Old World Order - UK

Population: 63 million
Area: 243,000km2
GDP: $2.4 trillion
GDP (per capita): $36,000
United Nations Security Council Veto: Yes

The Pax Britannica is long dead and buried, but Britain is still a major power broker on the world stage. Britain had veto power on the UN Security Council and has the fourth largest military expenditure in the world. It is also a member of globally important organisations such as the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth. 

The primary problem for Britain is the economy, ours is currently stagnating and many countries' economies are expected to overtake it. It's difficult to find long term predictions of where economies will be due to the volatile nature of markets and the current global uncertainty. One way is to look at countries that are larger than the UK (in terms of population) but that are currently much poorer. The UK is currently the 22nd largest in the world and expected to still be the 22nd largest in 2050 (France and Thailand are expected to drop below whilst Uganda and Sudan are expected to overtake it). To stop it from declining Britain must have a strong economy or it will risk losing its status as a great power for the first time since the term's inception at the Congress of Vienna in 1819. 

One way the UK can help its economy is by reducing its dependency on oil in favour of renewable resources. As more countries develop, the demand for oil will increase whilst the supply will dry up as current oil fields are emptied. This will cause a price spike and severe damage to any economy too dependent on oil. The UK is brilliantly placed for harvesting wind energy offshore, often cited as one of the best in the world and the best in Europe. Of the 25 largest offshore wind farms in the world, 14 are British, in 2013 Britain produced the 6th most wind energy with 5% of the National Grid being supplied by wind power. 14 more wind farms are planned to open in the next several years. Currently the UK produces 8,445 MW of wind energy, by 2020 that is expected to rise to 28,000 MW!

One of the reasons I fear the rise of glop is the fact that they wish to loosen our ties with the rest of the world. I often hear Nigel Farage and other UKIP supporters accuse the pro-EU side of living in the past. This is a ridiculous accusation, we recognise that we need to improve our ties abroad if we are to continue to succeed. They seem to be living in the past, well I've got news for them, it's not the 1800s, the Empire is gone and we are not the world's largest economy, we cannot afford splendid isolation. Britain is uniquely well placed in terms of forming alliances. We are America's closest ally, a country that will remain a superpower for a long time. We are a European nation, the most powerful collection of countries. We are also a member of the Commonwealth, other members include rising stars with as India and South Africa. 

At the moment, Britain's future is uncertain.  Unfortunately Britain faces a future in which its power is reduced to nil, by not existing! The independence movement in Scotland recently got a boost when it was announced that the Scottish old be given the option to go alone in 2014. Currently polls show this unlikely to happen, but it is still possible. If Scotland were to achieve independence in 2014 then it would likely set off the nationalists on Northern Ireland, leading to a united Ireland.  Wales and England would then be left together, and although Welsh nationalism is significantly weaker than Scottish or Irish nationalism, the disappearance of half the countries in the UK would lead to an independent Wales. 

To sum up, the UK is threatened by three problems; the economy, isolationism (primarily euro-scepticism) and nationalism. The seeds of the United Kingdom's destruction have been sowed, but it does not beam they cannot be uprooted. If the UK can return its economy to success, nationalism will lose its zeal and isolationism will look less attractive.

The Old World Order - USA

Population: 315 million
Area: 9.8 million km2
GDP: $15.6 trillion
GDP (per capita): $50,000
UN Security Council Veto?: Yes

America is undoubtably the world's leading power and with a GDP of $15.6 trillion and higher military spending than the next 10 countries combined, it's easy to see why. Although I am predicting a decline in American influence, I certainly do not believe that it will be as extreme as other countries. America is the third largest country by population and still growing, the 2010 census showed America's population rising by 9.7% since the 2000 census. By 2050 America is predicted to have a population of around 400 million people, 100 million more than today. The US also has a wealth of resources with over 20 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the 13th largest in the world. It also has plenty of land ripe for renewable energy.

So nobody is in doubt that America will remain powerful, just not the hegemon it currently is. The main rivalries will likely be China and India.

So what is America's biggest challenge? The economy. Like almost all Western nations, America's economy is still hurting from the 2007/2008 crash and things are looking dangerous ahead. The situation in the bloated banking sector has gotten worse not better, the "too big to fail" banks are now 30% bigger than the were pre-crash. America also has the most public debt in the world, over $16 trillion of it, which is a lot. This has major consequences for America as it means, China, the largest single holder of American public debt, has undue influence over it. This could become particularly problematic when China and the US negotiate deals in the future. Another, very new, problem is American governance: it's broken. Rapport between Democrats and Republicans is at an all time low, neither side trust each other and will often refuse to negotiate with each other. This is particularly true on the Republican side, currently it is controlled by the radical Tea Party base who treat compromise as a cardinal sin. All this hyper-partisanship is really problematic when both parties control at least one of the vestiges of power (the House, Senate or presidency), as all three have veto power.

If America does not get its finances and system of governance in order, it's in for a seriously rocky road in the future. 

The Old World Order

It's been a year since I wrote about the rise of developing nations, a "New World Order" of sorts. I looked into five countries, and Africa, and how rapidly they were rising and what challenges they were facing. The countries I reviewed were:

1. China
2. India
3. Brazil
4. Mexico
5. Indonesia

This year I have decided to look into the countries that are currently at the top. The countries that will be faced with a lower influence in the world as other countries overtake them. I looked into how the "Old World Order" might manage its decline, or perhaps reverse it! Over the next few days I will be discussing the following countries as well as Europe:

1. United States of America
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Germany
5. Japan
6. Italy
7. Canada

Old World Order countries in red, Europe in green

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Delaware

Without a doubt Republican action in Delaware in 2010 ranks as the most idiotic of the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. Of the races I've written about so far a lot of the really stupid stuff the candidates said came after they won the primary. Delaware is a very different situation, which is why it takes the title of dumbest Republican moves in 2010 and 2012.

Michael Castle
source: www.wikipedia.org

In the Republican primary in 2010 the voters were faced with two choices, a moderate Michael Castle and a Tea Party radical Christine O'Donnell. Considering the deep blue nature of Delaware you might think it doesn't matter who the Republicans choose as they are going to lose anyway. Well Michael Castle was not just any moderate Republican, he was extremely popular in Delaware. In fact he had won 12 statewide votes prior to 2010, never losing. In 1980 he won the lieutenant governorship and the governorship in 1984 and 1988. He then went on to win Delaware's At-Large district from 1992 - 2008. The lowest percentage he got as representative was 57% in 1992. He was so popular in the state that in 2008 when Republicans were being obliterated nationwide and when Obama won 71% of the vote in Delaware, Castle still won, also with 71% of the vote. So what sort of résumé did Christine O'Donnell have that the GOP chose her over Castle? Well in 2008 when running for the same Senate seat, O'Donnell lost to Biden by almost 30%. If it doesn't seem stupid enough already, early polls showed Castle beating Democrat Chris Coons by 20%.

If that's not bad enough, O'Donnell also said some pretty crazy stuff. She said masturbation was the same as adultery, there were weekly school shootings after prayer was removed from school (it was never in schools), insulted Castle's manhood, claimed that God audibly spoke to her and told her of his support, evolution is myth and that the government is 50% of the economy. Despite all these crazy comments and beliefs, I've saved the best two for last.

At one point O'Donnell admitted to having dabbled in witchcraft and that one of her first dates took place on a Satanic Altar. These comments led to the creepiest campaign advertisement of all time. Watch it here.

My personal favourite O'Donnell quote was on she said to Bill O'Reilly on his show whilst they were discussing monkey cloning.

" American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."

Yeah, she seriously said that!

O'Donnell eventually lost to Democrat Chris Coons by 17 points in a race they were sure to win if they had chosen Castle.

Christine O'Donnell
source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Indiana

The runner-up to the worst mistake of Republicans in 2010 and 2012 is that of their actions in Indiana.

Republican Richard 'Dick' Lugar had held the Indiana Senate Seat since 1976 and was highly popular in Indiana. In fact the lowest percentage he won the seat by was in 1982 when he won only 54% of the vote. The last time he won the seat was in 2006, this was a year Democrats knew they were going to do very well in as the Republicans were very unpopular. In the 2006 Democrats managed to defeat six incumbent Republicans. Despite the unpopularity of Republicans, Democrats knew that they had no hope of defeating the extremely popular Dick Lugar and didn't run anyone against him. In the 2006 election Lugar won 87% of the vote.

Six-term Senator, Dick Lugar
source: www.wikipedia.org

 The only problem for Republicans, he was a moderate. Lugar had a history of bi-partisanship, always prepared to reach across the aisle to Democrats. His votes to confirm SCOTUS nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both liberals appointed by Obama. His support for the DREAM Act and START Treaty further infuriated the Tea Party base. Not helping Lugar was his anti-gun record, epitomised by his F rating from the NRA.

These votes and his friendliness with Democrats meant that Tea Party backed Richard Mourdock decided to challenge him in the Republican primary. Mourdock was successful, garnering 61% of the primary vote. Unlike Alaska in 2010 when Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary but Murkowski went on to win the General Election as a write-in candidate, Indiana law prevented Lugar from doing the same.

Republicans probably thought that their gamble would pay off, but to their disappointment the Democrats found a strong candidate in Joe Donnelly. For most of the campaign Donnelly and Mourdock were tied, until Mourdock torpedoed his own campaign in a debate. Just weeks before the election Mourdock was asked about abortion he said the following:

"Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

A lot of people took that to mean that God intended for a women to be raped. Opps. His campaign bombed after this and he went on to lose election by 6%. You can watch the video here.

Failed Senate candidate, Richard Mourdock
source: www.globalsolutions.org

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Missouri

Missouri is placed third in my rankings of worst Republican mistakes of 2010 and 2012, behind only Indiana and Delaware. Despite Missouri placing third, it is probably the best known political gaffe in 2010 and 2012.

Before 2012 many people identified incumbent Senator, Claire McCaskill, as the most vulnerable incumbent in the 2012 cycle, representing a state that had gotten redder since she won her seat in 2006. Then Republicans made the same mistake they made all across the country and chose the weakest candidate, Todd Akin. But here's where the race differed to others, McCaskill and the Democrats helped Akin to win! They identified Akin as the weakest candidate and ran ads calling him a "true conservative", which helped him to win the Republican Primary.

Despite being the weakest candidate, things were going well for Akin, who was steaming ahead in the polls. Some polls even showed him to be up by 11 points! Then came the now infamous interview on the 12th of August when he made hideous comments concerning rape and pregnancy:

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

As well as being just plain wrong, Akin unleashed upon himself the fury of the female voters. Many Republicans recognised that he had just torpedoed his own campaign and called for him to resign. If Akin stepped down before a certain date then Republicans would be able to install someone else in time for the election. Akin refused and as the date approached they got increasingly vocal in asking him to step down but he stood firm. This was hugely problematic for Republicans as they were now stuck with a candidate who would lose an unloseable seat. Their vocal calls for him to step aside were also not helpful as it meant that everyone in Missouri knew what he had said.

Claire McCaskill went on to beat Todd Akin by 15.5%. Not since 1994 has someone lost the seat that badly. Opps.

If Akin hadn't made those ridiculous comments, he likely would
be a US Senator right now.
source: www.nymag.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Nevada

In 2010 the Republicans had a brilliant opportunity to humiliate the Democrats by defeating their Senate leader, Harry Reid. This is one of the screw-ups when you can't blame Republican primary voters. At the time Reid's approval rating was below 40%, so it was hard to see how he possibly could win. Immediately following the primaries, the Republican candidate Sharron Angle was leading Reid by double digits! The failure of her campaign is entirely on her.

Angle was a Tea Party hardliner who decimated the Republican Party's chances of taking Nevada. During the campaign she said some crazy things, and as people looked deeper you found out that this wasn't a new thing. During the campaign she was notorious for avoiding the press, much to Nevadans' annoyance. Considering her experiences when talking in public, it's not surprising. She claimed that it was not her job to help Nevada. Seriously. She also claimed that the towns of Dearborn, Michigan and Frankford, Texas had been taken over by Sharia Law and said that she opposed unemployment benefits. In 2009 she mocked covering autism in health insurance and claimed that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada! Yet in my view her most outrageous remark came at the expense of Harry Reid. The quote is:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

This sent shock waves through Nevada as people saw that comment as an attempt to get someone to assassinate Harry Reid! Angle's crazy comments proved too much for the people of Nevada and Reid won re-election, beating Angle by 6%.

Sharron Angle messed up a certain Republican win
source: www.alan.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Colorado

During the Republican wave of 2010, Colorado was in the firing line for Republicans who hoped to take the seat from incumbent Michael Bennet. Unfortunately for Republicans they chose a Tea Party radical, Ken Buck, which is a very dangerous thing to do in a purple state.

The primary cause for Buck's defeat was his inability to attract female voters. During the primary campaign he told a crowd of people that they should vote for him because "I do not wear high heels". The comment was seen as an attack on the fact that his opponent, Jane Norton, was a woman. Bennet did an excellent job of attacking Buck on his pro-life stance. Buck had said that he opposed abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest! Going hard on reproductive rights helped Bennet beat Buck by 17 points amongst female voters! Buck is also bizarrely opposed to the 17th amendment, which makes Senators directly elected from the voters rather than from the States' Houses of Representatives.

In the General Election Bennet beat Buck by less than 2%. Considering how radical Buck was, it is easy to see how Republicans could have won the seat. It they'd only chosen someone less extreme, like Jane Norton, this seat would likely be theirs.

Ken Buck made sure Republicans lost Colorado in 2010
source: www.huffingtonpost.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Maine

In many ways Maine represents something going on in the Republican Party, the chasing out of moderates. The incumbent Senator was Olympia Snowe, a very popular Republican, despite Maine's blue nature.

Snowe was eager to pursue bi-partisan measures and was always prepared to compromise with Democrats. For this reason Time magazine rated her as one of the top 10 US Senators. During her tenure she voted for Obama's stimulus, against Bush's 2003 tax cuts and voted to end the filibuster of Obamacare which led to it becoming law. This put her at odds with the Tea Party, who pledged to primary her in the 2012 election. Eventually Snowe decided that she'd had enough and announced she would not be running for re-election. She cited the hyper-partisanship leading to a dysfunctional congress as the reason she was retiring.

So the Tea Party drove Snowe out of the Senate. Snowe had won re-election in 2006 with 74% of the vote. If they hadn't driven her out, she would have almost certainly won re-election. Instead the seat is now held by Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Olympia Snowe epitomises the exodus of moderates from
the Republican Party.
source: www.dailykos.com

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - Ohio

Republicans should have been able to defeat incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown in 2012. Ohio is a purple state, which means it tends to like moderates from either party, rather than those who are on the more extreme edge of their parties. Brown is frequently named as one of the most liberal Senators, which puts him to the left of his state. This gave Republicans an excellent opportunity to pick up the Buckeye state.

Unfortunately for Republicans they chose a rather weak candidate in state treasurer, Josh Mandel. This race is the only on I will be reviewing in which Republican attitude to rape and abortion did not contribute in a major way to why they lost. One of the major reasons for Mandel's poor performance was his "casual relationship with the truth", as Politifact put it, and his refusal to back down. Mandel largely came across as totally inexperienced compared with Brown's 37 years as an elected official.

To be honest another reason for Mandel losing is how he looks. Mandel looks like he's just finished school, despite being 35, which would have put a lot of people off voting for him by thinking he's younger and more inexperienced than he actually is. I know it appears mean of me to bring up how someone looks, but we all know that in politics, image is everything.

Brown went on to beat Mandel by 6% in the November election.

Republican Senate Screw-Ups - North Dakota

I've decided to post about North Dakota first as I believe that the Republican screw-up  was less severe than in other races. The fact that Republicans lost the seat was more to do with the strength of the Democratic candidate, Heidi Heitkamp, than the weakness of the  Republican candidate, Rick Berg. Nonetheless Berg wasn't without fault. Following the Todd Akin scandal in Missouri, the local Fox affiliate in North Dakota decided to ask Berg what his abortion views were.

Berg said that he was pro-life and that the only exception would be the life of the mother, not even rape. This infuriated many North Dakotan women who felt this was a horrible position. When the host asked Berg what punishment women would receive if they had an abortion Berg wouldn't give an answer. He said that the punishment would need to be worked on in a legislative process. Berg seemed to forget that he was running to be part of the legislative process and that he sort of needed to give an opinion. The question made him look weak and a fool.

Berg also took hits because of his extraordinary wealth - he's one of the wealthiest congressmen and that came back to haunt him. He became linked with a property management company with a dubious record.

In the end Berg lost to Heitkamp by only 0.92%, which corresponds to 2,936 votes. It's easy to see how, if he'd just been a little better, he would have won in red state North Dakota.

Heitkamp (left) narrowly beat Berg (right) in the North Dakota Senate Race
source: www.bigstory.ap.org

Why the Republicans Don't Control the Senate

If you'd asked any political pundit in January 2010, they would have told you that Republicans would have control of the Senate by the end of the year, and in 2012 they would expand that lead. It seemed like a logical assumption, Republicans were riding on a wave of popularity in 2010, so were sure to pick up enough seats in 2010. 2012 was going to be a good year also for Republicans as there were a large amount of red state Democrats. So what went wrong? Republicans have only 46 seats to the Democrats' 54 (this includes two independents who caucus with the Democrats). What could have happened to screw up Republican hopes so badly? Well largely Republicans shot themselves in the foot, in several races they chose a candidate who made crazy comments and ended up losing. Over the next few days I will analyse eight Senate races in 2010 and 2012 and explain where the Republicans went wrong in each race. The states I will analyse are as follows:

1. North Dakota - 2012

2. Ohio - 2012

3. Maine - 2012

4. Colorado - 2010

5. Nevada - 2010

6. Missouri - 2012

7. Indiana - 2012

8. Delaware 2010

Gay Marriage Legal in UK

The UK has become the 16th country to legalise same-sex marriage, although the law will only apply to England & Wales. The bill passed its final democratic hurdle on Tuesday when the House of Commons agreed to some minor amendments that were made in the House of Lords. It was given Royal Assent yesterday by the Queen and will go into affect in mid-2014. The bill represents the massive progress made by gay rights in the UK in the last 10 or so years. In 2000 the armed forces removed the ban on LGBT persons serving openly in the military, in 2001 the age of consent was equalised with straight sex (16). In 2005 transgender people were legally allowed to change their gender, gay adoption rights were equalised and civil unions legalised. In 2010 all discrimination protections were extended to LGBT people. This progress already made is the reason why the ILGA rated the UK as the best place to be gay in Europe, with a 77% progress score. This will likely rise in 2014 with the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

In an international context it should be noted that England & Wales has become the 18th jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage in 2013. It should be noted that 41 jurisdictions had legalised same-sex marriage prior to 2013. Same-sex marriage is truly becoming an avalanche with Soctland, Nepal and Luxembourg all working on same-sex marriage bills as well as Illinois, Nevada, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. There are also numerous governments worldwide claiming support for same-sex marriage rights.

Zimmerman Found NOT Guilty

If you live in America you will know of the Zimmerman trial, if not then I can only assume you've been living under a rock for the past year and a half. If you are from outside of America you may be wondering why the shooting of a teenager is getting so much media attention considering that in 2012 over 9,000 were killed with firearms in the United States. The reason for all the attention is that people believe that racism played a part.

If you don't know what happened, here's a rundown. Trayvon Martin was a black 17 year old who was staying with his father and his father's fiancée in the fiancée's house. The house was located in a gated community where George Zimmerman also lived. On the night of the 26th of February 2012 Trayvon went out to buy some skittles and iced-tea, on his way home he was spotted by Zimmerman who thought he looked suspicious. Zimmerman called the police to report the 'suspicious figure'. Zimmerman then preceded to follow Trayvon despite the police dispatcher telling him not to. A few minutes later Zimmerman and Trayvon would have a confrontation which would leave Trayvon dead. One witness reported to see Zimmerman on top of Trayvon during the confrontation, another phoned police when she heard screaming; that call has since been released to the public and you can clearly hear the screaming cut short following a gunshot - implying that it was Trayvon screaming.

What really set liberal America off though was the fact that police did not initially arrest Zimmerman. It was made worse when it was revealed that the police had performed a toxicology report on the victim, rather than the perpetrator, and looked into the victim's criminal record, rather than the perpetrator.

Eventually on the 11th of April 2012, Zimmerman was finally arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Today the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.

Racism is alive and well folks, don't be fooled.

Trayvon Martin who was shot and killed
at just 17.
Source: www.wikipedia.org

MPs to Get Pay Rise

Despite an ailing economy, harsh austerity and stagnant or shrinking wages for ordinary people, MPs may get a pay rise. This has infuriated the public who already don't have a lot of respect for MPs and believe that higher wages could encourage corruption. The regulator, which took control of MPs wages in 2010, argues that the rise is worthwhile. The regulator points out that other changes, such as lower pensions, cuts to expenses such as food and taxis, and lower payouts to MPs who lose their seats, negates part of the extra cost to the taxpayer. Nonetheless I believe that this is all disgraceful, you cannot say "we're all in this together" when you are cutting people's wages and then give yourself a 10% raise!

I would argue against high wages for politicians in general as it encourages the wrong kind of people into politics. We want our elected officials to care more about serving their constituents than about how much money they get. When people point out that currently British politicians get paid less than most other Western politicians, that doesn't make me sad, it makes me proud to be British!

Chaos Returns to Egypt

Egypt has been plunged into chaos since President Morsi was deposed earlier this week and much of the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood was arrested. Egypt is split over whether to support the actions of the army, initially Morsi opponents spilled onto the streets, letting off fireworks and cheering with joy. The Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are distraught and have since poured onto the streets to show their rejection of the army's actions. Some protests have turned violent and over 70 protesters have been killed in clashes with the army and security forces. The next few weeks will be extremely important for Egypt's future as the Muslim Brotherhood continues to protest and the army continues to crack down on them. The army has called for fresh elections to the presidency and parliament and a re-drawing of the constitution.

New elections will give the secularist left a chance to steal the revolution back from the Islamists. The left was totally disorganised at the last election in 2012 with no uniting candidate for President. This meant that the run-off for president was between Ahmed Shafik and Mohammed Morsi. Shafik had been the final Prime Minister under Mubarak and Morsi had the backing of the 85 year old Muslim Brotherhood, so both were considerably better organised than the disorientated left.

If Egypt actually makes it to the next election in a peaceful state then we can only hole that the President Egypt chooses is not an Islamists or a Mubarak crony but rather a force for change.