New World Order - India

Population: 1.2 billion

Area:  3.2 million km²

GDP: $ 1.7 trillion

GDP (per capita): $ 1,400

Economic Growth: 6.5%

Democracy? Yes

The booming country is the world’s largest democracy, with a population of 1.2 billion and rising. Some projections believe that the consequences of China’s one child policy and India’s rapid population growth will mean that India will have the world’s largest population. Yet despite a similar population, India has a long way to go before it catches up with China in terms of India’s economy. The Indian economy is one seventh the size of the Chinese economy. Indian growth is also smaller than China. Yet India does have one big advantage over China, it is a democracy. The importance of this is that it makes India more stable, as people do not need to turn to violent protest to change their government. Rather they simply try to elect leaders that reflect their opinions.

India does have many challenges to face, one of the most prominent is the huge amount of poverty, 42% of Indians live on less than $1.25 a day and unemployment stands at 9.8%. Indian industry is also not as good as it could be, agriculture still makes up 52% of the economy with industry and services making up 14% and 34% respectively.

Literacy also poses a serious threat to Indian growth, currently the literacy rate is only 74%, significantly below the world average of 84%. The Indian government knows that it will need to tackle this issue soon, how can India expect to grow if it has the largest population of illiterate people. At the current, poor, rate of growth India will only eliminate illiteracy in 2060, 48 years away! This is simply not good enough, the graph below compares India’s literacy rate to other countries. Note just how high China is.

Although India has massive problems in the areas of poverty, education, infrastructure and industry, this can and will be remedied. India has a lot of potential, there are many opportunities for it to grow, but the government must be prepared to take risks if the country is to achieve greatness. 

The extreme poverty people experience in the slums must be rectified soon

New World Order - China

China

Population: 1.3 billion

Area: 9.6 million km²

GDP: $11 trillion

GDP (per capita): $8,400

Economic Growth: 8.2%

Democracy? No

When it comes to developing nations, China is one of the first to come to mind. It is the world’s largest county in terms of population and the second largest in terms of GDP, set to overtake the USA within half a century. The rise of China worries the West more than the rise of the other nation, China is not a democracy and it doesn’t look like it will become one anytime soon. For the last two hundred years the top country has always been a democracy, first Britain and then the United States. In international affairs China could become top dog in the not-so-distant future.

China certainly wields the most influence of the countries I am reviewing; it is the only one with veto power on the UN Security Council and already has the second largest economy. One thing China is doing, that I would advise the West to pay close attention to, is investing in Africa. China has recognised that Africa has big potential, the continent is full of resources and it has a booming population.

China’s disadvantage is this; it’s not a democracy. China is the only one of the five rising nations that I’ve mentioned that isn’t a democracy, and doesn’t claim to be a democracy. The problem this poses for China is that the enlarging middle class will start to demand a say in government. Once this begins growth in China will slow and the country could descend into violence. Although it is unlikely that China will descend into violence any time soon, it will have to happen eventually. The citizens of China can see many fully functioning, wealthy democracies in the world and they will begin to ask; why not us?

Yet the rise of China is not so certain, recent growth figures show China’s economy is beginning to slow. The problem is a drop in demand from its largest export market – Europe and poor demand domestically. Although China’s slower growth rate would be the envy of any Western nation, if China is to continue to expand rapidly it must maintain its impressive growth figures.

A Chinese City - the high rise skyscrapers are typical in modern China

The New World Order

Between the Age of Discovery in the 15^th century and World War Two, European nations ruled the world, both directly and indirectly. The colonial Empires of Spain and Portugal dominating in the early years of Empire, but they were eventually leapfrogged by the French and British Empires, and to a lesser extent the Dutch Empire. Russia, Germany, Austria and Italy also played an important role, especially in the later years. By the time the 20^th century dawned the world was changing, Japan and the US were emerging powers and Germany was threatening the balance of power within Europe itself. The two World Wars that followed devastated Europe, both economically and politically, immediately after WWII the empires of France and Britain fell apart and the UK handed superpower status to the USSR and USA. Yet Europe was far from unimportant, the USSR was a European country after all, and Germany, France and Britain still commanded significant influence. But with the fall of the USSR in the early 1990s, for the first time in modern history, the most powerful and important nation was not a European one, rather the USA.

So I think I’ve made my point, countries rise and fall and everyone has to adapt to the new world order brought about every century or so. Although Europe is still far from unimportant, of the top 20 economies, nine are European and of the five countries with a veto on the UN Security Council, three are European.

The Question is where is the world heading? Who will be the new countries on the scene, which nations will challenge western power?

The truth is nobody really knows, but there are certainly contenders. Over the next few days I will write about countries I believe could take the mantle of power from the West. The big debate surrounds whether China will eventually best the USA or will another country be the one to overtake America?

The following are the countries I believe have a chance of besting the west:

1.       China – the favourite to become the next superpower

2.       India – A rising nation with a population set to become bigger than China

3.       Brazil – the big boy of the South American economies

4.       Mexico – the rising star that may not be if drug lords have their way

5.       Indonesia – the island nation could be a surprise winner

6.       Africa – as a continent it will not take power any time soon – but its day will surely come 

New World Order Countries in red

The Death Penalty - Why it Should Not Exist

Amnesty International calls it the “ultimate denial of human rights” but many believe that it is a powerful deterrent that stops people committing violent crimes such as murder.

This is simply not true, if the death penalty is such a good deterrent, why does a country, such as the USA (which has the death penalty), have a much higher homicide rate than other developed nations who do not have the death penalty.

This graph clearly illustrates just how significant the difference is, the United States has over four times the homicide rate of the UK, Germany, Australia and Canada. Considering that the US executed 43 people in 2011, criminals know that they can be executed. It is simply not the deterrent people think it is.

Yet I think one of the most important rebuttals of the death penalty is the chance of convicting innocent people. In the United States, of the 1,300 people executed, 142 have been exonerated since their execution (11% of the total). Considering how difficult it is to get someone exonerated and the fact that in the early years there was no DNA evidence or such, the true figure of innocent people executed must be higher. With this in mind there is no way the death penalty should exist as there is too high a chance of innocent people being executed.  

There are many people, like myself, that are opposed to the death penalty in principle, as well as practice. I simply believe that nobody, not a government, not a judge and not a jury can decide who lives and who dies. No matter what somebody has done, no matter what horrific crime they have committed, the death penalty should never be an option. Nobody has the right to control whether someone lives or dies. I believe that life is the most fundamental human right, it goes above and beyond everything else, and human rights are something that every human has, regardless of gender, race, religion or criminal conviction.

I thought it interesting to make up the following graph to show which type of countries typically use the death penalty. I used information from Freedom House, which categorises countries as free, partly free and not free. I then compared it to nations which use the death penalty. You can make your own conclusions!

*this excludes countries that have the death penalty but have not used
it in the past 10 years.

The Death Penalty - The Facts

Last year over 4,000 people were executed across the globe, many of these were executed for petty reasons and many will also be innocent.

The following map shows the extent of execution in our world, red indicates that the country retains the death penalty; orange indicates the country retains the death penalty but has not used it in over ten years. Green indicates that the country has abolished the death penalty except for exceptional circumstances (such as war) and blue indicates that a country has abolished the death penalty in all circumstances.

 This map gives an indication over where we’re at in the world. Europe has the best record on execution; Belarus is the only country in Europe that still executes prisoners. One of the reasons that Europe has such a good record on execution is that both the Council of Europe and the European Union require members to abolish the death penalty before they are admitted.  The Americas is another continent with a good record, the majority of countries have not used it in the past ten years. Only three countries still actively use the death penalty, the USA, St Kitts and Nevis and Cuba. Australasia has mostly abolished the death penalty, with only a few (very small) states still actively using it.

Asia is the worst offender when it comes to execution: of the 21 nations that performed executions (officially) in 2011, 15 of the states were Asian.  The top four states by number of people executed were also Asian.  China carries out more executions that all other nations combined, it is thought that in 2011 China executed up to 4,000 people. Although there have been moves in China to reduce the amount of crimes that result in execution. 

Let the Games Begin!

Today the Games of the XXX Olympiad begin in London. The opening ceremony begins at 9PM showcasing "Isles of Wonder" which features British farmland, families and rain! From what I have heard so far I do not believe it will be better then Beijing, but I will be watching nonetheless.

Many people wonder what benefits the Olympics will actually have for London or the UK. Many politicians point to increased tourism, yet London is already the world's most visited city. Also many tourists who aren't interested in the games will try to avoid the Olympic rush and visit another time. Lisbon isn't an unknown city either, only it and New York are in the top category of global cities (Alpha++). It is the political and business centre of the UK and has Europe's largest airport (Heathrow). Nonetheless there is a lot of national pride around hosting the Olympics. After this year London will have held the games more times than any other city (1908 and 1948) and the USA will be the only county to have hosted the summer Olympics more times than the UK (Saint Louis in 1904, Los Angeles in 1932 and 1984 and Atlanta in 1996). The Olympic games already have some benefits, the east end of London is certainly in need of improvement, the facilities provide by the Olympics will help to improve the area. There are increased transport facilities and new housing, as well as the use of the sporting facilities and areas that are kind on the eye.

The rewards from hosting the Olympics will only be seen long after the games are over, but I am delighted that the Olympics will return to London.

Israelis be Careful, Iran is Watching

Last Wednesday five Israeli tourists were killed in the holiday resort of Burgas, Bulgaria. They were killed by a suicide bomber with fake US documents, the driver of the bus was also killed.

It didn't take long for the Israeli government in Jerusalem to accuse Iran of involvement. Israel believes that the attack was carried out by the Lebanese group, Hizbullah and its Iranian backers. The bombing occurred on the anniversary of another attack by the same group in which 85 people were killed in Argentina in 1994.

This bomb is unfortunately just the latest in a series of attacks (and foiled attempts) against Israelis. This year alone Israelis have been targeted in New Delhi, India, Tbilisi, Georgia, Bangkok, Thailand and Kenya. These attacks have dramatically increased the tensions between Israel, and its Western backers, and Iran. It does not help that Iran blames Israel for the deaths of several scientists that are believed to be part of the country's nuclear programme.

The Middle East has always been a very unstable region, wars have torn through the region in every decade. The Arab Spring has caused some of the region's most stable states, Egypt and Libya, to appear as unstable as Iraq. Egypt was always the Arab country most willing to make a deal with Israel. Now with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood candidate, brokering a deal with Israel seems unlikely.

The Iran-Israel crisis is just another reason why the Arab World is of major importance, we should watch it closely and be ready to defend Israel if Iran achieves its goal of nuclear arms.

The Battle for Syria is Turning

As the civil war in Syria grows ever bloodier, the end would appear in sight.

Earlier this week a bomb blasted through the national security headquarters in Damascus. The explosion killed the defence minister and a former military chief. Assad's close friend and brother-in-law, Adsef Shawkat was also killed by rebels. He was a powerful figure in the regime who will be dearly missed. For the rebels and the West his death was of huge benefit. Although their positions were immediately filled, the personal loyalty and close-knit feel of the upper echelons is the Syrian regime make them irreplaceable.

Their deaths also mark a major turning point for the rebels. They are finally taking out high profile members of Assad's government, army and family. Who will be the next to be killed? Considering the location of the bomb, it indicates infiltration into the beating heart of government. We already know that there have been generals and other high-profile army personnel defecting, this bomb would suggest that people working for the regime are turned as well. The question is: How far does the infiltration go?

The problem with high profile defections and assassinations is that Assad may get more and more desperate. Could he flatten whole towns and disloyal districts? The west and north west are rapidly becoming no-go areas of Syria for the armed forces. Could Assad start using chemical or biological weapons? Although this is an option, it is unlikely to be used as doing so could anger the West into action (UN sanctioned or not) and lose Syria her last major ally, Russia.

The noose is tightening around the regime's neck, it is only a matter of time now until Assad goes, the question is how long? The fear is, the Battle for Syria could grow bloodier.

The Purest Form of Democracy

In 1960 Northern Ireland did not have true democracy, a wealthy man had more votes than a poor man, Gerrymandering (the fixing of electoral boundaries in such a way that is very biased) was commonplace and Catholics were frequently discriminated against by the government.

The Northern Ireland of today is very, very different. We now have one man, one vote, no gerrymandering and no group is discriminated against. In fact, Northern Ireland has the best democracy on planet Earth. Let me explain, due to the Troubles there is “power sharing” in NI, what this means is that seats area allocated on the basis of what percentage of the popular vote your party gets. This exists in many liberal democracies around the world and it’s called proportional representation, but there is a key difference between those countries and Northern Ireland. In other nations if party A receives 51% of the vote, party B receives 36% of the vote and party C receives 13% of the vote; party A forms the government as it has a majority. It can form the government on its own, with all government positions being taken by Party A. In Northern Ireland, seats are not only allocated by proportional representation but so are government positions. Here the party with the most votes gets the office of First Minister, the second party gets Deputy First Minister and all other government offices are split along similar lines. This allows for many parties to be in government.

The reason for this being the purest form of democracy is this; the current UK government is a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who received 36% and 23% of the vote respectively which means that 59% of people have their voice represented by government, this leaves 41% of people with no say whatsoever, as the party they voted for is not part of the government. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, five parties are represented in government; DUP, Sinn Féin, UUP, SDLP and Alliance. Together these parties represent 92% of the vote in Northern Ireland, this means only 8% of people are not represented in government. Surely this is a far more democratic system than the one that the Westminster government is elected on?

But there is one major set-back to this form of government. In an election whereby one party forms the government and therefore controls all the ministries, if they miss-handle a particular department but do a good job in another department then things can balance themselves out in time for the next election. In a government where there are multiple parties, if a party fails at controlling their department they are less able to pick themselves up in other areas. As a result of this the parties are less willing to take tough decisions and this slows down the legislative process.

Another problem for power sharing is there are many opposing ideologies in government, ranging from socialism to strong conservatism; this also slows down the legislative process. It also means that one party can’t come in and radically change the country as Labour did in 1945 or the Conservatives did in 1979. This progress slightly, which can cause problems, but it does not stop progress altogether.

So although I do believe that Northern Ireland’s form of democracy is possibly the purest on the planet, I don’t necessarily think it’s the best. It has its problems as I’ve explained; but considering the situation in NI, it’s exactly what we need.

The Merits of House of Lords Reform

The United Kingdom is one of only a few states in which the upper house has more members than the lower house. Currently there are 765 members of the House of Lords whilst there are 650 members of the House of Commons.

Current reform proposed by the coalition government would call for 80% of the members to be elected to a reduced chamber of 450 members. These members would now be salaried (lords currently only get allowances) and would be called Senators rather than being called Lords. They would also be elected on 15 year terms on a system of proportional representation.

There are a number of troubles with reforming the House of Lords, many MPs fear that since an elected House of Lords (or a Senate as it would then be called) would try to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. This could be disastrous for our democracy, many MPs point to America where power is spread amongst three federal institutions (presidency, House of Representatives and the Senate) and the legislative movement has ground to almost a complete halt.  

Personally I agree with the idea of House of Lords reform as the upper house does have some power. Yet I do want to maintain supremacy of the House of Commons to keep legislation moving fast. I also believe that they should still be called Lords, we are the only country with a “House of Lords” and I think it would be a good way to maintain tradition whilst moving to more democracy. I also agree that 80% should be elected whilst the remaining 20% are appointed, this would again maintain some tradition but moving towards greater democracy.

Once the reforms above have been implemented, constitutional reform should stop, we should remain a monarchy with a House of Lords and House of Commons. Our system works well and we shouldn’t try to change something too much that is working perfectly fine. There is wisdom in the saying “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it.”

America's Imperfect Democracy

To many people America has been a beacon of hope and democracy for generations, the reason why it was nicknamed “the land of the free”. When most of Europe had to deal with dictatorships and then the division of the Cold War, America looked ideal. This is not the case anymore, according to Freedom House, of the 47 European nations only two are rated as not free, six as partly free and 39 as free. Considering that most people believe that the decision to put Russia in the “not free” camp is ridiculous, this is quite an impressive turnaround!

After the Republicans took control over many state legislators, senates and governors’ offices there has been a sweeping number of voter restricting reforms. The map below shows the states in which these restrictions have been passed! One of the most common voter restrictions is to begin to demand photographic ID to be able to vote. The Republicans say this is to combat voter fraud, but they have no evidence of any voter fraud taking place in any significant amount across all 50 states.  The problem that Democrats have with this is that many people, particularly students, ethnic minorities, and seniors do not have “appropriate” photographic ID. These groups, with the exception of the latter, vote by a wide margin, with the Democrats, in the 2008 Presidential Election, Obama took 96% of the black vote! Now, you might think that this targeting of Democratic voters is just coincidental, well not according to some, the Republican Pennsylvanian House Majority Leader, Mike Turzai, has been caught saying that Voter ID will “help Romney win Pennsylvania”… Don’t you mean stop voter fraud? The issue is that many of the groups harmed by the law are too poor to afford the acceptable forms of ID that they now require, this means they are stopped from voting due to the nature of them being poor. Now I do believe that photographic ID should be required to vote, but I also believe that the government should provide free forms of ID. This would allow the Republicans to say they’ve stopped voter fraud without trying to illegally remain in office as long as they can by restricting people’s constitutionally protected rights.  

There are other ways in which American democracy really isn’t that great, the system by which the elect presidents is totally un-democratic and the way in which the Senate is run isn’t great either. Everyone knows the result of the famous 2000 Bush vs Gore election. Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush, yet Bush was named president because he won more electoral colleges. If you’re not American you’re probably a bit confused, basically each state is allocated a number of electoral colleges, whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes in that state receives all the electoral colleges. Yet this is not an entirely fair system, the graph below (courtesy of Wikipedia) shows each state and the amount of votes per-electoral-college

As you can see this system favours the smaller states over the larger ones, the system needs reform, I don’t see why the person who wins most votes becomes president. This would stop any future chance of scandals like the 2000 race.

Senate seat allocation gives even more preference to smaller states. According to the American constitution each state is allocated two senators regardless of population, this gives a massive advantage to smaller states. For example in America’s least populous state, Wyoming, the population-per-Senator is roughly 280,000. Whereas in America’s most populous state, California, the population-per-Senator is roughly 18.5 million! This means your vote in Wyoming is the equivalent to 66 Californian votes! Although this seems stupid, the system does have its merits, its allows for the smaller states to have a real voice in politics, which I believe is a good thing.

The major problem in the Senate is the filibuster, if a law has the consent of the president, the support of a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate it can still be blocked. Only 26 senators (just over a quarter of the total) can filibuster or block a law, this has cause congress to grind to a halt in the past four years. Republicans in the Senate have filibusters many pieces of Obama legislation. One of the major issues with this is because each state gets two senators, if the thirteen smallest states club together, they can block a law that the other 37 wish to pass. Considering that the smallest 13 combined make up only 4.6% of the total population, this makes it extremely undemocratic. Although this is purely theoretical, as the smallest states include some very Republican and some very Democratic states, it nonetheless should not be able to happen. 

Do We Need the Press?

The short answer is yes, but I do think that the results of the Leveson Inquiry should make us think twice about just how important the press is. Whilst the press was revealing stories of corrupt politicians, drunk celebrities and “broken Britain” the whole industry, with only a few exceptions, was rotten to the core itself.

One paper has already fallen victim to the post-Hacking scandal fury (the NOTW). News Corporation stopped trying to buy the remaining shares of BSkyB and took the decision recently to split the corporation in two.

I ask the question because I believe that the importance of the internet is much more important. The internet has allowed for journalism to turn to the ordinary civilian and power has been removed from powerful men. I don’t believe a free press is one controlled by a handful of people. Although papers like the Guardian and the Independent will be missed greatly if they ever shut down, but we may have to accept this. Thankfully both papers have an online service; the Guardian is the second most read British news website!

With declining revenue and falling paper sells we may have to accept the gradual disappearance of the printed news, but we need not worry too much. The internet will save us from completely losing the press, it is also a lot freer than the press and it allows for ordinary citizens to share their own opinions. Do you think I’d have my own blog if it wasn’t for the internet? No.

The internet, not the press, is the saviour of our democracy. 

The European Union - Why we Should Stay

The European Union was established in 1952 by the Treaty of Paris as the European Coal and Steel Community. It started off with only six nations; Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Since then it has grown to include 27 of Europe’s 47 nations. There has never been a war between the EU nations since its foundation.

What the EU hopes to achieve is greater prosperity for Europe and more integration between member states. So why are so many Britons trying to get us to leave it?

Well they do not agree with losing some sovereignty to EU institutions, many believe that we should leave the EU but remain within the common market. This sounds like a good idea right? Wrong. Many in UKIP and the Conservative Party wish to copy Norway or Switzerland, in Europe for the economics, out for the politics. Yet this is not entirely true, 75% of resolutions passed by the European parliament have had to be implemented by Norway and Switzerland. So they have no say over EU policy, yet they have to obey it? That sounds like a pretty horrendous deal to me, considering the UK is one of the “big four”, the four nations that have the most votes in the Council of the European Union. As we are a very populous nation in Europe, we hold great influence and power in the chamber. If we were to give up our voting rights, but still have to implement most EU policy it would be disastrous for ourselves!

I feel that many of the UKIP and Conservatives that believe in leaving the EU are stuck in Empire mentality. They think we’d get on fine on our own outside of Europe, they want to return to the century of splendid isolation in which Britain largely ignored the European continent. But in the 19^th century, we had a vast and growing Empire. We were the world’s only-ever hyper power and the largest navy. Now the situation is very different, we are a declining power in the world, if we are to continue to exert influence on the global scale we must be part of something. The EU is the perfect institution to be part of; Europe is our closest neighbour and the world’s largest economy. If we are to move forward, we must recognise that we cannot move alone anymore, we have to ally ourselves with Europe.

Review - Newsnight

Newsnight is the flagship BBC political programme that runs on BBC Two from 10:30 – 11:20 Monday – Thursday and 10:30 – 11:00 on Friday.  It is presented on Monday – Wednesday by Jeremy Paxman, on Thursday by Kirsty Wark and on Friday by Gavin Esler.

Newsnight is a great programme to watch if you wish to understand politics in the United Kingdom and abroad. Newsnight has in-depth analysis of the current news and actually breaks many stories. This year alone Newsnight won the Programme of the Year Award and its economics editor, Paul Mason, won the specialist journalist of the year award at the Royal Society Television Awards.

Usually in Newsnight a segment is opened by one of the editors (for example the politics editor Allegra Stratton) who speak about a particular current issue in their field. After a short film, attention returns to the studio where a number of expert guests have gathered to discuss the issue.

What Newsnight does better than any other programme is quizzing politicians, Paxman is notorious for making sure they answer the difficult questions. If you can withstand an interview with Paxman, you are a very skilled speaker.

Watching Newsnight is necessary viewing for anyone interested in politics or economics. It is also great that it is on the BBC as you don’t have any advertisement breaks or  bias. I would suggest that you watch Newsnight at least once per week!

BBC Newsnight title card

Review: The Rachel Maddow Show

This is currently my favourite US political show, I have been watching the Rachel Maddow Show online for about six months now and I believe it is the best place to go if you want to find out what is going on in America from a Liberal’s perspective.

Rachel Maddow uses humour and whit to take apart, bit by bit, Republican and Conservative ideas. She often calls out the Republicans on their lying, especially presidential candidate Mitt Romney. She is one of the few commentators that appears to be paying any attention to the situation in Michigan where democracy itself is at stake. Every night there are a range of experts appearing on her programme to chat about the latest issue affecting America. Unfortunately, Republicans to not appear on her show frequently. The reason: They hate her. Republicans do not appear to like the fact that Rachel frequently exposes lies and half-truths that the GOP tells. If only the whole media were as intelligent as she is.

One of my favourite features of the show is “The Best New Thing in the World Today”, which is a piece of good news from around the globe to brighten your day. Another favourite feature of mine is “Debunktion junction”, in this feature Rachel will make a statement that is obviously true or false and then proceed to tell you why the obvious answer is in fact, wrong.

The Rachel Maddow Show goes out on MSNBC at 9:00pm Eastern. You can also watch it online here.

Although I fear she will never attempt it, any run by Rachel Maddow for presidency would get my support!

Rachel Maddow in her Studio in New York

Oh what to do about Ron Paul?

If you have been paying even the remotest bit of attention to American politics, you would know by now that Obama’s Republican challenger is Mitt Romney. Romney has won enough delegates to secure his nomination at the Republican Party Convention in Tampa, Florida. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have already suspended their campaigns and endorsed Mitt Romney for President. The establishment of the party has well and truly lined up behind Romney, with one major exception: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has not endorsed Mitt Romney, nor has he dropped out of the race either. Although Paul is not going to beat Romney to win the nomination, it is still an embarrassment to the Republican Party. Ron Paul has always been on the fringes of the Republican Party, Libertarians have never been truly Republican but nonetheless every election Ron Paul runs in the primary season.

This year Ron Paul may actual go to the convention, if Ron Paul wins the majority of delegates in the Nebraska State Convention, he will be eligible to be nominated for the Republican choice for President! He needs a plurality of delegates in at least five states, he already has the majority in Maine, Iowa and Minnesota. It is looking likely that he will also do so in Louisiana.

What this will result in would be Ron Paul would have a 15 minute speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida! There would also have to be voting in which Ron Paul would take a sizeable proportion of the votes. Although nobody anywhere can deny that Mitt Romney will be the eventual Republican nomination for president, it is still embarrassing for him to face opposition within in his own party at this late stage. No doubt the Obama campaign will use this against Mitt Romney in the television debates and other such occasions.

Watch carefully for the results of the Nebraska primary tonight or tomorrow (depending on how long it takes and where in the world you are), it could be a victory for Paul!

Massacre in Tremseh, Syria

Yesterday say the worst massacre of the Syrian Troubles. The village of Tremseh was attacked by government troops, first by helicopters and other heavy weapons. Afterwards the militia went in and massacred up to 250 people, making it the worst massacre of the whole Syrian crisis, more than double the amount that died in Houla.

The government has claimed that they did not target civilians and that all those who died were rebel fighters. And although it is true that a sizeable proportion of the dead appear to be men of fighting age, unverified footage shows the corpse of a baby. Unless Syrian society works different to my own, babies don’t tend to be rebel fighters. If you needed any more proof that that the Assad regime is full of liars, well I have more information to convince you. Today state controlled television in Syria originally claimed that “armed gangs” had been responsible for the killing of innocent civilians in Tremseh. Later that evening they had changed their mind over what lie to tell; instead they decided that the massacre was committed by the government because it was completely legitimate.

You may realise that I am rather fed up with the Syrian fighting. I’m also fed up with the West’s non-action. I don’t give a damn what we have to do, we need to do something. Supply the rebels with arms, or get a UN peacekeeping mission. We cannot allow for thousands of innocent people to be killed whilst we play politics with Russia and China.   

Worries Raised over London Olympics

Worries over the security of the Olympics have been raised this week with the news that the company contracted by the government to hire security staff to protect the Olympic venues will be unable to meet the required amount of persons. As a result 3,500 soldiers have been put on standby in what has become the biggest peacetime operation the UK has ever performed.

People are becoming worried that the games are going to have too large a military presence, already rockets are being placed on people’s homes in the East End and a military ship will be stationed in the Thames at all times. Personally I understand why London 2012 needs such a large and visible military presence, unlike Beijing in 2008 and Athens in 2004, London is a much more at risk of a terrorist attack. The United Kingdom is one of the biggest terror targets in the world, second only to the United States. The terrorists must be forced to believe that they cannot win, and that if they are going to attack London, do so another day.

Most likely the Olympics will go off with absolutely no troubles, but there will be a whole myriad of groups who wish to disrupt the games and kill innocent people. We must do everything in our power to make sure that never happens.

LIBOR Scandal to go Global

The LIBOR scandal that hit Barclays could be about to go global, it is already known that many major financial institutions are under investigation over falsely influencing LIBOR. In America, JP Morgan Chase, Citi Group and Bank of America are all under investigation for it. It is believed that the fines levied at Barclays could be dwarfed by those levelled on these institutions, and other banks under investigation.

But the major problem for the banks might not be the fines themselves, Barclays’ fine of £270 million could be made back in a matter of weeks. Firstly the banking sector will take a massive nosedive in public trust and confidence, still recovering from the 2008 crisis. More worryingly for the banks could be the lawsuits arising from the scandal, many people’s loans and complex financial arrangements could have been badly affected by the rate fixing and as result could be eligible to sue the banks.

Professor of finance at Stanford University’s Business School believes that lawsuits arising from the LIBOR scandal could cost the banks billions of pounds, perhaps tens of billions of pounds! This would completely dwarf the payments made over PPI.

Another major problem for the banks will be the devastation to their top staff, at Barclays three major executives at the bank have lost their jobs, chief operating officer, Jerry Del Missier, Chairman, Marcus Agius and CEO Bob Diamond. If this spreads to other institutions the whole top class of bankers will vanish almost instantly. Personally, I won’t miss them. Although the banks might.

Although it is very difficult to predict what will be the outcome, considering that Barclays is the only bank that has confessed to any wrongdoing. The outcome has already been seismic here in the UK, if it spreads to German, Swiss and American banks, this will be the Banking Crisis Mark II.

Osborne Should Apologise

Yesterday a huge blow was dealt to the integrity of the chancellor George Osborne. The Treasury Select Committee had called Paul Tucker, who you should remember as the man that Barclays’ claimed instructed them to fix the LIBOR rate. In an interview with the Spectator Magazine, the chancellor had claimed that Labour ministers were clearly involved in instructing Paul Tucker to tell Barclays’ that their borrowing rate need not be as low. To be specific Osborne accused Ed Balls of involvement saying “he [Ed Balls] clearly has questions to answer.” This provoked a furious reaction in the House of Commons the next day as Ed Balls demanded that Osborne produce evidence to back up his claim, which Osborne was unable to do.

At the select committee hearing, Tucker said that Labour ministers had “absolutely not” instructed him to tell Barclays’ to fix the LIBOR rate. This completely clears Balls and the rest of the Labour party in the eyes of most people; as a result the Labour Party has demanded that Osborne issue a full, public apology. I highly doubt that Osborne will do this; instead he will rhyme off some excuses and try to ignore the issue.

Most people believe that Osborne was trying to regain some of his reputation that he lost following the disastrous budget. Instead he has managed to lose more of it, by falsely accusing a senior Labour minister of wrongdoing; Osborne has shown himself to be an idiot. He will pay for this mistake dearly.

Elections in Libya

In 1969 Colonel Gaddafi took control of Libya, and for the next 41 years there were no elections. This has finally changed as yesterday Libyans took to the polls for the first time since overthrowing Gaddafi last year. Over 100 political parties are vying for seats in the 200 strong parliament, the parliament will then begin to draft a constitution and select a leader. The constitution will then be voted on in a referendum.

So far, everything seems to be going rather smoothly, even in Gaddafi loyalist areas voter turnout has been remarkably high. The election has also been marked with relatively low violence, particularly in the East around Tripoli. In Benghazi on the other hand there have been a few attacks on polling stations and skirmishes with the police, but nothing major.

The National Transitional Council has promised to hand over power as soon as a government is formed, which will take a few weeks as vote counting will take quite a long time and one party is unlikely to receive a majority. Yet if a stable government is formed there will be many challenges for it, central government is currently very week and armed militia are the de-facto government in rural areas.

Despite the challenges ahead, things are looking bright for Libya. The vast oil wealth will be able to prop up the civilian government against terrorists and will allow Libya to be rebuilt. Let’s hope the revolution will turn into a shining success, like those in Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War.

Problems for Obama

Unfortunately for Obama, the employment figures yesterday were not good. During the month of June only 80,000 jobs were added, considering there are over 12 million Americans unemployed, this is a very small figure.

The problem for Obama is that this is the third month in a row of poor job creation, nothing compared to the jobs added at the start of the year. This is bad news for Obama as the election is only four months away, if serious job creation doesn’t begin soon then Obama will be in big trouble. Since the great depression, no President has survived re-election when the unemployment rate has been about 8%, it currently stands at 8.2%.

This has been a great chance for the Mitt Romney campaign, after the Supreme Court healthcare ruling the campaign was a muddled mess. This is a chance for them to take back the narrative from the Obama campaign, but talking about the economy isn’t always going to be easy for Romney. His one stint as a public employee, as governor of Massachusetts, was marked by very poor job creation and a serious decline in manufacturing jobs. Although Obama’s recent job record hasn’t been great, at least he’s been adding jobs. Mitt Romney lost more jobs as governor than gained, and Obama has four months to do better than him.

The problem for Obama is there is nothing much he can do. He doesn’t really have time considering there’s the summer recess. Oh, and the fact the Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy the economy so Obama doesn’t win re-election. Unfortunately for Obama the Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Republicans can also filibuster anything passed in the Senate. This has seriously hampered Obama in his first term, as the Republicans have always had enough Senators to filibuster and Obama-legislation.

Unfortunately, when the Obama campaign tries to vocalise the Republicans-are-tanking-the-economy rhetoric, it just sounds like they are making excuses for Obama’s failures. It also doesn’t help Obama’s image of trying to stretch across the isle to the Republicans.

Whatever happens, the next four months of job creation (or loss), will be extremely influential in deciding who takes the inauguration oath next year. 

Osborne Clashes With Balls

The House of Commons were pretty heated yesterday between the chancellor, George Osborne, and the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls. It all comes down to yesterday’s issue of the Spectator Magazine in which it interviewed Osborne. During the interview Osborne accused Balls of being directly involved in the LIBOR fixing scandal at Barclays, along with other senior advisors and ministers in Gordon Brown’s cabinet. He did this, with no evidence whatsoever.

This also took place in the context of the vote over whether there should be a judge led inquiry or a parliamentary inquiry. Labour is still advocating a judge-led inquiry whilst the Tories want the parliamentary version. The Tories did win the vote in the Commons, and Labour has promised to co-operate. The difference between the two types of inquiry is that the judge-led inquiry would reach deeper, look into the whole of the banking sector (rather than just the Barclays’ LIBOR scandal) and take longer. With this in mind it seems bizarre that the Tories are accusing Labour of trying to cover up the Barclays’ scandal. The Tories believe that the Labour may be implicit due to the recently leaked memo and the fact that Labour was in charge of the country whilst it happened. If Labour really were trying to cover up the Barclays’ scandal, why would they be advocating the more intrusive inquiry that would be more likely to uncover Labour wrongdoing?

The Front Cover of the Spectator titled: J'accuse

Syrian Conflict Continues

The violence in Syria is worse than most people realise according to a new report from Human Rights Watch. Research by the organisation has found that people detained by the Syrian government were tortured extremely harshly, detainees were beaten, burned with acid and sexually abused. The report also claims that torture in institutional, sanctioned by the highest levels of the Syrian government. The organisation is calling for the International Criminal Court to call for the arrest of top level Syrian officials, in a similar style to what it did for Colonel Gaddafi and his family. The only problem with this is that Russia, Syria’s ally, could (and would) block any attempt to do so.

To anyone who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the Syrian conflict, this will come as no surprise. But nonetheless it helps to apply pressure to Syria’s few remaining allies to abandon the Assad regime and back Arab and Western Nations proposals for regime change.

I still believe that the best thing that the UN could do, would be a UN peacekeeping mission that would try and reconcile both sides, this could plausibly get Russia on side and would be appealing to the West. Although I believe regime change is inevitable, a peacekeeping force would be the first step towards such an event.

Syrian Conflict has destroyed the country
Source: Wall Street Journal

Cameron Calls Inquiry into the Banks

The Prime Minister has called a parliamentary inquiry into the Barclays’ LIBOR scandal, it will be able to question people under oath and call in politicians, bankers and other groups of people. Labour has disagreed with this move, when speaking in the House of Commons yesterday Ed Miliband said “We will continue to argue for a full and open inquiry, independent of bankers and independent of politicians.” Unlike David Cameron, Miliband and the Labour party want a Leveson-style inquiry into the whole of the banking sector.

The inquiry would be chaired by a judge and would be completely independent of parliament. It would not only look into the LIBOR scandal at Barclays but would look at the ethics and culture of the whole City of London. It would question big names from all banks as well as politicians and investors.

Confidence in the banking sector has reached record lows, having never really recovered from the dent to its reputation brought by the financial crash. Worse still for the sector is its reputation will only go down, the LIBOR scandal will almost certainly spread to other banks such as RBS.

Yesterday Osborne also announced in parliament that the fines brought on Barclays would go towards the public purse instead of into regulating the City. There is also huge pressure on the British investigators to levy higher fines on any other banks implicated in the LIBOR scandal. Many people believe that the fine levelled on Barclays by City regulators was simply too small, you have to remember that Barclays could easily claw that back in a few days trading.

                                          

The way forward for the banking sector is unclear, but I do believe it will have to involve tighter regulations. After all, lose regulations were what caused the financial crash, and loosening them won’t solve it. 

The Banking Crisis Mark II

This truly has been the worst week for the banks since 2008. So far this week RBS has had problems with customers’ accounts, Barclays has endured the LIBOR scandal and now all four big banks (RBS, Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds) have been found guilty of miss-selling complex financial products to small businesses.

The miss-selling scandal has caused many small businesses serious trouble as they struggle to keep up with payments to the banks. The City watchdog has now instructed the banks to cancel any contracts that were miss-sold and reimburse some businesses if necessary.

Worse thing is this new banking crisis is still not over; American and British investigators are still looking in to the LIBOR scandal. They believe that it was not limited to just Barclays; this could be a sector-wide scandal encompassing many banks.

Today Vince Cable has called for a criminal investigation into the scandal at Barclays, commenting in an interview with Sky, Cable said “They [the public] just can’t understand why people are thrown into jail for petty theft and these guys just walk away having perpetrated what looks like a conspiracy.” The business secretary also said that he believed the public would back a criminal investigation as the banks are increasingly unpopular.

The Prime Minister has rejected a call from Labour to call a Leveson-style inquiry into the banking sector, believing it is not necessary. But don’t give up hope! He also said there would be no inquiry into the press and look how that turned out. Personally I agree with Labour, there should be an inquiry. I believe the Leveson Inquiry has been a success, it has shown the public all the bad things the press have done. Now imagine what a banking inquiry would do! Ordinary people are directly affected by banking; almost all UK adults will have multiple bank accounts. We should know what the banks are doing with our money, the risks they are taking and the devious schemes through which they try to make money. We need a banking inquiry as soon as possible, to try and stop “bad banking” and help “good banking” to thrive.