Rise of German Neo-Nazis

In Germany there is the worrying rise of Neo-Nazis, although they don’t call themselves the Neo-Nazis, rather “The Free Forces” or “The Immortals” along with numerous other groupings. This trend is epitomised in the 12 murders committed by the National Socialist Underground between 2001-2007 and the NPD (the legal wing of the far-right movement) getting seats as elected officials.

Germany’s post-war constitution is based on a “never again” attitude, many German’s feel huge guilt that it was their country that started a war that took 70 million lives. This fear of the far-right means that the far-right feel even more marginalised than in other countries, this makes them all the more dangerous. In the past 20 years there have been 180 murders committed by the far-right, more than any other group including Islamists and the far-left.

One of the more worrying elements of the resurgence is the ability of far-right groups to attract students, the middle class and intellectuals. This normalisation of far-right politics is dangerous as now there could be a pool of lawyers who will defend far-right groups in all sorts of cases as well as more NPD members as elected officials.

Although the far-right has no real power in Germany, it does display a worrying trend that is evident across Europe in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. History shows us that in a time of crisis, people lurch to extremes.

The location of the 12 murders by the NSU that shook Germany to its core.

Cash for Influence Scandal

There has been fresh controversy for the Conservative Party recently. Today David Cameron revealed the names of the people who dined with him in his Downing Street apartment. It sounds perfectly innocent, right? Except that if you wanted to dine there it would put you out £250,000 and all this money would go to the Conservative Party. This comes as a result of the revelations in the Sunday Times that Peter Cruddas, The Conservative Party Treasurer, was filmed claiming that a donor could buy access to the Prime Minister and discuss policy with him for a mere £250,000! Cruddas immediately resigned and Cameron launched an internal inquiry into the issue. The Labour Party has attacked the PM in parliament today (despite the PM being absent),  Ed Miliband said “This is an inquiry into the Conservative Party, by the Conservative Party, for the Conservative Party. It is a whitewash and everyone knows it. We need a proper independent inquiry appropriate to the gravity of what is at stake.”

This crisis has reopened the issue surrounding Party funding, of the options on the table are the following:

1. Keep the system as it is.

2. State sponsorship of political parties

3. A cap on donations

I prefer the first one as, although the two latter seem better at first, they both have major flaws. In countries that have state sponsorship of political parties they also increased levels of corruption. There is also the issue of which parties do you fund? How small do you fund, what about parties with seats in Westminster, or seats in your council or maybe a certain percentage of vote at the general elections. It would have too many difficulties in implementation. The latter is possibly worse, Sir Christopher Kelly has a report that suggests a cap on party donations at either £50,000 pa or £10,000 pa,  Kelly prefers the latter. These would have massive implications for both major parties; on a £50,000 cap the Conservatives would lose 48% of their funding, whereas Labour would lose 81% of theirs, on the other hand if the £10,000 limit was set this would mean the Conservatives lose 76% of their funding and Labour would lose an astonishing 91% of their funding.

The reason for the Labour Party being funded by so many high donations is because of its links with the Unions. For example, Unite the Union is where 30% of Labour’s fund comes from. Labour can easily argue that the likes of trade unions should have a special exemption made for them and other similar organisations. Basically, the Unions are owned by their members, so the amount a union can donate should be £50,000 per member of the union, that way it would be fairer. This could also benefit Conservatives as the same could be applied to companies; if a company is owned by two people, the company should be able to donate £100,000 as two people are at the head.

I believe party finances should be left alone as it could hurt democracy very badly if Labour and the Conservatives lost most of their funding.

Minimum Pricing for Alcohol

The government has released a statement saying they plan on introducing minimum pricing for a unit of alcohol. The plans are; from now on one unit of alcohol will cost 40+p, this will push up the prices for cheap drink and all offers (such as two for one) must end.

The reason for the government doing this is because of the binge drinking that has blighted the UK for many years. The idea is that raising the price of cheap alcohol will mean that people will buy less on a night out. Although some people have attacked it as a tax on the poor as it will hit them more than any other group. The main target though, is the young as cheap booze is how many young people get drunk. Quite often, before going out, young people drink a lot of cheap alcohol and then head out.

Cameron is hoping that an increase in prices will mean that the young are less able to afford alcohol and therefore will be less drunk. This provides a saving to the taxpayer as alcohol related health problems decline and less damage is done to public places and less people in prison.

Labour has backed the move but accuses the government of using the statement to try and cover for the unpopular budget and the timing does seem a little off, but nonetheless, it has been indicated before that this would become government policy.

A Party of Doctors?

It was revealed in the Independent on Sunday that a coalition of 250 doctors would challenge Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs at the next election. It’s certainly a way to attract attention to the strength of opposition to the health bill, but could it actually work?

Nobody doubts that there are two key areas on which the public decide who to vote for in the UK; the economy and the NHS. Indeed there are other factors such as foreign policy and the personal character of politicians but nothing even compares to the strength of feeling people have for the NHS or the economy. So doctors campaigning would be at a natural advantage as people would trust them with the NHS, but what about other areas? Would the coalition of doctors be socially conservative or liberal? What about foreign policy, or the economy? A seat in parliament won’t be won if you only have policy on the NHS, the doctors would need to formulate some sort of policy in other areas to make them a credible candidate.

                                                

Likely any doctor standing would still do quite well as the NHS is the closest thing to a national religion in this country. Targeting Liberal Democrats could be their best option, many Lib Dems feel let down by the coalition and are unsure of who to vote for in the next election. Many of these voters that the Nick Clegg has alienated don’t like Labour or the Tories, so a doctor might be a perfect candidate for these voters.

It is possible that another significant party may be accidently started because of this. In the 19^th century, when Ireland still sent MPs to Westminster, the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) began as a loose assortment of MPs under Isaac Butt. The MPs weren’t united on any issue other than Home Rule (hence the party was originally the “Home Rule Party”, but in 1880 Charles Stewart Parnell transformed the Home Rule Party into a proper, modern political party. The party subsequently came to dominate Irish politics for the next 40 years. Could this happen with a doctor party? It’s not impossible, but a lot of work would have to be done to get it to work.

The Budget

Today’s budget was a very interesting one and had many attention grabbing details, here’s the outline of the major points:

·         The 50p rate of tax will be cut to 45p

·         Corporation tax will be cut from 24p to 22p

·         The tax threshold will be raised to £9,205

·         Stamp duty will go up to 7% on houses worth £2 million +

·         A loophole will be closed; previously if you bought a £2 million + house through a foreign company you wouldn’t have to pay stamp duty. Now that costs 15%.

·         Child benefit will be phased out between £50,000-£60,000

·         The “granny tax” whereby pensioners could lose £85 this year

The biggest storm is over the cutting of the 50p rate. As Ed Miliband said, it is the day the phrase “We’re all in this together” died, he also made the valid point of asking the cabinet to “put up their hands” if they would benefit from this new tax (despite it being a cabinet of millionaires nobody put their hands up). Politically this was a dangerous move for the government; polls consistently show that people do not support cutting the 50p rate, even amongst Conservatives. They have three years before the next elections to prove that this measure has been a success, if it is then it will benefit them, if not then they’re in for a rough time at the next election.

Another major part of the budget is that the tax threshold has been raised to £9,205. What this means is that you will no longer pay any tax on your first £9,205 you earn. This is great for people at the bottom end of society and will significantly help many families that are struggling.

The corporation tax cut will probably be good for business; this rate means that the UK has an extremely low corporation tax for a large, developed country. What George Osborne wants to do is to install a sign over Britain saying, “We’re open for business”, it could work and I hope it does for the sake of our economy.

The stamp duty change probably won’t raise a large amount of money, but is good nonetheless. I’m glad to see effort made by the government to close tax loopholes and I hope they continue to do so for the rest of the parliament, closing tax loopholes are a great way of getting more money for the exchequer without causing much hassle or public anger.

George Osborne holding the budget

South East France on Terror Alert

Just hours after a horrifying attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse, the whole region has been put on the highest level of terror alert possible. The reason for the high alert level is because the gun used to kill three children and a rabbi was the same gun involved in the murder of three French soldiers in two separate incidents last week. The authorities believe him to be an ex-army officer who was discharged recently due to links with the far right. Authorities believe his next attack may occur on Friday, as each of the attacks occur four days after the previous one, let’s hope it’s just coincidence and he carries out no more shootings.

The attacks come nine months since the terrifying killing of 77 people in Norway by Anders Breivik, the right wing extremist; this displays a worrying trend to me. Europe prides itself in tolerance when compared with other continents, but tolerance is slowly being ebbed away. Over the past decade, there has been an increase in racist talk and even racist laws, the banning of the face veil in France and the ban on building minarets in Switzerland are very dangerous to European culture. Although the vast majority of people who voted for these laws would oppose the ideology of these men, these laws legitimise their attacks in a way. The murderers see a general move in society to be anti-immigrant from this they convince themselves that this means that society would support the ideas and so carry out these attacks. I understand if my argument lacks logic, but that’s the point, find me a right-wing extremist whose logic makes sense and I’ll find you a pig that can fly.

We must tackle racism head on in Europe and not allow racist people dictate policy to the majority of people who are good, decent and tolerant.

Fracking

More questions have been raised over the use of fracking in the UK. After earthquakes in Blackpool, that were a direct result of fracking all plants were suspended until a government investigation was completed.

But what are the dangers of fracking? In the USA, the only place in which fracking is occurring on a commercial scale, has seen huge problems. There has been gas leaking out of people’s taps, water supplies have been poisoned and dozens of earthquakes near fracking stations where there are no natural fault lines. The water used in fracking can be 10-90 times more radioactive than the maximum that is safe for humans to be in contact with and approximately half the water put into the ground due to fracking is simply lost and no-one knows where it goes. It is therefore sensible to assume that some may end up in drinking water, putting human lives at risk.

So why is the government even considering allowing fracking to commence in the UK? After all other nations, including France, have already decided it’s too dangerous. The reason is that there are huge amounts of gas that could be retrieved by fracking. This would help to push prices down and could be worth ten North Seas to the UK economy. One major difference between the North Sea gas and gas on the mainland is that people don’t live on the sea, but people do live on land. The UK is very densely populated and so any complication could, potentially, put thousands, maybe even millions, of lives at risk. This is something we do not want to happen.

I would oppose fracking due to the dangers it represents, I believe that we should be paying more attention to green sources of energy. The UK has a massive potential for the use of wind farms, huge ones taking up millions of square kilometres of area could be built in the North Sea without public opposition. This is what we need to be looking at, not projects that put lives at risk.

To cut, or not to cut?

With the budget coming out soon, the media has been debating furiously over what should and shouldn’t be in it. Leaks from government have pointed towards cutting the 50p rate of tax back to 40p. For the government, this is political suicide; at a time of harsh austerity when the rich keep getting richer to give them a tax break would be extremely unpopular. To the public this would be extremely unfair and prove the government’s favourite phrase, “We’re all in this together” to be a lie.

Personally I’m on the fence with this issue, according to the government around 308,000 people are in the 50p band, when Labour first introduced the 50p rate they said it would bring in £2-6 billion annually but the government refutes this claim. The government claims that because of the higher tax rate, people will move their money abroad to tax havens. This is doubly bad for treasury incomes as not only are people not paying the extra tax, but because all their income gets moved overseas then the treasury loses all the money that the wealthy were paying before the tax rise. Since I don’t know the figures I can’t give a clear response to this issue, I do not have the ideological attachment to tax that the three major parties have (Labour and Lib Dems with high tax and Conservatives with low tax), I simply believe that the purpose of tax is to bring in the most money possible for the government. If lowering the maximum rate of tax from 50p to 40p brings in more money (as rich people decide to pay their taxes here instead of abroad) then I would support it, if it lowers the amount of money received by the treasury then I would oppose it.

This is a dangerous move for the government; if it fails then it will be politically disastrous for the coalition and even if it succeeds it will be extremely difficult to prove so, and rather than being beneficial for the government it just won’t be disastrous due to the apparent unfairness of the scheme.

What to do about Ed

It’s hard to deny that the Labour Party is in trouble, despite the government’s unpopular cuts, failing economy and attack on the NHS the Labour Party are only marginally ahead of the Conservatives in the polls. In a time of government unpopularity the opposition should be streaking ahead in the polls, the reason that the Labour Party is not doing so can be put down to two points.

1.      People don’t trust them with the economy.

2.      Ed Miliband

For Labour to win, Ed must go

The reason for the lack of trust with the economy is because it was the Labour Party in power when the economic downturn began in 2007. This, the Labour Party cannot really change, but their leader, they can. Ed Miliband isn’t very popular with the general public, many in the centre view him as too left-wing for them. In attempt to seem more appealing to the centre he took a stance against many of the strikes that public sector workers participated in. This has caused problems as the Union movement is the base of Labour’s support and alienating your base is never a good idea. What is worse for the Labour Party is that there are whisperings that some of the biggest unions are threatening to end their alliance between them and Labour. This would have catastrophic results for Labour as the ending of the alliance would result in the end of the money that the unions give to Labour, considering that the unions make up around 86% of Labour’s income it is something that Ed must avoid at all costs. Labour needs to find a better leader; Ed isn’t particularly inspiring and doesn’t appear charismatic when you hear him on news programmes or at conferences. To be electable he must appeal to a broad range of people, the person I think best suited to this job is David Miliband, Ed’s older brother, and most people believed that it would be him that would receive the vote to become the party’s leader in 2010 but was narrowly beaten by Ed.

I hope, for Labour’s sake, that they get rid of Ed and replace him with someone who can go on to defeat the Conservatives at the next election.

Gay Marriage

The coalition government is hoping to have gay marriage introduced by the end of the year, this would complete Cameron’s modernising of the Tory party and bring them into the 21^st century. The problem is that it has strong opposition, with the strongest opponents being most churches and many of his own MPs. In the UK today, homosexuals are the only group of people who are legally discriminated against, to equalise gay marriage would bring the final pillar of discrimination crashing down.

I am an ardent supporter of gay marriage and I don’t see any intelligent argument that runs against gay marriage. The government’s bill will not force churches to perform gay marriages, so they do not have that reason to oppose it. Also, it is important to note that there are large portions of the church, especially the liberal wing of the Anglican church that actually support gay marriage, so the entire establishment of churches are not opposed.  I thought the way David Cameron presented his views on the subject was perfect, he said “I do not support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.” He actually makes a very valid point when he says this, he believes that because he is a Conservative that he should strengthen the institution of marriage, and to that he must extend it to homosexuals. It makes a lot of sense too, gay people can be in loving, committed, relationships just like straight people and it would be a mistake to think that it would weaken the institution. The people that are calling gay marriage a “weakening of the institution” remind me of those opposed to interracial marriage during the Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s and ‘70s.  Linked to this is the idea that marriage is a universal institution, dating back to the dawn of civilisation and stretching across the globe with the idea that it is between a man and a women, they couldn’t be more wrong. It is a fact that many civilisations have had gay marriage, from Papua New Guinea, to American Indians to Romans to the Chinese. The fact is that the definition of marriage has changed a thousand and one times since its first inception but one thing has always been there, that it is between loving people. And that will never change.

I have a hint for people who oppose gay marriage… Don’t get one. It’s not going to affect you or your daily lives, it will only affect your children if they are gay, society will not change when gay marriage gets passed. The only people who will be affected by gay marriage are gay people, who will no longer be treated as second class citizens by the law and it will be a great day for democracy in Britain when it is introduced.

Rebekah Brooks and husband arrested

Today Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie, were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This is the second time that Ms Brooks has been arrested as a result of the fallout of the hacking crisis at NOTW. Last time she was arrested on suspicion of intercepting voicemails but was never charged, this current arrest is for a far more serious crime. Perverting the course of justice is one of the most serious crimes in our legal system as it totally undermines the idea of bringing criminals to justice.

These arrests come the week that David Cameron finally admitted to riding a horse that belonged to the Met but was loaned to the Brooks.  Charlie Brooks is an old school friend of Cameron and this makes things extremely difficult for Cameron, he has been shown time and time again to have personal links to some of the biggest names in the NOTW hacking scandal and subsequent press enquiry.

This year is going to be as bad as 2011 for News International and its former employees, as the company lurches from crisis to crisis. It will surely mark the end of Murdoch’s dominance of British politics and the new political scene in 2013 and beyond will be unrecognisable when compared to the end of 2010.  If the enquiry is handled correctly and the police investigations carried out in the right manner then we may end up with a great press at the end… Somehow I don’t see us getting a free press at the end of this though; the press will still be controlled by a handful of wealthy, powerful men. The only way a press can be described as free is if it is controlled by as many people is possible.

Wedgwood Crisis Threatens Our Heritage

The fabulous Wedgwood collection, so important to British heritage is being threatened by a pension crisis. A court ruling says that the collection will have to be broken up and sold on if the company is unable to pay pensions. The, conservatively valued, £18 million is irreplaceable, according to UNESCO it is one of the UK’s 20 most important cultural assets. The collection is so important because it represents the birth of the industrial revolution. The industry of pottery was one of the first to explode and change the world. The leader of the “pottery revolution” was Josiah Wedgwood, who is also very famous for his anti-slavery stance and the phrase “Am I not a man, and a brother?” It is so important that we protect his memory.

This collection is part of our country’s past, not just Staffordshire where the potteries were located. Funding has to come from somewhere to save this historic collection; the lottery fund should step in as well as members of the public and as a last resort, the government. The government wouldn’t stand by and allow the destruction of any monument, why should this collection be any different? We must protect our heritage and preserve it for future generations. Our nation is rich in artefacts and beauty from ancient times, through the Pax Britannica and the neo-modern era, we must not let allow this to happen. 

Potteries like this marked the beginning of the industrial revolution

Anger over Afghan Civilian Shooting

Anger is mounting in Afghanistan over the shooting dead of 16 innocent civilians by an American soldier. The attack was completely unprovoked, the soldier was not in a hostile situation and did not have any reason to commit the crimes, it was a barbaric attack and has damaged US-Afghan relations terribly. The US is still trying to recover from the leaked footage of American soldiers peeing on corpses and the (accidental) burning of copies of the Koran. It is sad when any human being dies, but this could have very bad implications for the West. I suspect that over the next few days there will be huge protests in Afghanistan and there will be people killed as a result of the murders, including Americans.

If America wants to try and redeem itself in the eyes of the Afghans they should hand him over the Afghans to be tried under their laws. If they decide not to hand him to the Afghans, they should give him the maximum sentence he can receive and make sure he never returns to the US army.

Yet the ramifications of the attack will be longer than the protests that will ensue over the next few days. This type of attack is great for Al Qaeda, many people who were on the borderline of joining/supporting them could be pushed into siding with Al Qaeda, more insurgents means more troops killed in Afghanistan and the higher chance of an attack on civilians back in the west.

I don’t know why this soldier did what he did, but it was insanely stupid if it was some “revenge attack” for crimes committed by an Afghan or Al Qaeda as it will simply result in more western deaths. People need to learn that the only way to fight hate, war and insurgency successfully is through kindness and investment. After many years of fighting in Northern Ireland, it was only when the government reached out the hand of friendship to the IRA and later invested in Northern Ireland did the Troubles end. The same can happen in Afghanistan too, the West must invest in peaceful areas to show that the West is not there to destroy but to re-build a once great nation. 

More Broken Promises from Assad

Seasoned UN negotiator, Kofi Annan, has been talking to the Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad about a possible peace in Syria. The President has agreed for the need for talks but says that no dialogue could succeed while “armed terrorist groups” remain in Syria.

Kofi Annan is the latest
in a long line to try and
solve the Syrian crisis.

From the talks Annan has called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides, for the Syrian authorities to allow a humanitarian corridor to get aid to besieged areas, such as those in Homs, for Syrian troops to withdraw to barracks and for political dialogue to be opened, eventually leading to democracy.

This is the latest in a long chain of promises to open up dialogue, call a ceasefire and start democracy and so far all of those promises have been broken. I do not believe or trust Assad, just like I did not believe or trust Gaddafi when he promised the exact same things over and over again; in the end Gaddafi’s lies were exposed when he moved to crush the rebels in Benghazi and Misrata. These broken promises ended in his death, although I do not agree with the killing of anyone, it would certainly be better for the Syrian people and democracy in the country if Assad was overthrown and killed.

I hope Assad is not lying, but I also hope that a cure for every disease will be discovered tomorrow and unfortunately, it is the more likely event to occur.

Super Tuesday was Indecisive

As was expected, Super Tuesday was completely indecisive and it's hard to tell who will be the Republican nomination at this stage. Although it will probably be Mitt Romney, the race is still wide open for either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum to take the crown.

Of the states voting tonight Romney won six; Idaho, Ohio, Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia and Alaska, Santorum won three; Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota and Gingrich won his home state of Georgia.

In reality, none of this was a major surprise. Santorum can walk out of this with his head held high, although he took half as many states as Romney, he was close in a number of the states. But most crucially in Ohio where the vote was still to close to call after 85% of the votes were in. The state is very important state to win as whoever Ohio votes for in the presidential election, usually becomes president and this is also important for the primary elections.

The problem with this long-drawn out campaign is that the Republican party is losing faith amongst ordinary non-partisan Americans. The constant adverts on TV that are so negative is harming the Republican party because whoever wins the nomination will already have had a huge amount of negative publicity thrown at them. There have also been failures by the Republican party organisers in ever single pre-super Tuesday state. In Iowa it took three weeks to decide who actually won, in Maine a whole county (that could have changed the outcome) wasn't counted, then was going to be counted, then was counted... In general the whole charade was a failure, and it's been repeated all over the US. This idea that the Republicans can't organise anything won't do them any favours come November.

Super Tuesday!

Today is Super Tuesday in the United States. It gets the name because it is that date more states go to the poll than any other date to select the Republican nominee. The below map shows which states are electing tomorrow.

This race remains close between Santorum and Romney and it is likely that tomorrow's result will be indecisive. Many right-wing pundits have compared this to the Obama vs Clinton race of 2008, showing that despite the tight race the Democrats still won the election. This is a totally unfair comparison, in 2008 Democrats were choosing which of two candidates they liked the most, but would be happy if either got the nomination. For Republicans in 2012 the picture is very different, people are choosing between four candidates and deciding, which one do they dislike the least.

Child Benefit Conundrum

“We’re all in this together” is possibly the favourite slogan of the current government (despite bankers getting massive bonuses in failing banks). It also seems a bit strange considering what the current government is doing with child benefit. I agree with their idea, but they only need to tweak the plan a little to make it better.

As a result of the shake-up a family with three children in which one of the partners is earning £42,756+ (so in the upper rate of tax) will lose all their £2,449 of child benefit. Whereas someone earning £1 less on £42,275 will keep all their child benefit, this seems extremely unfair but it would be difficult to do it any other way. The major problem is that, let’s say both partners are just under the threshold and have a combined income of £84,950 they will still keep the benefit. It would seem to me that it would be fairer to treat the couple as the one person and cut benefit if it they earned more than, say £50,000.

In a perfect system child benefit would not have to be cut, but unfortunately we are living in a debt filled world and some of that debt needs to go away. I do not agree with this government’s policy of savage cuts, especially the VAT at 20% and believe it is causing economic stagnation. But some cuts are necessary if we are to move away from this crisis.

Putin has Won

In an unsurprising result, Putin has won Russia's presidential elections. Despite his majority of around 60%, the result is completely tainted by accusations of bullying and intimidation by his party as well as election fraud. People have been videoed putting multiple voting forms into ballot boxes and committing other such fraudulent acts.

The man who brought democracy to Russia, Mikhail Gorbachev, has criticised the elections and said that they are not fair. I don't deny though, that Putin has an awful lot of support in Russia but that power has been waning in recent years and it looks set to continue to fall from years to come. If the Russian people can rise up against Putin and demand freer and fairer elections then hopefully Russia will reform and the Russians can have real democracy for the first time in the history of their country.

Putin knows that support is falling, thousands of troops have been rushed into the centre of the city to try and disperse any riots or protests, just like what happened after the parliamentary elections in December. Russia is awakening and history shows, that leaders who refuse to reform get overthrown.

Massive Vote Fraud in Russia

Putin is trying to rig contests in
Russia in his favour

Elections in Russia in the past have always been shrouded in controversy but revelations about the upcoming elections prove to be the most damning for Putin. Activists have said that orders came from the hierarchy to get 25% of Moscow’s utility workers to vote for Putin, not once, not twice but five times. In return for doing this they would each be paid £200, people are desperate for money and fear for their jobs, so any amount of money is welcomed. If they achieved their objective the result would be Putin receiving 250,000 fraudulent votes. And this is only if the rigging has occurred in Moscow. There may be many more cases around Russia and could easily tip the balance of power in favour of Putin.

The way in which people can vote five times is through signing up to five different polling stations using an absentee form. These forms are designed for people to vote in a certain polling station when they cannot vote in their home polling station.

Putin has released a statement saying that the accusations are absolutely false and that he is not participating in vote rigging.

The independent monitoring website, Golos has received hundreds of reports of corrupt vote schemes from across Russia. This could result in Russia’s least fair election since the fall of Communism.

This is going to be difficult for Putin’s opposition to fight. Hopefully the opposition will win and Russia can then be allowed to change for the better.