The economics show Britain should do more

Despite thousands of refugees dying over the last few months it has taken one heartbreaking picture of a dead child lying abandoned on a beach to make people care. The very same people who were claiming that we shouldn't do anything suddenly switched their views.
While the images of young Aylan Kurdi have prompted a outcry from people who really didn't have a clue when all they could see were statistics, the government's knee jerk response is both irresponsible and dangerous. The pitiful level which it has placed on the number of immigrants allowed into the country, 20,000 by 2020, will not even make a dent in the hundreds of thousands fleeing a war which we are at least partly accountable for. By prioritising certain refugees over others it is likely that families will be ripped apart as they try and save their children. Most importantly though by circumventing the rules for foreign aid and using it domestically to prop up councils the government is saving a penny now only to spend a pound further down the line. The foreign aid budget isn't an ego boost it is a necessary fund which should be used to combat refugee crises at the source and thereby mitigate against a future influx later down the line. Give a man a fish and he will feed himself today. Give him clean water, shelter, security, education and hope and he will feed his family for a lifetime as will his descendants.
That coin you gave to someone sleeping rough to make yourself feel good about how generous you are, this isn't like that. This isn't about handouts as so many on the far right seem to think. This is about building something.
On one side of the argument has been the claim that Britain cannot take anymore refugees. A strange belief that it will create further ghettosiation of specific regions, particularly around London and the South. This claim focuses only on a knee jerk Daily Mailesque reaction to the crisis which fails to accept the statistics and figures covering the crisis.
A well managed programme, such as that being implemented by Germany which accepted 18,000 refugees last weekend, sees family units kept together while also ensuring that no one area becomes saturated.
A carefully drawn up approach allows for thousands more refugees to be allowed into the country, more than that however it actually allows for, over time, a boon to the economy from money being brought in.
A common argument that even when refugees find employment they send money home fails to accept that every sensible study on the issue finds that the amount sent out of the country is minimal when compared to the amount which British citizens, as a whole, take out of the economic flow through savings. It also fails to take into account the fact that per person migrants tend to pay higher rents, money which landlords then put back into the economy. It doesn’t take account of the fact that they still buy food and clothes, in short they live and survive. This money circulates, and for the most part it comes from jobs which British citizens have refused to do, yet which are necessary and provide a foundation for better jobs for others.
As for the argument that migrants cost the government more money than the good hard working British public even a cursory glance at official figures shows how much greater the proportion of Brits living on welfare is compared to migrants, even where data is amended to take into account disparity of population proportion.
Even without this evidence there is one overwhelming fact, people are dying and dying in their thousands. The refugee crisis is no longer about nations and states it is about humanity. As humans it is our duty to help those who need it.

The West needs Iran against IS

AMID the chaos of the Islamic State assault on the Middle East the meeting of Britain and Iranian leaders offers a moment of historic potential.

The meeting in New York between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and British Prime Minister David Cameron will be the first time that leaders of the two countries have held official meetings since 1979. 

For the millions of people under constant threat in Iraq and Syria the news of potential cooperation between the state, once considered one of the most dangerous in the world, and the rest of the allies opposing the threat of the IS the news cannot come soon enough.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are flooding into Turkey as the fighting in Syria heats up and the first time since the start of the conflict American airstrikes have been used against IS forces in Syria. It is clear that the battle against the group is entering a dangerous new phase, far beyond that of the murder of western hostages.

At the weekend former British Prime Minister, and current Middle East Peace Envoy, Tony Blair released a 6500 word article on his Faith Foundation website calling for a ground incursion against fighters in Iraq and Syria. 

Laying out a seven point plan to combat the threat of global extremism Mr Blair makes repeated attempts to link unrest in China with a common problem of extremist Islam in the Middle East. As such he argues that it is only through joining with China that the West can show they are not the only ones fighting rising fundamentalism. His plan hinges on demonstrating that it is a global battle against such groups.

Mr Blair missed talking about how much more successful this plan would have been if it involved Iran in operations. Instead he did call for arguments about human rights in Egypt to be quietened down as we link arms to fight against terrorists. 

Working with Iran is only contentious due to historically imbedded ideals. Relations are already thawing and while talks on nuclear programmes have not met desired results for either side they are still continuing.

Potential cooperation has become all the more important as Turkish involvement in the fight against the state remains understandably cool. Unlike the West Turkey must look at the terrible prospect of IS success in the region. 

For Turkey the fight against IS has long term consequences no matter the outcome. Clashes with Kurds at the weekend are yet more evidence of the tenuous position its government is in. 

For the West arming and supporting Kurdish fighters seems a way of avoiding placing its own ground troops in harms way. For Turkey, however, it poses long term security implications as Kurds demand more autonomy from Ankara.

By bringing Iran into the battle all out Turkish involvement may be avoided while still demonstrating that this is a war not against Islam but against evil. 

Danger if destabilisation as PKK armed

BRITISH involvement in Iraq is threatening long term stability in region according to some analysts.

British Defence Minister Michael Fallon has warned that military intervention to combat the threat from Islamic State extremists could last for months. 

The news, which broke on Sunday, comes in the wake of confirmation that the British government would aid the supply of arms to Kurdish fighters in the region, something which has led to fears about the long term implications for stability in the war torn area.

The defence secretary told service personnel at the South Cyprus RAF base in Akrotiri: "There may well now be in the next few weeks and months other ways that we may need to help save life [and] protect people and we are going to need all of you again and the surveillance you are able to give us,"

"We want to help the new government of Iraq and Kurdish forces. We want to help them stop the advance of IS and stop them from being terrorised.

"This is not simply a humanitarian mission. We and other countries in Europe are determined to do what we can to help the government of Iraq combat this new and very extreme form of terrorism that IS is promoting."

It is the arming of Kurdish fighters which is proving a controversial tactic, however, amid fears that once the current situation is resolved it could lead to long term conflict on the borders with Britain's NATO ally Turkey.

Richard Gowan, research director of the Centre on International Cooperation, at New York University, said: "There are moments in fast-moving crises when you simply have to stop events spiralling out of control, and worry about the consequences later. This is one of those moments. Arming the Kurds may be a step towards the final fragmentation of Iraq, with worrying consequences for Turkey and Iran. But if the alternative is losing more territory to Isis and allowing more atrocities, then this is still the best short-term option available."

Turkey has fought a long battle against the Kurdish terrorist group the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which wants more autonomy for Kurds within Turkey. Despite a tenuous peace between the group and the government in Ankara an influx of weapons and munitions from the West could destabilise the current situation.

“Wars are always a very important catalyst for change . . . In a year’s time the position of the PKK is going to be much stronger than it is now,” said Henri Barkey, a former US State Department official.

Officials in Ankara have been quick to play down the perceived influx of PKK fighters into Iraq, with one spokesmen stating: “I don’t think their involvement is real,” a senior Turkish official said. “It looks more like a media campaign than a real military campaign.”

As Britain becomes more active in the crisis and its reliance on Kurdish fighters increases the military campaign may become more apparent. Calls are already growing for the PKK to be removed from British and US lists of terrorist organisations as their fighters become crucial in the battle for Iraq. With possible legitimacy, training and British supplied weapons Mr Fallon may be creating a long term issue for which he is unprepared to deal with.

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.

  

Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

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.

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.

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.

Lord Butler missed the fiscal problem

THE differences in priorities for the United Kingdom coalition government has brought to the fore the problems with having two opposing forces in power together. Since its formation the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has faced a string of criticisms over inabilities to create cohesive strategies and policies on a range of topics.

The most recent judgement on the possible ineffectiveness of the coalition government has perhaps been its harshest though. In a statement to the House former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell condemned the government for the failure of the parties to work together and warned that it was “looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country.” He continued by stating that “the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.”

While the Tories and Liberal Democrats have had a number of notable disagreements, particularly over free school meals and knife crime in recent weeks, it is not just its differences in beliefs which are causing problems though. With recent polling figures showing that neither Labour or Conservatives have enough public support for an all out majority should an election be called tomorrow, and the Liberal Democrats sliding to fourth place behind the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party, Britain’s political landscape is undergoing radical changes.

Gone are the days of the clear two party system, with coalition governments looking to become more common in the future as the UK follows in the steps of other European countries. Meanwhile party-centered politics have started to move towards a centre ground with little differences apparent between the three old guard parties at times. It is perhaps for this reason that groups such as UKIP are able to gain ground as the electorate attempts to find some means of expressing its views.

Overall, however, it is the difference in economic ideals which remains the greatest obstacle. At the heart of government policy is the question of affordability. Fiscal policy is a contentious matter, increasingly so when there are two parties with differing agendas attempting to agree on it.

In the financial year 2012- 2013 the total government spending was £683 billion, of which the two areas of which health and social protection received just short of half with a combined £337 billion. The allocation of these funds to maximise their efficiency has been the subject of much debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians,  as was made clear in the recent storm between Education Secretary Michael Gove and School’s Minister David Laws over the financing of free school meals..

Lord Butler may be right in his statement that by calling a snap election now would avoid the two leading parties from spending the next twelve months electioneering and thereby allow the crucial work of government to continue, What he fails to take into account though is that without a coordinated financial approach from all parties the divisions are likely to reappear in the future, election or not.

Europe needs to look to future before it runs out of fuel over Russia

EUROPE faces a looming energy crisis as reserves of fossils fuels reach a critical point. According to research conducted by the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University the UK has less than five years worth of coal and three years of gas remaining from its domestic supply. The situation is even worse for France and Italy which could run out of fossil fuels within a year.

The United Kingdom is already reaching its highest levels of dependence since 1976. The news is likely to push this figure up as officials attempt to maintain what little resources the country still has. Based the data, however, large areas of Europe will be entirely reliant on foreign sources of fuel within the next five years.

With Russia’s supplies looking set to last for the next 50 years it may be the best source of supply to keep the lights on. While the West pushes for increased sanctions against Russian officials in response to the crisis in Ukraine it seems likely that they will come to nothing. President Putin’s government looks set to hold all the cards in the on-going gamesmanship between nations as Europe looks towards them for their energy needs.

Europe’s dependency on Russian gas and coal is already on a dramatic rise, with its own domestic supply about to run out this rise will only continues. As much as Europe may wish to provide support for Ukraine and demonstrate its condemnation of Russian aggression it may find that its own domestic needs start to take precedence.

Britain is already looking to other sources to prevent Russia having a stranglehold on the country. Having witnessed its gas supply declining over a sustained period it is sourcing the majority of its foreign supply from Norway. If Europe wants to ensure that it is not held over the proverbial fuel barrel then it must also start to find alternative suppliers for its coal supply.

Meanwhile the British government is placing its hope in renewable energy. A spokesman from the Department of Energy and Climate Change stated: “The UK is one of the most energy secure countries in the world thanks to the combination of our own reserves, our diverse sources of imported energy and our focus on increasing clean, home-grown energy in the UK - which includes nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. 

 "As well as attracting record investment into our energy security since 2010, the UK is leading globally on energy security, particularly through the G7 which has agreed to take global action to improve energy security, and in getting a deal in the EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030."

Based on figures from the same department, however, renewable energy only accounted for 15.5 per cent of overall energy consumption by quarter two in 2013. Despite being a 60 per cent rise from 2012 if Britain is rely on its renewable energy to cover its imminent shortfall then it has a long way to go.

 

A likely source, to ensure security within Europe, could be Germany, which according to statistics has approximately 250 years worth of coal left, five times as much as Russia. With Britain becoming increasing Eurosceptic, however, it must now be looking at the long term consequences of distancing itself from its European neighbours.

 

The rise of the right

AS EUROPE gears up for the May 22^nd European Elections the rise of right wing politics has become increasingly noticeable. This is not isolated to the European Union though.

In America the Tea Party Movement has made inroads into mainstream politics. The United Australia Party may not be seeing the gains of some right wing parties, however, it is starting to have an impact on the political establishment. Despite, or possibly because of, being led by a comedian Beppo Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy has surged forward, challenging the old guard of the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. Nowhere seems immune from the politics of fear these groups play upon.

It was only a few short years ago that groups such as the American Tea Party Movement, a group which United Kingdom Independence Leader, Nigel Farage, has revelled in being compared to, were seen as fringe and dismissible. In the current political environment they are starting to pose a problem for the main political parties.

In America and Britain it seems unlikely that the establishment could be overturned by these groups. In 2015 UKIP may gain a couple of seats, this would be a far cry from the number they would need to put them in a position of serious power though. The threat they pose is by splitting the vote of the more moderate parties and diverting the debate away from areas where it needs to be focused.

For countries such as Italy and Germany, where coalition governments are more frequent than in the US and Britain, these parties can have a genuine influence on the way the country is run. For groups such as Tea Party or UKIP, however, they are fighting against an entrenched establishment where it is a near certainty that one of two parties will be in power.

This has not stopped them from shouting their causes from the rooftops, however. It is perhaps even more of incentive to create ever more outrageous and right wing agendas for these groups than ones which know they may have a chance of power, and therefore would have to meet their manifesto pledges.

UKIP has claimed that they will fight back against unlimited immigration from the European Union, while failing to address how they will do this, or exactly how far reaching the levels of immigration will be. In its EU election manifesto for example UKIP claims that the Office of National Statistics estimates from 2010 that the UK population will rise by 3 million by 2020 through immigration. The ONS actually forecasts a growth of 4.9million, of which 56 per cent would be from ‘natural increase’.

Additional figures provided by UKIP also fail to take into account the rate of emigration from Britain by naturalised citizens. The same story is repeated in America with the Tea Party Movement. Statistics are taken out of context, or fabricated. Both groups use volume and self proclaimed righteous anger ahead of genuine debate and solution.

In part this rise of the right wing has come about from the groups themselves. An increase in communications technology has made it easier for them to reach the electorate, and by repeating the same phrases enough they have instilled them into the minds of people as fact.

An increasing level of fear and disillusionment in the system has given them the crack to force themselves into. Membership of the more mainstream political parties has diminished over the years, with approximately only 1 per cent of the UK belonging to a party,  as people lose faith in the process. Fear of terrorism and crime is also on the increase, which gives certain right wing elements the fuel they need to feed the fire of xenophobic attitudes.

On May 22^nd the British electorate, and others across Europe, will have their say for who represents them in the European Union. For right wing groups the world over it will be seen as a test of whether volume and propaganda has swayed the people over debate and solutions.