David Cameron gave his support to the plan; claiming that it would be something which would be supported by the "majority of people in the country."

Managing Director of anti-extremist think tank, Quilliam, Ghaffar Hussain, warned:

“Discussions around Islamist extremism need to be more honest, rather than polarised by rival alarmist and denialist factions. Denialists must recognise that extremism is real. Pretending it is not, out of fear of negative repercussions, only encourages such repercussions by making the work of extremists easier, further fueling the far-right and aiding xenophobia.

Alarmists must recognise that the vast majority of parents, pupils and teachers at these schools are not extremists. The allegations, which Ofsted has now verified to a large extent, concern attempts by a small section of entryist hard-liners to paint themselves as ‘the community’. Succumbing to the idea that this faction is indeed ‘the community’ further fuels Islamists by legitimising them as the only interlocutors.”

Mr Gove's plan to force 20,000 primary and secondary schools to "promote British Values"  appears to be a shift from previous statements he has made on the subject. In 2007 he was quoted in Prospect Magazine as saying: "There is something rather un-British about seeking to define Britishness."

It is a statement which opponents of the plan have been quick to reiterate amid concerns over what impact the measures may have on the education system as a whole.

At present in the UK there are approximately 400 private single sex schools and about one third of all maintained primary and secondary schools are faith based.

Mr Gove's greatest challenge may yet be ahead of him as he attempts to further define what values sum up a multicultural Britain in the 21st century. Combining traditional concepts with the reality of a diverse and increasingly disillusioned population will prove a hard task if he hopes to succeed. 

With fears expressed in the media about wider actions being discussed, including secret trials without press involvement, there are many who may argue that this government is not suitable to define "British Values" at all.

Scotland's future will be based on passion not politics

WITH the battle for Scotland now into the final 100 days both sides are fighting hard to win the trust of voters.

While polling has provided mixed results in predicting who may be in the lead recent data comparing them all have provided an insight into how close the race currently is. Based on this ‘poll of polls’ the “Better together” campaign has a slight lead with 50 per cent of the electorate against the Yes campaign’s 36 per cent, with 14 per cent still undecided.

Voter turnout is expected to be high as the fate of Scotland and the Union is decided on September 18^th, with some observers estimating that 80 per cent of the electorate will cast their ballot. When compared to the 50 per cent turnout for the Scottish General Election in 2011 it starts to show how much people are paying attention to this particular election.

The election won’t be decided by those who are fighting for either side though. It is down to the floating voters who have still not made up their minds. The Yes and No campaigns know this and have gone to great lengths to get their messages across.

At times the debate has turned to negative campaigning, something not guaranteed to win voters over. Alex Salmond has repeatedly condemned Westminster for ‘fear mongering’ while the government has criticised the Yes campaigns uncosted policies and belligerent attitude towards anyone who disagrees with them.

The key issues have likewise turned from hard facts to playing on people’s hopes and fears. The Yes campaign has repeatedly attempted to reassure voters that not everything will change. Despite assurances to the contrary by Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat Leaders the Alex Salmond has claimed that an independent Scotland will be able to retain the pound. Likewise dismissing statements from senior European Union politicians he has stated that Scotland’s place in the EU would be assured.

Meanwhile the Yes campaign has attempted to play on people’s fears of the future. They have claimed that an independent would not be able to afford the policies which Mr Salmond has proposed and focused on the need to stay united.

In move to play on these fears British Prime Minister David Cameron enlisted the help of American President Barack Obama last week to put forward his case. Speaking at a joint press conference in Brussels on Thursday President Obama said that Washington had “a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we [America] will ever have remains a strong, united and effective partner.”

Leader of the recently rebranded ‘Better Together Campaign’, MP Alistair Darling, has called a vote for independence “a leap into the unknown to a very uncertain destination.” The newly named ‘No Thanks Campaign’ is trying to muster its forces to combat the vitality of the Yes Campaign. They are against a strong foe though. Scottish Nationalism is gaining strength and the spirit of Bannockburn is fuelling them on.

Speaking to Sky News Mr Salmond gave an impassioned statement: “This is the first time that people in Scotland have had a democratic opportunity to vote themselves into   independence. It is the opportunity not just of a lifetime, it is an opportunity of the centuries.”

This election may turn out to be more than just policy choices, it will be about passion and belief. ON 18^th September it will be decided whether that passion and belief is for a united or independent Scotland.

A shaky year ahead in British politics

AFTER throwing the full weight of party behind its candidate losing half its majority in the Newark by-election must be a call to reality for the Conservatives.

In seeing backing for the party drop, from a previous majority of 16,152 to 7,403, the party must now be asking itself if support in a “safe seat” can be so dramatically eroded then what hope do they have in marginal’s come 2015?

The Tory win may not have radically changed the British political landscape, however, the Newark by-election has put a few creases in the electoral map.

The results come at the same time as the junior coalition partner struggles to retain any political might at all. In Newark the Liberal Democrats were humiliated with a fifth place result which saw them lose the party lose its deposit. Despite hasty attempts to avert any damage and quash dissenters rumoured divisions within the party over Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s stewardship have added to the turmoil.

The Queen’s Speech, mostly containing uncontroversial minor policy administration, including a charge on the use of plastic carrier bags, has added yet more fuel to the fire that the coalition government may be out of ideas. With less than 12 months until the British electorate heads to the polls this could spell disaster for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Labour is not faring much better, finishing in third place in the Newark by-election with a fall of 4.65 per cent to 17.68 per cent of the vote overall. For all of Nigel Farage’s bombastic rhetoric about his “people’s army” the United Kingdom Independence Party looks unlikely, based on recent election results, to bring about a change in the political system. A deep sense of apathy has descended upon the voting public, as demonstrated by low voter turnouts in the local and European Union elections.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have attempted to rejuvenate their flagging appeal by bringing in big name American political advisers. The Tories are pinning their hopes on the man who masterminded US President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, Jim Messina. Meanwhile Labour has hired another former Obama man, the political heavyweight of David Axelrod.

With little to show in the way of effective policies, divisions in the government, perceived weakness in opposition and UKIP braying from the sidelines it is possible that the British public will be suffering from political fatigue come the 7^th of May next year. What is almost certain though is that unless the government actually governs during the next 11 month and the opposition demonstrate counter-arguments, rather than sneering asides, then all the flash and bang of American political campaigns will not overcome the lack of enthusiasm in the majority of the populace.

In Newark the Conservatives have claimed that they still have the support of voters with a strong majority. What they have failed to mention is that the majority means little when compared in overall numbers; in 2010 27,590 voted for the party, four years later this has plunged to 17,431. If that rate of drop off continues across the board then they may very be throwing a General Election to which no-one turns up.