The enemy of my enemy

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron drew ire this week after daring to suggest that his responsibility to the UK outweighed his views of Saudia Arabian human rights issues.

The simple fact is that ethics do not come into the relations between states in the international system. The concept of human rights abuses, which in and of itself is a matter for contention in the face of different legal systems and philosophies, is only a matter of debate for state leaders if they lead to fundamental instability within the country which can destabilise the international system. 

This doesn't make it right, it doesn't act as justification, it does mean that larger interests and the security of international States can be maintained. 

This is not to say that human rights abuses should be ignored. They must, however, be placed in context of the norms governing the situations. Transnational advocacy networks, groups such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, humanitarian agencies and even international organisations, such as the United Nations, have a clear responsibility to address these issues, while also placing them in the context of the cultural and legal positions within the states themselves.

It is clear though that Mr Cameron's primary responsibility is to the United Kingdom, preserving its security, maintaining its position in the international system and, where appropriate, increasing its global power position. It would be wrong to assume that he should risk the safety of his own state to condemn the legal system in another. 

This however is what his critics currently want. In his defence Mr Cameron was reported as saying: "I can tell you one time since I've been prime minister, a piece of information that we have been given by that country has saved potentially hundreds of lives here in Britain.

"Now, you can be prime minister and say exactly what you think about every regime in the world and make great headlines, and give great speeches.

"But I think my first job is to try and keep this country safe from terrorism and if that means you have to build strong relationships sometimes with regimes you don't always agree with, that I think is part of the job and that is the way I do it. And that is the best way I can explain it."

If we were to condemn all our allies for failing to uphold the ideal of humanitarian values we would expose ourselves to not only the same scrutiny and condemnation but also to an increase in threats against us. 

Our ability to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom would be irreparably damaged if we were to base our foreign policy decisions purely on ethics and morals rather than logic and reason. Our key ally America would be the first we would have to distance ourselves from and with it Israel, Jordan et al. 

International relations is not a kind game. It is not about only playing with the nice kids. It is about taking the action needed to preserve the power and security of the state. It is for this reason that organisations such as Amnesty International are so important. When states cannot act others must be able to.

Referendum sees Scotland stay

WHILE Scottish unionists plan for the future after defeat over independence Prime Minister David Cameron has promised an English parliament along with devolution.

The result was called after the No lead became unassailable, despite not all of the 32 Scottish councils having called their results. 

With approximately 55 per cent of people voting in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom, against 45 per cent in favour of independence, the vote was not as close as many had predicted based upon recent polls.  

Scotland's First Minister, and leader of the pro-independence Yes campaign, Alex Salmond, has acknowledged the defeat: "It is important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by a majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country.

"I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."

Meanwhile his former opponent, leader of the No Campaign Alistair Darling, hailed the victory and called upon Scots to work together to heal the divisions in the country.

"It is a momentous result for Scotland and also for the United Kingdom as a whole," he said.

Adding that the result "reaffirmed all that we have in common and the bonds that tie us together", adding: "Let them never be broken."

With the result still a lot closer than many in Westminster would have preferred Mr Cameron will be under pressure to keep to his promises of further devolution of powers to Scotland. 

The proposals made in the dying days of the No Campaign have caused widespread concern among English, Welsh and Irish voters who feel that too much has been sacrificed to keep the union together. Amongst the fears that many have is that Scotland will have too much control over England while being able to deal with their own affairs. 

Mr Salmond has made it clear that despite his side losing the fight has not ended and he wants to ensure that Mr Cameron doesn't back away from his devolution promises.

He told supporters: "The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland.

"Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course - as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27 next year.

"Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed."

"Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward and we shall go forward as one nation."

Mr Darling appeared to back Mr Salmond's calls for devolution to be pushed forward. During his victory speech the former chancellor said: "More than 85% of the Scottish population has voted. People who were disengaged from politics have turned out in large numbers.

"While they have voted on the constitution, that was not the only or perhaps the major issue that drove them to the polls.

"Every political party must listen to their cry for change, which could be echoed in every part of our United Kingdom but had this opportunity to express itself in Scotland."

Speaking shortly after 7am this morning Mr Cameron spoke of how he was passionate about the country staying together and that what was important now was doing what was right for all countries in the union.

During the course of his speech Mr Cameron made it clear that he would look at creating an English parliament to decide English laws in an shake up of the entire political structure of the union.

Making it clear that he felt the debate for independence had been settled for now Mr Cameron said: "The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They have kept our country of four nations together and like millions of other people I am delighted." Adding that now what was needed was a new and fair settlement" for not just Scotland, but also England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

While the battle to keep Scotland in the Union may have ended for now the fight for further Scottish powers begins. With Scotland likely to get substantial new autonomy it is the 'English question' which could turn out to be the bloodier battle for Mr Cameron. 

Passion not politics will decide Scotland's future

IN A SIGN that the pressure is building the leaders of the three main parties will travel to Scotland today to promote the better together campaign.

Forgoing Prime Minister Questions David Cameron, Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg are hoping that by providing a united front they will sway undecided voters to their side.

With eight days to go until the referendum the trio may find that it is too little too late, particularly as in an attempt not to alienate current supporters they will not be appearing on the same platform. Instead the 'united front' will be more of a three pronged attack as they travel to different parts of the country to give impassioned pleas to Scots to remain in the United Kingdom.

In a joint statement yesterday Messrs Cameron, Milliband and Clegg stressed that keeping Scotland in the union was their priority.

"That's why all of us are agreed the right place for us to be tomorrow is in Scotland, not at prime minister's questions in Westminster.

"We want to be listening and talking to voters about the huge choices they face. Our message to the Scottish people will be simple: 'We want you to stay.'"

With recent polls showing the two sides level and the Yes campaign still gaining momentum this last ditch attempt to play on the passions and emotions of voters may not be enough to stave off a split next week though.

Leader of the Yes Campaign Alex Salmond has called the move a sign that the No campaign is panicking as the threat of Scottish independence looms large on the horizon.

 "'I relish David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg coming to Scotland - collectively, they are the least trusted Westminster leaders ever, and this day trip will galvanise the 'Yes' vote.

"No-one believes their panicked pledges - it is a phoney timetable for measly powers. A 'Yes' vote delivers a real timetable for the full powers that Scotland needs."

He added: "The No side have lost their poll lead, and people are switching directly over to Yes - if David Cameron thinks he is the answer to the No campaign's disintegration disarray, let him put his case to the test in a head-to-head debate."

The recent news from polling results will not be adding to the confidence of the No campaign. Having already thrown Gordon Brown into the fight in a desperate bid to appeal to core labour voters they are now showing that they have started to realise that this campaign will be won on emotions rather than logic.

Where the campaign has failed is that it has tried to combat Mr Salmond's passionate patriotic propaganda with rational arguments, most notably about currency. This is not going to be a vote based on the head though. When people vote on independence it will be with their hearts. For months cries of "Freedom" and "Bannockburn" have resonated far more than "the pound" and "taxes". As both sides enter the final leg one day of passion may not be close to enough to save this troubled marriage.

ISIS aren't just another terror threat

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a stark warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has planned six terrorist attacks in Europe.

His warnings come as sources close to the security services revealed that they have identified the insurgent known as Jihadi John, believed to be responsible for the murders of American journalists James Foley and Stephen Sutloff.

In a statement to MP's Mr Cameron said: "The point I would make even today to the British people is: be in no doubt about the threat that so-called Islamic State poses to us. We have already seen something like six planned attacks in the countries of the European Union from [Isis], including of course that appalling attack in the Brussels Jewish museum, where innocent people were killed. That flows directly from this organisation."

While ISIS, which is also known as Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), may be planning attacks against the West it would be far too simple to think of them as just another terrorist organisation.

ISIS may have started out as an offshoot from Al-Queda, however, it has now morphed into something all the more dangerous and insidious.

"This is not a terrorism problem anymore,” says Jessica Lewis, an expert on ISIS at the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank. “This is an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain.”

"We are using the word encircle,” Lewis tells TIME. “They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don’t know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq.”

ISIS's metamorphosis creates an issue in the way in which the British government, and nations as a whole, need to combat them. Traditional methods of dealing with a terrorist threat has involved cutting off supply and removing leadership. In the case of ISIS these are unlikely to work though. Due to the territory it has taken and the armaments it continues to capture it has essentially become self sustaining in terms of supply. While it has a powerful leader in the form of  Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it is increasingly clear that his removal would have little impact on the long term effectiveness of the group with a replacement likely waiting in the wings. 

The British government has already confirmed that it will supply arms to Kurdish fighters and the Iraqi government waging a war against the spread of ISIS.

The Prime Minister has said: “I have always said we would respond positively to requests from them for the direct supply and we are now prepared to do that and so will be providing them with arms, as the Germans and others will.

“Also with allies, we think it’s right to step up our training and mentoring efforts and so we’ve said we would be willing if they would like to train a battalion of Peshmerga fighters because they are doing such a vital job.”

As the conflict continues though more may need to be done. While another military intervention in the Middle East is less than palatable it may become necessary as the group becomes viewed as an occupying army rather than a terrorist group. 

A threat to journalists is a threat to freedom

BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron is set to chair a meeting of the government's emergency response committee COBRA in the aftermath of the brutal murder of another journalist.

A video purporting to show the beheading of 31-year-old American journalist Stephen Sotloff has created anger across the world. It follows the video released last month of the killing of fellow journalist James Foley.

Mr Cameron released a statement following the release of the video:  “I’ve just seen the news. It’s an absolutely disgusting and despicable act and I will be making a statement later.”

At the end of the video the masked terrorist warned that a British journalist would be next unless the United Kingdom stays out of the battle in Iraq and Syria against the group, which calls itself the Islamic State.

In the video entitled "A second message to America" the man, believed to be the murderer of Mr Foley, threatens to continue killing unless the United States ceases airstrikes against IS terrorists in Iraq.

"I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State ... despite our serious warnings," the fighter says. "So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people."

The video highlights the risks to foreign correspondents posed by terrorist groups. By utilising social media outlets the group has been able to maximise the impact of the killings has had, and subsequently made them seem more attractive to terrorist organisations.

Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists general secretary, released a statement in a August in which she warned of the dangers faced by journalists around the world.

"This summer's events in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa have produced a dangerous and lethal climate for foreign correspondents and journalists in the field reporting on bloody conflicts and for the local journalists recording events in such dangerous territory. It is deeply alarming to see that journalists are becoming direct targets and their lives are being put at risk...

"It is a simple fact that freedom of the press and free expression are not possible where journalists face extreme violence for doing their job."

Playing on public opinion and feelings of horror allows the criminal gangs spreading bloodshed to feel that they are able to prevent governments from intervening to prevent further substantial losses of life.

It is the bravery of journalists such as Mr Sotloff and Foley who refuse to be cowed which undermines their insidious aims. Through the threat of death many more are still operating, reporting the news and bringing the publics attention to the very acts which the killers want to be allowed to continue. 

Strong arming Europe risks British interests

BRITISH Prime Minister has signalled that he is prepared to take on Europe once more as parliament debates limiting the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.

Following his humiliating defeat over the election of Jean Claude Juncker as the head of the European Commission Mr Cameron has seemed determined to demonstrate his strength in defending British rights in the bloc.

The bill, which Mr Cameron claims would 'reassert British sovereignty' could become his most contentious battle to date. Having loaded his cabinet with eurosceptics this week it seems as though it is a battle which he has no intention of backing down from.

If successful it could lead to Britain's expulsion from the Council of Europe, something which opponents of the bill could precipitate a forced withdrawal from the European Union.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieves, who was replaced as part of Mr Cameron's reshuffle earlier this week, has voiced his concerns of the move, reported by the BBC as saying it could be a "legal car crash with a built-in time delay."

The proposal comes shortly after Mr Cameron helped push through emergency legislation to circumvent a European Court of Justice ruling on the holding of personal data. The speed with which the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill has been rushed through parliament has worried some peers in the House of Lords.

Labour peer Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, a QC and civil liberties campaigner, was reported as saying: "It is a serious abuse of Parliament, and the use of emergency procedures to enact laws that are controversial and have significant impact on individual rights is happening too often."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron's campaign to have newly appointed EU commissioner Lord Hill allocated one of the top spots as discussions on candidates stalled yesterday.

For Mr Cameron taking a strong stance on Europe is key to his election strategy for May 2015. In the wake of losses to the anti-Europe United Kingdom Independence Party in elections earlier this year he is in a desperate race to regain ground. With so much still to be debated in Europe he may find that by rushing legislation through he misses the long term effects on British interests. 

Lesson learned from Tea Party, UKIP threat not passed

A RECENT poll has seen support for the United Kingdom Independence Party plummet but, as shown by the American Tea Party, the threat from the far right may not have passed.

For some observers UKIP's fall from grace signals a coming back to senses of the British electorate after the party's staggering gains in the European Elections. What seems more likely is that it is just a hiatus while the anti-immigration, anti-Europe party marshals its resources ahead of next year's general election.

In 2010 analysts in America predicted that they had seen the back of the grass roots right wing Tea Party movement, which had threatened to do irreparable harm to bi-partisan relationships in both congress and the senate. As evidenced by recent election successes for the group this was more wishful thinking than reality. 

The danger in Britain is that the Conservative party follows the mindset the Republican Party had in America and sits back on its laurels believing the danger had passed.

The Guardian/ICM poll has shown Nigel Farage's UKIP dropping seven points in a month from 16% to 9%. The news for other parties though has not been overwhelmingly positive.

Analysing the results Martin Boon, director at ICM research, said: "We used to talk about parties getting themselves through the 'magic' 40% threshold before they would be in serious contention to win, but less than a year before a general election, both the big parties are currently struggling to get themselves into the middle 30s, which, of course, only the Tories managed in 2010."

Part of the problem is that many people are suffering from election fatigue, having been bombarded by political policies for the last few months. The other is that after a flurry of television and radio appearances Mr Farage is now hard at work undermining the European Union. It would be a mistake to think that he, and his party of malcontents, had disappeared from the political landscape though. 

As with the Tea Party UKIP knows that it needs to manage its resources efficiently to ensure it is prepared for the big battles. For now it just needs to wait in wings until it sees an opportunity. 

"This time last year," explained Mr Boon, "UKIP also dropped to a similar extent, from 18% in the ICM/Guardian May 2013 poll to 12% the following June." 

By loading his new cabinet with eurosceptics and taking a harder line in his negotiations with Europe Prime Minister David Cameron may help to keep the UKIP threat at bay. With ten months still to go until the election, however, it would be a mistake to think that we have seen the last of Mr Farage and his entourage.  

Clean sweep for Cameron

David Cameron's highly anticipated cabinet reshuffle is starting to looking more like a clearing of the old guard than a change for the better. 

Just as Tony Blair tried to reinvent his party into New Labour Mr Cameron's changes are being seen by some analysts as a clean sweep to try and change the party and recoup ground after recent humiliating losses to UKIP and over Europe.

The two most notable scalps to step down are Ken Clark and William Hague.

Known eurosceptic Phillip Hammond is expected to leave his post as defence secretary, leaving space for Ian Duncan Smith to move out of the Department for Work and Pensions, where he has had a controversial time as the minister.

Despite reflecting a rise in Eurosceptic ministers the real focus of the reshuffle is the increase in the number of female members of the cabinet. It seems unlikely that Mr Cameron will meet his 2010 election pledge of having a third of his cabinet as women, however, this could represent the greatest move to equality in government for some time.

Explaining his decision to step down as foreign secretary Mr Hague said: "By the time of the general election next year, I will have served 26 years in the House of Commons and it will be 20 years since I first joined the cabinet. In government there is a balance to strike between experience on the one hand and the need for renewal on the other, and I informed the prime minister last summer that I would not be a candidate at the next general election.

"Accordingly I am stepping aside as foreign secretary, in order to focus all my efforts on supporting the government in parliament and gaining a Conservative victory in the general election – after four years in which we have transformed Britain's links with emerging economies, significantly expanded our diplomatic network and the promotion of British exports, restored the Foreign Office as a strong institution, and set a course to a reformed European Union and a referendum on our membership of it."

Ahead of official announcements analysts have predicted that  Esther McVey, the employment minister and former breakfast television presenter, Liz Truss, the childcare minister, Nicky Morgan, the women's minister, Amber Rudd, the whip, Anna Soubry, the defence minister, Priti Patel and Margot James, members of the No 10 policy board will all be given key places on Mr Cameron's cabinet.

Mr Cameron is known to have avoided too many significant reshuffles during the government's time in power, preferring instead to promote an idea of stability in his leadership. The change in so many key figures ahead of the general election next year has created some concern among political observers though.

Commenting on a report published today Emma Norris, from the Institute for Government think tank warned that the reshuffle was "ill advised" with so many big policy announcements due before May.

"Any new minister has a big learning curve to climb – and if moved into post in July 2014, not long to climb it. The prime minister needs to balance the desire to refresh with the need to hang on to those who are at the forefront of overseeing his key reforms," she said.

"With the long-awaited reshuffle imminent, there are likely to be several changes among junior ministers. While this may or may not make for good party management, it threatens to disrupt policy implementation at the point when stability and focus are needed most."

Mr Cameron's new cabinet may play well with female voters, concerned about the lack of representation in government, and the increasing number eurosceptics. The loss of so much experience with the replacement of the Tory old guard, a continuing dominance of middle aged, affluent white men and a preponderance of 'yes men' in his inner circle could mean that Mr Cameron's ostensibly cynical electioneering gambit may backfire though as he fails to govern effectively over the coming months.

 

Strikes will divide more than unite

MORE than a million public sector workers will strike today primarily over pay and pensions disputes.

Six of the United Kingdom's largest unions will be represented in the strikes which are likely to cause public services to grind to a halt and lead to trouble for millions more private sector employees.

There is still a culture among many union members in Britain that anyone who does not support action of this scale is a bourgeois class traitor. This view, however, fails to take into account the changing structure of the British working classes, with public sector workers rapidly becoming a class of their own.

Figures used by the Labour Party's largest backer, Unite, from a Survation poll claim to show mass public support for the strike action. On closer examination, however, the data is not so clear cut. As with any poll leading questions and limited selection criteria for respondents can lead to skewed results.

In defence of the action TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "Across the public sector workers are on strike today to say enough is enough.

"Year after year pay has failed to keep up with the cost of living."

What many have not looked at, however, is the practical impossibility of creating a fair wage which meets the living wage. As wages increase then so to must prices to allow for the increased costs. Thereby an inflationary spiral is created forcing the living wage ever higher. For public sector workers this may not be an overwhelming concern. Their feeling is that they can always strike again if they need to pressure the government into paying them more.

Millions of private sector workers on the minimum wage, zero hour contracts and uncertain employment futures don't have the luxury of blackmail to raise their pay though. It is these people who have been forgotten and yet will be most affected if the strikers achieve their aims.

Obviously not all public sector workers support strike action, however, their voices have a tendency to be drowned out by the drum beating of the leadership.

Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed new legislation to ensure that all union members have a say in future strike action.

Speaking to reporters Mr Cameron highlighted teacher's union NUT and its use of a two year old ballot to justify current action: "I think the time has come for setting a threshold," he told the House of Commons at prime minister's questions. "I mentioned the NUT strike earlier, the strike ballot took place in 2012. It's based on a 27% turnout. How can it possibly be right for our children's education to be disrupted by trade unions acting in that way? It is time to legislate and it will be in the Conservative manifesto."

Knowing that legislation requiring the majority of members, rather than just those who turn up, to vote in favour would severely damage the ability to take unilateral action has scared the union leaderships.

Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, in a demonstration if his lack of knowledge of a multi-party electoral system, attacked Mr Cameron's proposal to rework strike laws. 

"The whiff of hypocrisy coming from Cameron as he harps on about voting thresholds is overwhelming," he said. "Not a single member of his cabinet won over 50% of the vote in the 2010 election, with Cameron himself getting just 43% of the potential vote."

Despite all their claims of worker solidarity the powerful unions have shown that they only care for a small proportion of the British public. Rather than uniting workers if this latest action succeeds then it is likely to widen the gap within society and lead many in the private sector to long lasting economic decline.

  

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

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. 

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.

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.

Catching up for festive period

Well it’s that time again when we say goodbye to one year and welcome in another and what a year it has been for all of us here in wet and soggy Somerset. Looking back it has seemed like the better half, little bit and I have barely had a chance to stop. First off we celebrated Liz’s Diamond Jubilee, 60 years in the same job and no matter what Charles says she doesn’t look like she has any plans to retire yet.

Everyone threw a big party for her which was all going swimmingly until Philip had to be taken off to hospital, he really hasn’t been well this year.

Sports day went brilliantly, you may have caught some of it yourselves. Cousin Mo really showed his stuff and Jess won gold in her events. Bradley, you remember him he was the one who got the new bike last year, has had a brilliant year in cycling.

It hasn’t been all smooth sailing, well apart from for Ben but enough of sports day for now. Aunty Beeb has been having a few troubles again this year. It looks like Jimmy, he was the one who always smoked those foul cigars and wore too much jewellery, and some of his friends have really gotten out of line. Beeb had tried to keep it out of the press but as Uncle Rupert found out last year that doesn’t work. It turns out that quite a few of the people who belong to their club have being having a spot of bother but we try not to get involved in all that sort of thing.

In a slightly better turn of events Paul finally managed to get most of the squatters out of his father’s house earlier this year, although some of his friends and family weren’t too happy with the decision I can tell you.

Mark’s little internet venture has had a few problems. It seems that some of his investors weren’t too pleased with their payoff. That is just the way this year though, no-one seems to have enough money to around. Then again what’s new about that?

After last year’s holiday debacle in Syria, we checked into it but decided not to go again this year, we thought that a quiet cruise would be nice. Next year I think we are just going to stay at home, it was an absolute disaster. Mind you the captain did seem like a decent enough chap.

I mustn’t forget to tell you the good news it looks like Will and Kate, they were that nice couple I mentioned in last year’s letter, are expecting a baby. It made up for some fiasco earlier in the year when some pics of Kate were doing the rounds we heard.

Anyway that pretty much sums up everything got to crack on with sending out the rest of the cards. That couple we met in America a few years back for instance are still contacting us, apparently he has done well for himself becoming President of something or other, it may have been his golf club for all I know. It amazes me how many people contact you around this time of year with all sorts of info you wouldn’t care about. Anyway bye for now.

Good news, bad news for PM

It has really been a good news, bad news, what was he thinking news day for Prime Minister David Cameron.

While his stance on maintaining the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote will have gained a certain mixed reception it must be his jumping the gun on hinting that there may be an improvement in the gross domestic product which will be his moment of the day to try and escape from.

The seemingly innocuous statement that there may be “good news” ahead could potentially lead the PM into very bad news situation. It is a testament to the need for carefully coordinated communications when dealing with politicians, and the press. Many people would not think of the phrase as an explosive revelation breaching regulations on the release of sensitive information.

At the end of the day, however many people will be wondering whether or not the slip means anything other than that the Office of National Statistics, which is due to release the actual figures tomorrow (Thursday 25^th October 2012), will kick up a fuss over losing its thunder. In and of itself it may mean very little, taken in a wider context though it becomes a serious matter. The markets rise and fall on the slightest whiff of information, rumour and suggestion can have as much of an impact on the price of stocks and bonds as cold hard facts, something which the ONS is keen to maintain its control over.

What it also demonstrates is that once again politicians, no matter how senior, do not appear able to maintain a confidence on something which has national importance. It would not be seen as incontrovertible that Mr Cameron made the ‘slip’ as a means by which to get ahead of the ONS releasing the figures to the press and thereby ensure that his government, which up until now has been taking something of a battering on the economy, could bask in a bit of the glory before it was eclipsed by everything else.

Instead what he has successfully done, however, is removed any good news from what could have been an incredibly positive story and turned it into another government fiasco article.

There is always the chance that Mr Cameron’s ”good news” has nothing to do with the soon to be released figures. If having received the figures at 9:30am and being one of the few politicians allowed to see them he did mean something else though then he must surely be accused once again of mistiming his comments. What appears to be the core to this case is that either the Prime Minister knowingly let slip confidential information regarding the financial markets, albeit in an oblique way, or he made an ill timed and misjudged comment about an unrelated matter which will surely demonstrate that he is unable to think about the bigger picture of what impact his statements may have. Either way it does not bode well for the Prime Minister’s communications ability for the future.

EU-broke or just bust

There is something to be said for the recent contretemps which has caused friction between Britain and the rest of the European Union. Then again perhaps the standoff between David Cameron and Angela Merkel over EU spending is not such an unforeseen event.

Cameron has already demonstrated that he is prepared to take a firm stance when it comes to Europe. Likewise Ms Merkel has postured plenty of times before in the belief that she who shouts loudest lasts longest.

The current friction between the British and German leaders is, perhaps one of the more predictable that have been faced over recent years. With so much uncertainty surrounding the euro, and the lack of fiscal control being demonstrated by other EU countries, it is not surprising that Cameron has promised to use the United Kingdom’s veto any type of deal that does not impose a total freeze on spending.

What has struck the writers of this blog, as well no doubt as it has the policy makers at Number 10, is that if Ms Merkel does attempt to cancel next month’s EU budget summit then she will be demonstrating exactly why the Prime Minister, on one of the rare occasions, is right to stick to his guns.

The question must be asked as to what Ms Merkel hopes to gain from cancelling the summit, other than to stoke her not inconsiderable ego, that Mr Cameron could not achieve by implementing his veto. At worst she would leave the EU without any clear direction to focus its energies, at best cancelling the summit could ensure that Cameron’s position is strengthened by demonstrating that he has the power, albeit by proxy, to influence the entire bloc just by threatening a course of action.

What the whole debacle has clearly demonstrated is that the EU is clearly being run by school yard rules writ large. Whereas Ms Merkel could have used the summit as a place whereby leaders could debate their opinions and hope to turn people to their sides through reasoned debate she has decided to take the stance that if people won’t play by her rules then she will take the ball away and ruin the game for everyone.

Whether Cameron actually would use his veto is a matter which can only be judged after the fact. He has already demonstrated that he is not afraid of alienating EU leaders, and UK politicians, over his stance to the bloc. All Merkel has managed is to push him into a corner whereby his only option is to use the veto no matter when or where the summit is hosted. Rather than creating an atmosphere of discussion she has generated a toxic scenario where no-one will achieve anything. If she had taken the wiser path then a reasoned debate could have taken place instead of posturing and strong arming. This unfortunately has become the norm within the EU and its governance. It is also perhaps one of the most crucial reasons why any economic decisions involving the bloc must  be treated with scepticism by the individual states. Ms Merkel has argued to cancel the summit if she does not get her own way, Cameron has argued to veto any decision which is not in line with his feelings, with two out of the 27 acting in such a way how can the EU ever be trusted to succeed on solving an economic debacle on the scale that it is supposed to be tackling?