Improvements to the Newshound blog

Changes to Newshound

Apologies for my recent absence, ( I had taken an impromptu Easter break.)

Anyway I would like to announce some changes to my blog, I will be expanding Newshound over the next few weeks, and will be adding some posts by contributors for a trial period. There will also be more video footage and audio added through my website.

More details will follow.

The price of truth- Politicians horrified as MoD permit soldiers to sell stories.

The MoD has announced that it gives service personnel who were captured in Iran permission to sell their stories to the press. Conservative politicians have publicly condemned this decision, Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said:

“One of the great things about our armed forces is their professionalism and dignity. Many people who shared the anxiety of the hostages’ abduction will feel that selling their stories is somewhat undignified and falls below the very high standards we have come to expect from our servicemen and women." - Sunday Times

But are the conservatives simply leaping to attack the present government, without considering the issue? It seems that their stance on most events is in contrast to the government by default.

This is a unique and interesting situation, on which everyone has a view.

Personally I feel that those at Westminster should be concentrating on why the personnel were captured in the first place, and focusing on the international implications of the incident. The discussion over the selling of the stories is in danger of becoming a smoke-screen for many un-answered questions. The oppositon must ensure they are prepared to confront these when parliament re-convenes.

Tony Blair and the unlikely Easter bunny (aka Mahmoud Ahmadinejad )

Today in a surprise turn-around Iran announced that it would release the British service personnel it was holding as an 'Easter gift to the British people'. Downing Street have so far been irritatingly tight-lipped about the unlikely 'gift' in my opinion. However what interests me is why the apparently sudden change of heart? Was it..

• The threat of a possible attack from a Britain which changed their minds?

• Pressure from the security council and our allied friends?

• Or simply that they felt that their point had been made, they were able to demonstrate power over the West?

I think that it may even be all of the above, combined of course, with a photo-opportunity for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to create a little spin of his own; Although his rather long speech at today's press conference didn't appear to have anyone fooled. (Commentary on the BBC was rather un-restrained today!) I await with baited breath to hear what will be said about the incident in its entirety at Westminster during the next few days.

Squash your opponent!

Politics today seems very like a game of squash - a ball is batted backwards and forwards by two players desperate to win; Then it becomes increasingly aggressive as each strives to return the ball harder, to knock the other's position.

Today the local elections began in England, and it was mainly an array of policies which were batted around, with increasing aggression.

The Lib Dems appeared desperate to hit labour hard, striving to gain power they attacked the party scoring a double whammy by also smacking the conservative party in the face: "reject labour, and its mimics." They urged voters.

I'm sure David Cameron could think of nothing worse than to have his party accused (once again) of mimicking labour today.

The labour campaign launch was less aggressive, and slightly more low-key after Gordon Brown was 'exposed' this week of knowingly building up a pensions crisis. They chose to focus mainly on the public sector and crime reduction.

The Tories are perhaps playing a slightly more secretive game, as their campaign hasn't been unveiled yet...

Concern grows for British personnel in Iran.

Coverage today shows the worrying slow progress made by the British government to get Iran to free the captured British hostages of HMS Cornwall who were arrested at gunpoint last week.

I really hope this is resolved soon, I am growing concerned for the safety of the personnel, and am particularly nervous about the impact of the situuation as it continues to drag on.

The Iranian government wants us to accept that the boat that the personnel were traveling in was in its waters, but the lack of information Britain seems to be receiving makes such a demand unreasonable.

President Bush has publicly offered his support to Tony Blair, whether or not this is beneficial, I am unsure.

Blair's Iranian hostage dilema

So it has been proven that the service personnel on HMS Cornwall did stray into Iranian waters, according to defence officials. So is Tony Blair a liar?, a few days ago he said "It is simply not true that the personnel were in Iranian waters." Or perhaps he is guilty of leaping to the defence of the personnel too quickly?

I am still undecided as to whether or not the information is accurate.
According to a BBC report :" The UK government said the Iranians initially said the merchant vessel searched by the navy personnel had been at a point within Iraqi waters, before later providing a second, alternative position, within Iranian waters."

Blair has faced a difficult dilemma here, to show unwavering support for the personnel, or to focus on bilateral relations with Iran.

The situation has also taken a new turn with the appearance of the personnel on television. Faye Turney, the only female on board, read out a letter home, which commented: "We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters," the letter said. "I wish we hadn’t because then I’d be home with you all right now."

To me, her use of the word 'apparently' indicates to me that perhaps she is unsure about whether or not the boat was in Iranian waters, or perhaps, alarmingly, she could be trying to indicate to the UK government that she has been pressured into making the statement. This is situation is becoming a greater concern as it continues, and for Blair, a great dilemma. Iran will no doubt take advantage of its position, as if feel that such a situation is very advantageous for it, as recent rumours of a military threat from the US over its nuclear development has placed the country in a vulnerable position.

Today Jack Straw announced such action by the UK over 'that' issue was "Inconceivable". (Interesting timing). I think this is a perfect demonstration by Iran of its power over allied states.

Politicians aim to restore public trust in politics!

How interesting, the Tory party is laying down a plan to restore public trust in politics. I think that this could be a sly jab at the Labour party's handling of the Trident debate, during which there were accusations that not all MPs had adequate information and time available to form a decision in time for the debate. The Independent reports, "The proposals include a new code of conduct for ministers to ensure no major decision could be taken before papers were circulated to all cabinet ministers in advance so they could have a proper debate. The code would no longer be supervised by the Prime Minister but a committee of MPs who could hold the Prime Minister to account by criticising him publicly if the rules were breached."

I also find it interesting that this idea appears to have come from Kenneth Clark, and not David Cameron, who of course is keen to promote his and the party's reputation for 'trustworthiness'.

Clark claims that : "There is a growing sense that our system of government has been debased, that our constitutional checks and balances don't work." I would agree strongly with this comment, although as always, I feel that it is very easy for party's to come up with fantastic ideas for reform, to 'restore public trust'. Accomplishing it is something else entirely. The only way for politicians to prove their worth is with their hard work.

Paisley and Adams in talks - But what now?

I am really pleased that Northern Ireland is now heading towards a devolved government. It would seem that the people of NI have managed to drive both Paisley and Adams together with overwhelming demands for a government which will now sit and govern for the first time since 1982.

The public have made it clear that they are willing to support a power-sharing government, and are displaying and inspiring sense of unity across the whole of Ireland. Comments are filling up news websites, making it very clear that Northern Ireland is looking forward with anticipation to the future.

But what will it bring? There are fears that Paisley and Adams are 'not up to the job', also there are fears that economic instability could occur if the British government withdraw economic assistance too quickly. Tony Blair has also faced criticism today, with some believing his reasons for intervention are questionable. However, I'm sure that the people of Northern would agree, that now is the time to give peace a chance, otherwise we will never know what could have been.

Some thought this day would never come, I think it is truly the dawning of a new era for Northern Ireland and its people.

(Watch breaking news of the deal: Follow link)

Blair breaks silence on Iran's seizure of Navy personal

He announced today :

"It is simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters,"

However, it has taken rather a long time for him to speak out in the defense of the Navy personnel involved. I think a possible explanation is that the government have been trying to get to the bottom of what happened. Only yesterday it was reported that the personnel l had 'confessed' to straying into Iranian territory. However I'm unsure how accurate this information is, as it has been reported by some very vague Iranian sources.

However, 1. what if HMS Cornwall had strayed into Iranian waters, deliberately? And 2. what if Blair is lying about what he knows? If he is he could be playing a very dangerous game with those involved, of that we can be certain. Finally 3., what are the repercussions of this event?

• An increased case for military action against Iran by the US and UK?
• Further strained relations between the government and Nato?
• A uniting of Nato countries against Iran, resulting in an attack?
• Assassination of the Navy personnel by Iran?

This issue throws up many worrying questions, the answers of which I am sure will continue to allude us for sometime.

Division continues in NI - Political parties continue to dance around power-sharing deal.

I've been checking up on the current political scene in Northern Ireland recently, and have to admit that I am un-surprised that two days away from the deadline for devolution, a stumbling block has been hit. (See RTE' bulletin)

I did envisage such an occurence, however I'm not sure how significant it is at this stage. On the one hand, the DUP could be bidding their time to achieve an upper-hand on Gordon Brown's economic package, on another, perhaps they may be beginning to decide that they are now unwilling to enter into power-sharing with Sinn Fein after all.

If the latter has occurred I think that it is time that the DUP consider their actions carefully; especially if they do want out of the deal. I also cannot really see a time extension this time, there have already been so many failed attempts at forming a devolved government in Northern Ireland. But what if the DUP are serious? If they are, I think that they will need to make their choice before March 26th.

However, what is most important in my opinion, is that the people of Northern Ireland, who have voted over-overwhelmingly for a devolved government this month, know where they stand by Monday, its the very least that they deserve in my view.

Critics of drug classification system deem it "not fit for purpose".

I hope that the government will now take note, after independent specialists have deemed the current drugs classification systems "Not fit for purpose".

It makes me feel angry and sad to know that people are still drinking and smoking themselves to death whilst the government reaps in the money raised from high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. (The official line is that these taxes are doing something about the issue, o.k I agree, they are doing something about the issue, making money out of it!)

If a reclassification were to occur, backed by Tony Blair, I could take the government stance seriously. However, until then I think that the government must be held responsible for every needless death caused by 'so-called' harmless drugs like alcohol and tobacco.

I believe the only reason they won't ban tobacco and alcohol is because they can tax it! Until there is evidence that the government are taking this issue seriously, how can we trust them them to give us the information we need to make informed choices?

What do you think?

Budget backlash - Somebody's telling porkies.

Gordon Brown's budget has gone down well hasn't it? (like a lead balloon.) This time I feel that I will have to side with most of my disgruntled friends, family, colleagues and fellow students on this!

Does he think we are all stupid? Watching his broadcast on television really made me feel as though I am being treated like a moron.

"Income tax at its lowest rate for 75 years."

What about people on lower incomes? The starting rate of 10 pence has been binned! The Independent have said that with the announcement "Brown opens the way for an early election".

I think that the Independent are completely on the money- this budget has been Browns worst, and clearly is centered around his desire for an early election.

In an earlier post I spoke about Brown being aware of social division existing between the rich and the poor in Britain. I am amazed that Brown's budget appears to ignore that particular issue, in fact, its almost as though it has been erased from his agenda completely.

16,500 out of 6 million passport applications are fraudulent

This scandal keeps resurfacing time and time again. I find it unbearably scary that these passports can be used to obtain I.D cards in the future.
Our public safety is at risk, and Tony Blair hasn't even addressed the issue this week.

If anything will make me get my first passport, its this scandal, I could then use it to get the hell out of this country!

An article in the Independent reveals that even Dhiren Barot, (a terrorist jailed for plotting to use a dirty bomb on the tube to kill thousands of commuters) was even able to obtain a passport, amongst many other terrorists. The worst part of this scandal is that we cannot accurately assess the extent of the fraud, with some passport fraud slipping through the system undetected.

This issue desperately needs someone at Westminster to come up with a solution, the British security system is critically vulnerable, and leaves us open to the unthinkable, another terrorist attack.

An update on the gay adoption debate

It seems that a solution has not been found between the Catholic adoption agencies, and Westminster.

Legislation has now been passed making it illegal for the agencies to discriminate against gay couples. (Independent).

I think that if the Catholic agencies do now decide to close down, or reject applications from gay couples, it will be a great shame for the children waiting for a loving family. I also think that gay couples deserve to have fully equal rights (It is the 21st century after all). It is also a shame that this issue has taken so long to resolve, whilst growing numbers of children wait eagerly for a preferment home. In my opinion the legislation should now be respected by every organisation, with no exception.

Westminster has made political history today - I think they may also have gained a few voters too.

Labour allegedly rushes adoption legislation

The labour party is being criticized for allegedly rushing through legislation regarding gay equality laws that could allow gay couples to adopt through Catholic adoption agencies in the UK. (BBC)

I am surprised that the Tory party are doing the criticizing however, as they appear to be all-for equal rights the majority of the time.

I think that in trying to pass the legislation Labour are taking brave strides towards a better future for UK adoption, and a better future with equal opportunities for everyone. They are taking the risk of losing many voters on this issue, but have the wits to realize that they are also making political history.

This is an unusual, and difficult situation, but I feel that the most important thing for either side to remember is that the children in care desperately need loving homes. If the Catholic church dig their heels in, and close down their agencies, they will make it harder for children in need to find adoptive parents of any sexuality, however if they remain open and refuse to place children with same-sex families they will face breaking equality laws.

I think that a compromise must be reached in this complex situation. It is reported that church and government are trying to achieve one, but I just hope that the agencies will stay open, and that a middle-ground can be found for the sake of the children.

We shall see.

The great divide

Is the wealthy/poor divide becoming greater? I think so. We cannot really ignore this issue in our society for much longer. It has also thankfully been brought to the focus of Gordon Brown, this week.(See The Observer) Not before time however.

The UK is home to some of Europe's most impoverished, Wales for instance, has an extremely low economic status. It is one of the poorest countries in the EU. Something which I am aware of from living in the North of the country during many of its recent economic crisis's, foot and mouth, BSE and low spending power are some of the many key problems which plague rural areas. However the gap seems to be widening the most in London, where it is claimed that the rich are becoming richer, and the poor remain poor.

I think that is an accurate picture. Whilst travelling the underground during the early hours I seem to be seeing more and more wealthy city workers on a daily basis, but the same faces of the homeless, who sit nearby huddled in their cardboard homes, jostled out of the way by growing armies of y.u.p.p.i.e.s.

But how can the balance be re-addressed?
If I had the answer to this I think I would be working in politics. So I'll just ask the questions.

What does everyone else think? How can we prevent more and more of the UK's poorest people being pushed aside by the grossly over-paid, yet promote entrepunerism? I hope someone at Westminster will come up something soon, before there are huge social repercussions from the frightening division of class that we are experiencing in our society.

Cameron feels a touch green

David Cameron must feel positively sick with disappointment after his 'green' campaigning doesn't seem to be pulling in the voters according to The Guardian, who have been busy this week conducting research into the political battle for 'greenness' which has been playing out for weeks now. However he might feel a little better as I have also found that a similar poll for The Times, which appeared on the website minuets ago, claims that the Tories are the top greenest party. Confused? Well I think this often happens during such high profile political debates; However, what puzzles me is why is the parties believe taking on green issues will help them sway the voters at all?

It seems pretty clear to me that most of the major environmental problems, such as emissions,(home, car, air travel, waste) are largely for the public to tackle themselves. No matter who is in power, this will be a difficult task, and one which will need to be worked at by every man and his dog. I can't see how David Cameron, Gordon Brown or Sir Menzies could single handedly solve climate change if elected, with mere bundles of weighty paper-work and legislation. (Which would also be a highly wasteful use of paper of course,) whilst concentrating on running a country.

I really don't think it matters who the greenest party is, Climate change is happening RIGHT NOW, and so I think this debate is slightly past it.

Blair speaks out on Iraq

Interestingly Tony Blair decided to speak out on Iraq in an exclusive interview with Sky News (access transcript via this link) today.

Of course this is indisputably linked to his impending departure from number 10 this year, but what was his aim for the interview?

I think that he had decided that it was time to speak out personally about the war Iraq, something which he hasn't done for a while, in an effort to dispel many of the wars' critics.

Arguably it may also have been an effort to regain influence as the Trident fiasco has re-ignited debate about the safety of Britain, in the current climate of global terrorism. However I don't think that was the main aim. Blair does not usually adopt such tactics in my view, he is much too self-assured to feel the need for such an obvious publicity stunt.

Some interesting points were raised during the interview, notably has the UK presence in Iraq been the cause of extremism in the UK? He answered by explaining his belief that extremists will use many conflicts and issues to justify their actions, a theory which I agree with. He also argued that the UK engagement in Iraq has liberated an otherwise suppressed country. Something he deemed a 'twisted' reason for extremists to justify terrorism attacks in the UK.

Many lessons have been learned during Iraq, the incomprehensible number of civilian deaths, the loss of control during the early months of the war, and the lack of public information made available during the beginning of the conflict.

I think Blair is well aware of these failings, but is determined to support the British troops in Iraq, their families, and indeed our country, by demonstrating his unwavering conviction that he feels we have done the right thing by continuing to remain in Iraq.

And I think many people will continue debate whether or not they believe his policy has been right for Britain and the people of Iraq long after he has left number 10.

PR stunt, or bad hair day?

(Getty Images)

As discussed yesterday, David Cameron is proving to be an unlikely ally of Tony Blair of late, over the Trident debate. But now what seems to interest everyone is how his hair is parted...Ok, (!) now that is a huge political development isn't it everyone?

The guardian carried these images in an article which examined the moving of Camerons's parting and the possibly of it being linked to Cameron's political alignments, hinting that he may be 'moving to the left'.

However I do think that this was a deliberate PR stunt by David Cameron, which the media fell for, hook-line and sinker! What a sense of humour this guy has! If it wasn't a PR stunt I think that its significance is not as large as what he actually said today:

"Renewing Trident is in the national interest". This is huge. And could loss the party a few voters. This is much more of an important issue in my opinion.

His words also indicate that his reason for siding with Tony Blair was primarily focused on the issue at hand does it not? I cannot see Cameron switching to the left over-night somehow.

Or perhaps the parting switched sides because ...(shock!) he was just having a bad hair day, like the rest of us mere mortals?

Oh, and the result of the debate? As I predicted, it seems Trident is going ahead, without the support of many labour MPs, Or the public.

Trident Chaos

A build up of heightened emotions surrounding the Trident renewal debate has erupted today, into an over-flow of events at Westminster.

1. Activists scaled a crane near today Westminster (BBC News)
2. A second cabinet resignation (Guardian)
3.100 MPs called for more time to make a decision, 62 of them labour (Daily Mail)
4. David Cameron sides with Tony Blair over the issue (How odd!?!)(Independent)

I have several questions about this issue, however the most important one is this:

Is everyone else crazy, Tony Blair? Or perhaps is it just you?

I think that it is pretty obvious that this one is being 'rushed through' before the PM leaves number 10. I don't think much of the chances MPs have of getting more time to make their decision.

It seems that Trident renewal is going ahead, regardless of what anyone in Westminster thinks about it.

And of course, we UK citizens have no say whatsoever.

Prince Charles, meddeling?!

It seems that prince Charles is being accused of meddling in political affairs. He no appears to be facing attack from all sides with the guardian accusing his behaviour having potential to” trigger a crisis.". A channel four documentary screened last night was the possible fuel for the controversy, which was also discussed by the Daily Mail, prior to the its filming.


However, I feel that whilst being in a position to be King one day, Prince Charles is not posing any serious threat to politics.

Let me explain why...

Firstly, it is allegedly a long accepted given that members of Royalty should not become engaged in political matters. However there are no clear rules on this! There are no clear legal reasons which prevent members of royalty from expressing their political views. Secondly, why would his 'meddling', "trigger" political crisis? Members of the current government are permitted to disagree with policies, members of the opposition are permitted to severely question the current government’s policy in Iraq, and members of society are also permitted to protest against government policies, and to launch petitions to number 10, and to write lobbying letters to MPs.

So What real difference does it make if members of royalty have political views?( See Scotsman article) I think there are some very positive aspects of his political engagement- at the very least we have a prince who has his finger on the pulse, which in my opinion is nothing but a good thing!

64 out of 100 labour MPS against Trident system

(Image by Peter Brooke timesonline)

I think its fair to say that Tony Blair is facing a crisis in his own party now that the BBC have revealed that 64 out of 100 labour MPs are opposing plans to renew the Trident 'nuclear deterrent system'.

Defence secretary Des Bowne has until Wednesday to persuade MPs to vote for its renewal, although some MPs are less than likely to change their minds, one MP, Jim Devine is even threatening to resign if the plans go ahead. If his resignation were to occur the ensuing media circus could severely knock the party into turmoil.

This makes me wonder why a party leader and PM would go against his own MPs on an issue that is clearly causing such stubborn opposition, particularly in Scotland, where the current system is situated.

Des Brown has stated the government's reason for the decision is linked to Nato commitments. Ah. I see. Our government is committed to Nato. BUT WHY? if Nato countries are unwilling to commit to assisting other allied countries, (like ours) in Afghanistan? Of course, there is a country which is also committed to Nato, and fighting in Afghanistan, America! So is the real reason for renewing the trident system linked to our commitments to Nato...or just America?

I think its time Tony Blair and Des Browne listened to the rest of the party, and acted with a little more transparency. It would give the party a little credibility.

Media leap to defense of disgraced Mercer as Cameron distances himself

Controversy surrounding Patrick Mercer's alleged racist comments which appeared in the Times this week, caused him to be sacked from the Tory party by David Cameron. However it is interesting to see how rapidly the media have leapt to the defence of Mercer, implying that his comments have been taken out of context. The very media which leapt to condemn Big Brother for its racism scandal in fact.

Debora Orr, from the Independent:

"Accusing someone of racism has become such a freighted matter that lives can be ruined when even a whiff of inadequate personal enlightenment is introduced. I believe that reason why black people are the ones brave enough to question the level of excoriation is because they are best placed to understand that it is not helpful to behave as though this is a problem simple enough to be dealt with by making examples of a few individuals." - , The independent

Nick Assinder from the BBC:

"But, for Mr Mercer, his remarks have brought to a premature end what many believed had the makings of a successful frontbench, even ministerial, career."- The BBC

Matthew Hickley and Benedict Brogan ,The Daily Mail:

"Barely two hours after Mr Mercer's remarks were made public, the Conservative leader dismissed him as Shadow Security Minister in a brief telephone conversation."- The Daily Mail

It seems to me that the media are coming down hard on David Cameron's decision to sack Patrick Mercer. However I feel that the decision was simply made by the young leader in order to signify his stance against racism; and to highlight the party's unwilling to become associated with the controversial comments and language used by Mercer.

I feel this is a 'damage limitation' reaction from Cameron, but one which has been made in the interest of promoting a honourable opposition.

Everything to play for: NI politics hangs in the balance

I believe that today marks the beginning of a positive and progressive political change in Northern Ireland.

Today the people of Northern Ireland have achieved a great deal, they have sent an overwhelmingly clear message to the DUP and Sinn Fein: They want a devolved government to rule Northern Ireland.

However, the future of Northern Irish politics now hangs in the balance between bitter rivals Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley of the DUP.

Both the DUP and Sinn Fein were the top two party's in the assembly elections, and must now agree to running a devolved government side-by side by March the 25th, (A day before the March 26th deadline) for the deal to hold together. If they don't, Northern Ireland will be ruled from Westminster, with assistance from Dublin.

I am sincerely keeping my fingers crossed.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Another couple of twists in the 'cash for honours story' today. The Guardian has reported that dodgy police chief Sir Ian Blair recently had dinner with Lord Levy, only two weeks ago! I if this report is accurate, both Lord Levy and Sir Blair have both acted inappropriately, and I find their innocence in the scandal questionable.

The other twist is brought to us from the Daily Mail, which claims that 'senior informants' have told them Lord Levy DID have a part in the nomination processes.

If any further allegations ensue in the coming days, I think Lord Levy's day's, and perhaps those of the labour party, could be numbered.

Perhaps one of of my hunches on Tuesday's post was correct, there is an informant at Downing St after all?

Blair tackled over his Nato allies

I think it was a lively PM's Question time today, as a war between David Cameron and Tony Blair was battled out. Insults were fired between the two leaders like missiles.

Blair told Cameron as far his own policy making went, he was still "In the kindergarten".Cameron hit back fiercely by asking Blair where his Nato allies are.

This is an interesting question highlighted by Cameron. Whilst UK troops are re-deployed in Afghanistan WHERE are troops from allied countries? I feel that if they are not deployed into areas of Afghanistan shortly, Blair will be urgently need to re-think some foreign policy issues. Arguably though, he does appear to be currently protesting at the lack of other nato soldiers in Afghanistan.

But so far there seems to be little gained from his calls for alliance.

I think this may mark the end of his powers of influence regarding Nato countries, as do many of critics of Blair's foreign policies . I don't think we can realistically expect a diplomatic response from France, Germany or Italy as they seem unshakably firm in their positions to avoid becoming integrated into the recent deployments.

I think there are obvious reasons for this. 9/11 has impacted upon the foreign policies of every allied and non-allied country. This has led to wide-spread condemnation of the war in Iraq, which in my opinion has made other countries fearful of becoming involved in conflict associated with the so-called 'war on terror'. This view has particularly grown since the July 7th London tube bombings which I think seems likely to be a symptom of Britain's involvement in Iraq.

However, are these countries doing the right thing by refusing to deploy troops to Afghanistan I wonder?
A note to readers of my blog: please feel free to discuss this issue.

Press have gag removed over cash-for-honours

well now... today the gag on one of this years biggest political scandals thus far has been lifted. The Guardian has now published information which has previously been stifled by a gagging order over the last few days. The 'cash for honours' story has ran and ran for almost a year now, and it seems to me could now be drawing to a close. But who is 'leaking' the information to the press, and why? I have a few ideas:

• Downing street. Perhaps somebody is a little concerned by goings-on which are not strictly 'ethical'.

• The Met. Perhaps their investigation had reached a dead end, a leak to the media could have been just the thing to stir-up lines of inquiry for them?

• A press informant, who has infiltrated the inner-circle. Less likely I think, but a possibility.

Northern Ireland polls

Where to begin? Well in two days time Northern Ireland will be going to the polls to elect representatives for the NI assembly. ( RTE' reports) This could mean that today's generation could see a power-sharing government with Sinn Fein and the DUP working together. Something which I can scarcely believe I am writing about. But what are the implications of such a deal? Well, I believe that if all sides can agree to power-sharing we could see a beginning of a new chapter in Northern Ireland politics and society. However I don't think for one moment that it could happen over-night. Stormont has sat virtually empty for too long to make an easy re-convening possible.

Another possibility is that the deal might yet fall through, taking with it all progress made thus far, and making future possibilities of a deal very difficult. The most important thing that must not be allowed to happen is an escalation of tensions caused by the polls, the consequences of such could be horrific. (Having first-hand experience of political unrest in NI, I know how easily this could occur.)

However I do believe that now is the time for new paths to be forged in the coming days for the future of Northern Ireland. We shall see. One thing I do believe is certain, is that if the deal falls through, it will make for a very disappointing end to Tony Blair's part in the negotiations, as he is due to leave number 10 later this year.

Public uneasy regarding fingerprinting plans

"Leave them kids alone" is a campaign group set up by concerned parents in Britain who oppose the fingerprinting of children at school without parental consent. An interesting, and somewhat pro-active attempt by parents to stand up for the rights of their children by lobbying MPs with petitions in order to secure the privacy of their kids. However this weekend The Times reported that a leaked home office document contained details of yet another plan to begin "mass fingerprinting" of children, geared to commence in 2010. To my horror, (And probably that of campaigners) it would see the fingerprints of UK children stored on a 'secret' database when child passports are applied for. It seems to me that the government is hell-bent on invading the privacy of our children, regardless of how parents and campaigners feel about child fingerprinting.

I think that the plans are a ridiculous idea, extremely unnecessary, and will also raise the cost of children's passports. The security of the prints could also be at risk, in my opinion, and is something which the children in question are too young to contemplate. The potential fall-out from the plans going amiss is too awful to imagine, and could affect the future of the children in question.

However, it is insisted by supporters that this is for the good of the public. What does everyone else think about this? Please leave your comments

Tories visit Wales

The tory party held its Welsh Conservatives conference in Cardiff today, and some interesting tactics were used by the party to drum up Welsh support. (Click here) Environment and health seem to be areas which the tories are focusing on, the Welsh assembly leader for the party made an offer today to give every household £20 worth of energy efficient light bulbs if they win May's poll. Well, I think thats an interesting offer- good on you, Nick Bourne!

I think that whilst environmental issues are key to most of parties, this is a genuine attempt at encouraging and supporting the public to take action against climate change. (Although I think it is unlikely that they will win the poll, as support for Plaid Cymru and the Welsh labour party are forces to be reckoned with.)

Environmental issues are a matter of great importance to Wales, I know this from my first hand experience of growing up in Caernarfon. The people of Wales are becoming increasingly concerned about protecting their environment, and the very land on which the Welsh economy depends upon. Focus on buying local, fresh produce was also a good-sense recommendation from the tories, which I believe will have struck a cord with those working in agriculture, or proudly supporting Welsh produce.

I believe that the points during the conference will set a good example to all parties across Britain, who should also be aware of regional and environmental priorities.

Menzies 1st year (at the bottom)

Sir Menzies Campbell's first year at the head of the Lib Dems passed quietly today but not unnoticed. Firstly I think there appears to be a definite drop in his popularity, which has probably been highlighted by his leadership anniversary. This evening's broadcast of the BBC's Newsnight revealed that it had conducted a poll which could demonstrate this. Also his party's very own magazine, "The Liberal" carried comments from its editor calling Sir Menzies 'unconvincing'.

This decline in support, I think, has potential to knock the leader's confidence as rising stars in the party such as Simon Hughes, and Nick Clegg are basking in the media lime-light. If the party is going gain any ground at all on the Tories, I think they will need to do it without Campbell. I see little point in the party's talented MPs taking a back seat behind a flagging leader. The opposition are pulling out all the stops, and if the Lib dems are not careful they will sink further behind and out of the public eye completely.

Plight of public secror

I'm expecting that angry mobs of disgruntled nurses will soon be launching protests at Westminster shortly. They are reportedly one of many the public sector workers due to receive low pay rises this year, including doctors who will receive a 0% rise and dentists who will, like the nurses receive 2%. The figure is bellow the rate of inflation, which will make living costs harder to meet . Comparisons are now being drawn in the headlines between the forces, whom are due to receive the highest pay rise. I don't see this as a very fair comparison however, as both professions are worlds apart.

Although the pay rise for the nurses is an abomination for those struggling hardest to make ends meet, our armed forces are risking their lives serving in an overstretched military , with insufficient equipment in most cases. I think that they deserve their pay increase. It is a pity that nursing staff have not also received adequate reward for their hard work.

If industrial action does take place I hope those in Westminster will take note. Britain cannot afford to lose such diligent and hard-working members of its workforce without it costing greatly. This issue should also be at the focus of the general public, instead of mundane dilemmas such as school catchment areas.

Beeb's unethical treatment of MP Galloway

MP George Galloway’s interview on the BBC lunchtime news today left me astonished. An anti-war campaigner and somewhat of an interesting character, MP Galloway has hit the headlines for taking part in a music video in aid of the anti-war movement. However his interview broadcast on the BBC lunchtime news today appeared to be an entirely shameless construction, intent on ridiculing him.

Having been asked in somewhat of a patronising manner why he had taken part in the video, he responded by explaining that he simply wanted to highlight his cause. He was then about his time in the Channel 4 Big Brother house pretending to be a cat (a clip of Galloway fooling around ensues at this point). A question which appeared to deviate entirely from the issue. He retorted exasperatedly that his taking part was exclusively "in aid of raising money for charity." He also twice attempted to make reference to how ‘rare’ it was for him to be broadcast on the BBC (this comment was side-stepped entirely. Twice.) He also commented on how disappointed he was that the interview was not “taken very seriously”. At which point I feel he was shut up as the interview was hurriedly terminated. I think that the treatment Galloway received in this interview today was entirely unethical and unprofessional. I have not seen it broadcast again today for some reason. (Hmm) Galloway is mentioned briefly on the website; however access to the interview is not available.

Whatever happened to the beebs crusade for freedom of speech? I think at the very least interviewees should be permitted an independent voice during an interview, regardless of whether or not the broadcasters happen to agree or not!, (in the exception of using offensive language or racism).

Please leave me any comments or thoughts on this issue; hopefully someone else also viewed the interview this lunchtime.

Politics and the modern family

Parenting and family is something of a hot topic at Westminster recently. I can see a definite battle has begun between the Tories and the Labour party. The views expressed by both could have been spurred by a recent Unicef report, which claims to have found Britain's children the "worst off" in a report examining child well-being in industrialised countries. Or in the case of Alan Johnson, his comments could be seen as a response to David Cameron's ‘wake-up’ warnings to absentee fathers.

I think both parties are certainly competing for the spotlight today, however I view multi-party discussions on these issues as beneficial. After appearing in the headlines several times in the last few days, these comments are now being considered by the society in which these issues are located. Both Johnson and Cameron have highlighted important points, Johnson’s references to "alternate" family structures, and their capabilities of being as equally beneficial to child well-being as two-parent structures, are welcome and helpful words. Cameron’s stern warnings to errant fathers are also constructive; I feel that it was about time society was given a jolt forward by those on the outside, looking in.

Whilst we poke fun at a new breed of fathers, known commonly as 'metro-daddies', whose babies are strapped to their chests, fiercely proud of their status as modern parents, they are still few and far between. The other breed of fathers, the absentees, are sadly all too common.

Politicians and the public's right to scrutinise them.

Peter Hain has condemned Rory Bremners duping of Margaret Beckett, and accused him of "spreading cynicism and embitterment about politicians" after Bremner released the transcript of his Gordon Brown impersonation this weekend.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1437767.ece

The impersonation led to Margaret Beckett talking to Brown (aka Bremner in disguise) about her colleagues. This stunt has made me like the cheeky comedian more than ever. I feel that Bremner has injected a little humour into the world of politics, which lets face it, could do with a few more 'light' moments, what with the very serious discussions concerning Afghanistan, a US plot to attack Iran, and the leadership contest.

Whether you are a fan of Margaret Becket or not, her failure to recognise Bremner's prank highlights a valuable lesson for us all; unless you are prepared to stand by your opinions, keep them to your self. Politicians must accept that they are at the mercy of public scrutiny, and prepared for the possible fall-out caused their actions.

Britain still extremely concerned about foreign policy.

(Image by from "stop the war coalition")
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.htm

Yesterday protesters across Britain launched a protest against the war in Iraq. I feel that the timing of this protest quite fascinating. Last week the "stop the war coalition" began recruiting protestors in town centers across the country. This week the government announced that it would be withdrawing troops from Iraq. It seems to me that this news has had no effect upon those who turned out in London, Manchester and Liverpool, whether the timing of the announcements by the government intended it to, I'm not sure.

The public appear to still be extremely concerned about the role of the British forces in Iraq. Some of them are my closest friends or colleuges. The "stop the war coalition" , I think seems to be growing in supporters by the protest. But what I am wondering is, why has concern has escalated this week? The only conclusion that I can reach is that as our time in Iraq drags on, the information which is accessible to the public about the situation has grown, and with it I think a great deal of discussion, speculation and a sense of unrest. This has reach a boiling point, which coincided with this weeks' interesting announcements to withdraw troops from Iraq,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/blai-f22.shtml

(only to place them in Afghanistan) and the news of Prince Harry's deployment to Iraq. This has cause much global interest, particularly, of course from the US, where it is obvious to me that particular states appear less than...united. From these events this week I do feel able to see how current headlines might have contributed to rousing the anti-war protesters. I think that it is clear for all to see that Britain is still extremely concerned about foreign policy in Iraq. I don't think that in our lifetime at least, we in Britain can make sense of it all . Divided we stand, politically at least.

Where is the love?

One thing that intrigues me about David Cameron this week is his insistence that all todays' youth need to keep them from turning bad is... love. I find this difficult to absorb. Images and stories concerning 'that' hooded menace photographed jeering Cameron this week (see Guardian coverage) make me wonder if Cameron might be feeling a little... daft. Of course the Tory official line is that the photographs serve to strengthen Camerons' points about parental responsibility, and the need for two parent families to care for children in a loving manner. I think Cameron will hold on to this point until the bitter end, I see his stubbornness that all we need is love as quite puzzling, yet inspiring. I think Cameron is a great guy, possibly a guy who could persuade me to (gulp!) vote Tory. But is this the right approach for fighting crime? I'll give Cameron something, it is original!

I see this is another instance of the contrast between both Tony Blair and Cameron when it comes to crime. Labour's hard-line approach to street and gun crime this week stuck me as a little media-driven to say the least. Or perhaps I am being a little hasty? It doesn't seem to me that violence on the streets of London is something unusual, only today I walked passed a group of 'hoodies' in my area of West London. One girl was carrying a samurai sword. But this did not seem to spark much attention on todays' busy Saturday afternoon. Now that was one 'hoodie' I certainly wouldn't hug. Several things worry me about that girl. Firstly, the fact that she was a girl. This bothers me, as I am now beginning to realize that more and more girls are becoming involved in street crime. The second thing which concerned me, was the lack of attention this attracted. Why are people so eager to distance themselves from such things? Do we now live in fear of these gangs who are little more than children?

BBC 4 aired an insightful interview with a girl prosecuted for gun crime today, which delves a little deeper than my comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2007_08_fri.shtml

Just how safe is Britain this week?

Fighting talk aplenty in British politics today. Defence secretary Des Browne has confirmed after much media speculation that the government will indeed be sending more troops to Afghanistan, after deciding to withdraw numbers in Iraq last week. What a merry-go round! With our troops over- stretched and moral at somewhat of a low ebb, this seems like a bad idea to me. The Guardian reports that the decision comes after efforts to recruit assistance from France and Germany were unsuccessful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2020034,00.html

Prince Harry's deployment in Iraq has left me more than a little concerned. The Independent has reported the prince to be "Over the moon" about the deployment, however I feel it is possible that his involvement could put Britain in danger, after all, wouldn't it be a clear demonstration of British support for the 'war on terror'?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2296850.ece

An anti-ballistic missile defense system aptly named after the cult sci-fi films "star wars", has also grabbed the attention of the Tories, who were desperate to find out what the PM and President Bush have been plotting today. The economist reports that Tony Blair had been "discreetly waging a campaign" to have the "son of Star Wars" system on British turf, in the belief that its presence will add protection to Britain. Sadly for the PM it is now being reported by BBC news that the US has it sights set on a spot in Eastern Europe ; Good news for us skeptics, who believe that the situation of a US system in Britain could increase the threat of terrorist attacks . It is also reported that questionable accuracy of such a missile could also pose a danger, with the possibility of falling derbies on allied areas. Nice. Something which Shadow defense secretary Liam Fox was eager to highlight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390621.stm

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744629

So it seems today that the government is using its best fighting talk. But at what costs?