(c) Acezbt01

According to Freud the journey to adult sexual maturity begins at birth. Far from wresting on his laurels man must almost immediately begin to confront a whole host of largely incestuous perversions in a bid to tame his impulsive sexual appetites. Once the journey is complete the weary combatant may take solace in his newly formed sexual proclivities, safe in the knowledge that never again will he instinctively attempt to emulate Oedipus Rex.

Although I do not subscribe to Freud’s view of polymorphous perversity, one area in which we are in complete accord is the idea that sexual desire is an extremely influential and ever-present human emotion, which can manifest itself in numerous ways, including the physical act of sex itself.

As well as carrying a significant emotional weight sex is also an extremely profitable commodity. The pornography industry, for example, has acted as kingmaker for every form of visual technology since VHS’ much vaunted triumph over the technically superior Beta Max in the early 1980s.

When the internet, as we know it, was first pioneered by Tim Berners-Lee back in 1989 the possibilities were endless. Since then the World Wide Web has become arguably the greatest invention of all time, with its unparalleled ability to enable new forms of social interaction and promotion of free and ready access to information. It’s also awash with pornography.

However, it is not only sexual explicit imagery that is readily available to anyone with a laptop and a spare five minutes. In the last few years, numerous online advertisement agencies have chosen to extend their commercial arms by offering, should you be so inclined, a range of subtly entitled ‘adult services’.

Although in a strictly legal sense the idea of two consenting adults meeting for the purposes of fornication is permissible, the innovation has sparked controversy over its tacit encouragement of prostitution and sex trafficking. In the last week the American internet behemoth Craigslist was forced to remove its ‘erotic services’ content from its servers, amidst mounting pressure from anti-prostitution lobbyists and senior legal figures.

The site has drawn considerable criticism from campaigners over the last year due to a number of high profile incidents such as the murder of Julissa Brisman by Philip Markoff, a man she’d met whilst using the site, and the publication of an article in the Washington Post where two women revealed how’d they’d been forced into prostitution to satisfy clients attracted through the online advertising emporium.

Unsurprisingly, a number of commentators have rallied around Craigslist on the basis that the removal of its salacious services violates its right to free speech. The facilitation of free speech is all too often used as a justification for socially irresponsible actions. Pastor Terry Jones, for instance, is completely within his rights to burn the Qur’an to mark the anniversary of 9/11, but given the widespread potential for violent recrimination it would surely be advisable for him to reconsider the way in which he chooses to express his God given right.

There are also those who suggest that whilst solicitations for sex on the website are in themselves regrettable, banning the ads altogether will only drive the criminal activities behind them deeper underground thus, making them harder to keep track off. The idea that it’s better to have illegal activities in a place where we can see them is baffling to say the least. Providing prostitution is a criminal offence, its existence at any level will remain a cause for concern and if it remains illegal then surely arguments about keeping it out in the open are self effacing.

Ultimately, your opinion on the Graigslist debacle will be determined by whether you prioritise social responsibility over free speech or vice versa. Yet, even if Craigslist has been unfairly singled out as a sexual pariah it is difficult to accept that one of the most prominent websites in America should be making over a third of its annual revenue, around $36 million, from listings of such a questionable nature. As the traditional maxim would have it: sex sells, but at what cost?

Craiglists counting costs: removes ‘adult services’ by Jonathon Graham was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) Farfahinne

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week the French went on strike in masses (approximately 2 million people), against plans for pension reform. Why are they all so upset about these reforms that they have taken to the streets in such huge numbers? One could argue they are not really that upset as striking is second nature to the French and they will go on strike for anything. But let’s push that thought aside and try to be objective. The pension reform plans aim to rise the age of retirement in France from 60 to 62 in 2018, and eventually to 65. Personally, I find their discontent unjustified, and this is why.

One can understand and agree with only two of their arguments: that the planned reforms will not stop the growth in the budget deficit whilst planned funds for the pensions of the baby-boomers have been badly spent; and that people over the age of 60 trying to seek employment will most likely end up unemployed and on the dole. For the rest one just wants to tell them to stop being lazy and get on with it!

Retirement is only a relatively recent notion that was introduced in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Before then, life expectancy being lower, people worked until death. Granted, this could not work nowadays when people have very long life expectancy but nonetheless we must remember that retirement has not always been part of our lives and cannot be taken for granted. Second of all, France actually has the lowest retirement age amongst fellow European countries, the most generous retirement packages and consequently a huge deficit in its pension fund. By comparison, in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece and the UK the retirement age is 65, in Germany it is 67 with several of these countries planning to raise this.

Yet none of these countries of late have seen such huge breakouts as there have been in France. Notwithstanding the fact that many people actually want to keep on working, just as many people want to work more than 35 hours. But instead, it is made difficult for them. Many people upon reaching the age of retirement worry about no longer being employed, not knowing what do with themselves after having stopped their jobs. In fact, some people want to carry on working after retirement and either take on new jobs or continue working on a freelance consultancy basis. All this, without counting the fact that the French benefit from the 35 hour working week, whilst many other countries are working 40-42 hour working weeks if not more. It seems strange that in what is supposed to be the working world, the French seem to be so concerned over their well being, spare time, and cushy retirement plans. Did they forget that the working world meant having to work? In comparison to their European neighbours who are working harder. So really, why are they complaining about having to retire 2 years later?

Instead, it is important to keep in sight the reasons why the state is suggesting these pension reforms. It is not to slight those who have worked hard, but rather to face the reality of an ageing-population. As Matthew Hunter mentions the figures speak for themselves. The baby-boomers and later generations are fast out-growing the current generation of young employees and graduates entering the job market. Not only that, but according to the ILO, the number of young people that are unemployed is currently the highest it has ever been and is predicted to continue to rise in 2010. It is therefore unsustainable to have a larger proportion of people going into retirement whilst the younger generations hold up the fort for them and continue to struggle to make ends meet in their own day-to-day lives.

So really the French should stop for a minute to ponder their actions and weigh out the pros and cons of this pension reform plan. Yes it will mean working a little longer, but in the long run will it not be beneficial to society? Admittedly governments can pass wrong judgments but they were elected to run the country and take exactly this kind of decision when it is necessary. Perhaps strikes in France should stop being a march of protest against everything the people don’t like about their president and become a more sensible protest. If this were the case, perhaps there would be fewer strikes in France altogether!

Millions strike in France against pension reform by Emma Brooks was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(C) hoveringdog

With the retirement age set to rise and a radical shake up of pensions on the horizon, the way we view retirement in the UK is soon to be very different from the picture previous generations may have had. Before long the image of fifty and sixty something’s leaving the workforce to practice their swing or top up their air miles may be condemned to the history books. The future reality will be people not be able to leave the rat race at the age they’re now, as there will simply not be enough cheese to go around.

In July, the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition set out a proposal to change the default state pension age in 2016 from 65 to 66, a whole eight years earlier than the previous government had intended. This is due to the increase in life expectancy amongst the population which is considerably higher than when the contributory state pension was introduced in 1926. At that time men were not expected to live much beyond the pension age. Today, as the far healthier baby boomers are shuffling along steadily closer to retirement, younger generations are inheriting an ageing population with a hefty tax bill as a result. Past generations have generally exceeded their parents and grandparents in prosperity, but as this trend is now set to revert, the sums for paying for pensioners simply won’t add up.

The figures calculated by The Office for National Statistics on the subject speak for themselves. The percentage of the population that are 65 and over in 2008 was 16% which is expected to rise to 23% by 2033. In 2008, there were 3.2 people of working age for every person of state pensionable age. This ratio is projected to fall to 2.8 by 2033, taking into account the future changes to state pension age. This clearly indicates there will be a reduced number of productive members of the national workforce attempting to support a higher number of pensioners.

The majority of people, including both Labour and the Lib-Con coalition, are in agreement that these reforms are a necessity as there is not currently any correlation between retirement age and life expectancy. However, by bringing forward these changes the coalition could be guilty of ‘moving the goalposts’ for those who are currently approaching retirement age. By bringing forward the date of the adjustment by eight years, the proposal will now affect a huge amount of people who will be already directly planning or have already made plans for their impending retirement. Many people in their late fifties who have never intended to work beyond sixty five will now feel more than disgruntled that they have to subtract twelve months off their approaching twilight years.

As with most of the new welfare proposals brought in by the coalition, the question of fairness regarding classes has inevitably arisen over the matter. It is generally accepted that workers from poorer backgrounds have a lower life expectancy and asking them to continue working longer is quite different than someone who is a professional or from a white collar background. There are calls for a more flexible retirement age to be brought in which takes into account the nature of your job, whilst also more of an emphasis on the health inequalities between the rich and the poor. The current proposals will certainly not help the issue of pensioner poverty as for some; the extra year being added will be just another year in unemployment.

A survey conducted this week by The BBC has shown that people are now coming around to the realisation that retirement for younger people may not be the same experience as the current crop of pensioners are enjoying. Out of 1000 people surveyed, over one half of those in work said that “it was unfair that younger generations would be worse off than those currently approaching retirement age”, and nearly three quarters, “worried about not having the funds to live as they would like in retirement”. As a solution, the government is proposing the scrapping of the law allowing employers to sack someone because they have reached the age of 65. This should encourage people to work for longer, pay more taxes and ease the strain on public finances. So a comfortable, financially secure retirement in the future is still possible, but it will probably start a fair bit later than it would today.

The new reforms on pensions were certainly overdue as the issue of life expectancy is now being addressed with some haste. The argument against speeding up the process by bringing the dates forward is one that doesn’t stand up. The changes are more than necessary and the decision on where to drop the axe was always going to upset the generation of people that were to be the first to lose out. With the current financial situation as it is, this spending cut as with many others in different sectors had to be made sooner rather than later. One social positive that may come out of this review is a renewed fight on pensioner poverty.  At no time in life is the income disparity gap more serious than after retirement. It can mean the difference between having gas heating or not, which at that age can be the difference between life and death. A renewed fight against health inequalities amongst the elderly must be a legacy that comes out of this modified pension system.

Retirement golden age set to end by Matthew Hunter was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) Paulblank

Fabio Capello has achieved a lot over the course of his career. As a player he earned a sack-full of caps for Italy and even scored a few goals too, including the winner at Wembley against England in 1973. He also picked up four Serie A titles and two Coppa Italia’s during a playing career which saw him play for Roma, Juventus and AC Milan.

As a coach he has won four serie A titles with AC Milan, also taking home the Supercoppa Italiana three times, a European Super Cup and of course the biggest prize, the Champions League. In addition he has won a further Serie A title with Roma and won back to back titles with Juventus, which were later revoked due to the match fixing scandal which nearly crippled Italian football in 2006.

As if all this isn’t enough he can also list an additional two league titles with Real Madrid and  as of the time of writing possesses  the best win percentage record of any England manager ever. Of the 30 games he has taken charge of England have won 21, given Capello a win percentage of 70%, Sir Alf Ramsey coming second with 61.1%.

Impressed yet? Well you should be. But the most perplexing ‘achievement’ of his career so far is that Fabio Capello has managed to become the most hated England manager of all time. Of course every England manager has taken flack for bad results and tournament failures but the vitriolic hatred with which many journalists speak of Capello suggests almost a level of disgust usually reserved for people like Peter Sutcliffe.

In the aftermath of the poor showing by England at the World Cup he has been lambasted and ridiculed for as many reasons as he has winners medals. If it’s not because of his English speaking abilities, and how perhaps the fact he is still not quite fluent has a negative impact on communication with the players, then it’s the way in which he holds team meetings. Or perhaps the way he notifies players of their inclusion or exclusion from a squad, announces the team sheet a few hours before a game or the way he maintains  squad discipline generally.

If it’s not one of those reasons then it’s the way in which he holds training camps, the way he reviews previous matches, the way in which he prepares the players for the next game, the ethnic composition of his back room staff. Bored yet? No? Good because there’s more, we haven’t mentioned the Capello index, his salary and of course the negotiation of his contract a week before the world cup started removing a break clause and committing England to a Capello future until Euro 2012.

This leaves us with formation, tactics and team selections. Capello should not have played 4-4-2, apparently. He also should not have taken King or Heskey to the World Cup and shouldn’t have dropped Walcott from the final squad. Wait, he shouldn’t have taken Beckham as part of the backroom staff, and then he shouldn’t have said Beckham might be too old to play for England again. But wait again, he shouldn’t have been using him as a late substitute in several qualification games, perhaps he should have been a starter? I don’t know, the media say many things, suggest many things, demand many things.

What all of the above ramblings is supposed to be saying is that when you strip it all down England have lost two competitive games and three friendlies under Capello having scored 64 goals in 30 games and conceded 26 which roughly rounded means England average a 2-1 win overall.

The only reason that there is even an issue is the 4-1 thumping to Germany in the second round of the knock-out stages. Albeit a second round pairing that England conspired to bring  on themselves by their  freak goalkeeping error in the USA game.

If England had beaten the USA 1-0 they would have topped the group with two wins and a draw and played Ghana, a strong side but one you would expect England to have taken a result from.

This of course also is without mentioning that legitimately a battered England could have gone in at half time with a 2-2 scoreline against Germany and perhaps come out for the second half with a sense of resurgence rather than one of indignation. But all that being said, legitimately England were no match for Germany at this World Cup.

This brings us to the real reason that England played so badly at the World Cup, and I’ll give you a clue, it had nothing to do with Capello. It seems likely that Rooneys dismal displays from the World Cup warm up and onwards may well be something to do with the fact he’s been having affairs with call girls.

Furthermore, the poor performance of England’s 4-4-2 formation may have something to do with a mixture of underperformance from the players who went out on to the pitch each time and the fact that the much hailed Gerrard couldn’t seem to follow instructions at all. Perhaps because he was too busy arguing with John Terry over who actually was captain.

A brutal account of why England failed to beat Algeria can be found here: http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=7530 this clearly shows that the reason England played so badly at the World Cup with 4-4-2 was because instead of sticking to his position of a slightly tucked in left sided midfielder, he decided to wander all over the pitch looking for the ball like a schoolboy leaving massive holes across the left side of England’s midfield.

This  analysis is backed up also by another very good post here: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/19/england-0-0-algeria-tactics/ . Here too it also makes note of the fact that Gerrard decided he wanted to wander inside and play all over central midfield like it was a playground game at lunchtime.

In summary, and the point entirely of this article is that England didn’t play badly at the world cup because of Capello, they played badly because the players under performed, failed to follow instructions and can’t be trusted with even a 4-4-2 let alone experimenting with a more continental 4-2-3-1.

England will qualify for the Euros comfortably and then will bow out against a technically better side in the quarter finals. Capello then will move on to pastures new and look back at the time he spent with the national team as the time when he tried his best with what he had to hand but the players to take England on to tournament success simply did not exist.

Of course, the papers will have you believe that if only Wilshire, Walcott, Gibbs, Adam Johnson and Joe Hart had gone to the World Cup then right now we would still be celebrating but such talk is fantasy, only a manager with a death wish would have taken a misfiring Walcott, an unproven Wilshire and a Manchester City pairing that have only just  started to establish themselves as top level premiership talents.

Whatever happens against Switzerland the papers won’t be happy, but one thing is guaranteed: Capello won’t care either way.

The curious case of Fabio Capello by Peter Doggett was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) Dweller

Labour has been debating its future over the last few weeks during its leadership election. So has UKIP. Last month, Lord Pearson resigned as leader conceding he was “not much good at party politics”.

His brief leadership was punctuated by a series of disasters. Just after becoming leader last November, he angered party activists after revealing he had offered to dissolve the party in return for David Cameron giving Conservative MPs a free vote on the Lisbon Treaty. In the New Year, UKIP’s founder and former leader Alan Sked wrote to The Times calling the party’s policy of banning the burqa “desperate and inane.” During the election campaign, he told The Campaign Show presenter Jon Sopel in his interview that he wasn’t there to “deal with some minutiae”: it was about UKIP’s manifesto. Two weeks before polling day, Pearson was unable to stop UKIP candidates standing against eurosceptic Conservatives in Somerset. He had written an open letter to the local newspapers instructing them to stand down.

The election was a disaster for Nigel Farage in another way. Having resigned the party leadership, he was contesting Speaker John Bercow’s seat in Buckingham. On polling day his aircraft crashed after he’d attempted to take-off to try to fly his election banner. He was pulled out of the wreckage unconscious and to add insult to his considerable injuries, he came third in the ballot behind independent candidate John Stevens who was campaigning against Bercow on an anti-expenses platform.

Farage said on the Today programme in August he was considering that he may “throw his hat in the ring” in the leadership election. He mentioned that he requires another operation before Christmas to deal with back injuries sustained during the crash. Yesterday, he attended UKIP’s annual conference at Torquay. When he suggested competing in the leadership election to the assembled delegates, he received a warm reception. According to the South Devon media, Farage said: “I haven’t taken this decision lightly, I have agonised over this. It’s good to be back.” The other candidates are Gerard Batten MEP and Deputy Leader David Campbell Bannerman. Batten stood as UKIP London mayoral candidate in 2008 and did badly, polling only 0.9% of the vote. Campbell Bannerman was a former Conservative councillor and wrote UKIP’s 2010 manifesto.

The delegates will vote under UKIP’s system of One Member, One Vote and 50 members are required to submit a name on the ballot paper. Farage is considered UKIP’s most capable leader. After succeeding Roger Knapman in 2006, he was regarded as an adept performer in the media and increased the party’s profile by appearing on talksport radio, GQ magazine and on the BBC. He also made several shrewd appointments and decisions to broaden the party’s appeal beyond opposition to the European Union. He recruited EU whistleblower Marta Andreasson. Following accusations from former UKIP manifesto author Aidan Rankin that the party was hostile to gays, Farage gave the party a libertarian emphasis and had openly gay candidates stand in elections to the European Parliament. The libertarian emphasis was also helpful in refuting allegations that UKIP were the “BNP in blazers”. He sought to appeal to Conservatives disaffected by Cameron’s decisions on education by having a pledge to build new grammar schools as the leading part of UKIP’s education policy.

He has kept a high- profile during 2010. His autobiography Fighting Bull was published by Tory blogger Iain Dale’s publishing company Biteback and he suggested on Question Time that a Royal Commission should be appointed to explore the possibility of decriminalising drugs.

Farage’s leadership was marred by his admission during the furore over expenses that he’d claimed £2 million in expenses himself. Sked and other UKIP leaders had refrained from having candidates stand for the European Parliament on the grounds that they would be seduced by the expenses system.

Farage has also had fractious relationships with other eurosceptic parties. During Ireland’s referendum campaign on the Lisbon Treaty last year, Farage toured the country with his entourage to encourage a No vote. Declan Ganley of the Libertas party who was also campaigning for the No campaign to ratification saw this as British interference in Irish affairs. He said that Farage’s intervention was “unwarranted, unwelcome, unhelpful and unnecessary.” The division helped the Yes campaign win. Furthermore, Nikki Sinclaire, one of the openly gay MEPs was deselected from the party after expressing her unhappiness at UKIP’s alliance in the European Parliament with the Lega Nord, the political descendants of Benito Mussolini.

UKIP currently has 12 MEPs and 100 councillors. Unlike other minority parties, it still has no representatives in the devolved assemblies and no Westminster MP when the Northern Ireland Alliance Party and the Greens gained their first. There are possible changes in the near future that could improve the party’s fortunes. Currently handicapped by First Past the Post, the Alternative Vote system offers a means for the party to gain second preference from Conservative voters. The current disintegration of the BNP if continued, would also give UKIP a monopoly on an anti-EU platform in the UK.

As an already recognisable figure, Farage would be a good asset to UKIP gaining an MP. Nevertheless, the party still faces barriers that would confine it to remaining a Anti Political Establishment (APE) Party that makes a lot of noise, but accomplishes little.

Farage considers second UKIP leadership by Simon Stiel was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) soupshow

Mexico is a country decimated by drug-related conflict. The landscape is marred with the evidence of hideous atrocities. Bodies hang from bridges and mass graves are overflowing. Yesterday’s gun battles in the north-eastern border state of Tamaulipas demonstrate that the violence is still escalating. At least 25 people were killed in the clash between the army and the alleged drug traffickers, adding to the estimated 28,228 deaths caused by drug-related violence since January 2007. The Mexican President Felipe Calderon made no exaggeration in his assessment: “It’s a war”.

His decision to deploy more than 50,000 troops and federal police to fight in this ‘war’ indicates the true severity of the problem. The benefits of invoking the army were seen yesterday, when soldiers confiscated drugs and weapons from the gunmen, and successfully rescued three kidnapping victims. However, this military intervention has come at its own cost.

President Calderon launched the offensive in 2006, but since then drug-related violent crime has intensified unremittingly. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the President’s action antagonised the drug cartels, provoking violent reactionary outbursts. The army’s involvement has also provided them with another enemy, and they now fight the official forces as well as each other. Another concern is that the army cannot be held accountable for the actions of its soldiers, even though their operations often involve violence and killing.

It appears the President was damned either way – he could not simply ignore the destruction caused by the drug related warfare which has broken out all over Mexico. He has not lost his faith, claiming in his state of the union address that he can “say with absolute certainty, it is possible to defeat the criminals.” His rhetoric failed to capture the ‘hearts and minds’ of the population. The unfortunate truth is that he appears to have lost control, and parts of the country have effectively subsided under gang rule.

Worst hit have been the northern Mexican towns which border the United States. This is hardly surprising as the traffickers’ aim is to reach the American market. They are not the only Mexicans who are trying to reach American soil, and there have been reports of other aspiring migrants who have been caught up in the turmoil. After being shot in the face, an Ecuadorean survivor has urged others not to try to reach North America by travelling through Mexico, saying: “don’t make the journey any more because the Zetas are killing a lot of people…There are a lot of bad people who won’t let you through.”

Seventy two migrants from Central and South America were recently killed in a drug-related massacre in the north of Mexico. This is a horrifying figure, but tragically it is not an isolated incident. No official reason for the killings has been released, although the view of the Mexican authorities is that these people were slaughtered when they refused to transport illegal drugs into the United States. Ecuadorian leader Rafael Correa has condemned the atrocity, stating that: “There is no name for what happened in Mexico last week.” The barbarism of these attacks seems inexplicable, but for drug traffickers this is a way of life. Drugs are the key to survival, and they are willing to kill to protect that.

Drugs represent money and power. The prospect of acquiring these motivates drug-related crime. This is why kidnap, as well as killing, is rife. It has been said that the Mexican drug war constitutes ‘elitist’ crime, targeting the wealthy, although there have been reports of people being kidnapped for as little as $1,000. Tamaulipas attracted more media attention yesterday over the alleged kidnap of Fernanddo Azcarraga Lopez, the cousin of Televisa’s owner. Lopez has been reported missing although this has not been confirmed as a drug-related kidnap. In the current climate this does not seem unlikely.

Whatever the truth of that matter, the overarching problem remains. Mexico is being torn apart by violence led by powerful drug cartels. Now there are two options – allow them to continue to terrorise Central America and drive the state to ruin, or intervene. The Mexican President has consistently resisted exhortations that he should legalise the drugs to limit the violence. However, he knows that he cannot “defeat the criminals alone”. The co-operation of the United States will be critical to restoring order in Mexico.

In March 2009, the United States publicly committed to redoubling its efforts to impede the transportation of weapons and drug profits across the border into Mexico, denying the cartels the ammunition for their battles. The recent increase in violence suggests that this strategy is not working. The policy itself is sound, but the reality would suggest that it is not being satisfactorily implemented.

Another approach involves providing more equipment and training to the official authorities, rather than attempting to deprive the drug traffickers of theirs. The Merida Initiative is a $400 million project devoted to this endeavour. It has been formed through the collaboration of the US with Central American countries, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

When the Initiative was launched in 2007, there were four agreed goals: to “break the power and impunity of criminal organisations”; “assist the Mexican and Central American governments in strengthening border, air and maritime controls”; “improve the capacity of justice systems in the region” and “curtail gang activity in Mexico and Central America and diminish the demand for drugs in the region”. These are all very noble aims, but the criminal organisations are still powerful; gang activity is still widespread in Mexico and the demand for drugs is still high. It’s time to devise plan B.

The War on Drugs: Mexico’s Gordian Knot by laura.macphee was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) skomentuj

Thirty years ago in a shipyard on the North coast of Poland, Communism began to fall. Today, Gdańsk shipyard is more likely to host a rock concert than a political meeting and the locals are more concerned about whether the new football stadium will be ready in time for Euro 2012, but the city will forever be associated with the Solidarity movement. As Poland celebrates this anniversary and remembers the impact Solidarity had (and continues to have) in transforming the country from a Soviet satellite state into a fully-functioning EU democracy it is worth asking if similar movements could be as effective across the former U.S.S.R and even further afield.

For those who don’t know, Solidarity was founded in 1980 as a response to the political and social difficulties faced by the Polish government and which plagued the everyday life of Poles across the country. It became the first trade union in the Eastern Bloc that was not controlled by the Communist Party and despite continued attempts to repress and even destroy the group throughout the 1980s; Solidarity grew as a political force and earned the right to contest the 1989 semi-free elections through the Polish Round Table Agreement. As a new and legitimate political party, the group won 160 of the 161 seats available and Solidarity co-founder Lech Wałęsa became the President who presided over the collapse of Communism in Poland.

Since the early 90s though, Solidarity has become more of a trade union in the more traditional sense of the word and has little political influence as a party. Wałęsa unfortunately did not attend the celebrations for reasons that varied from ill-health to making a point against the current political affiliations of the union. However, U.S. President Barack Obama did send a message of support that was read out by the American ambassador to Poland, Lee Feinstein: “Through the Solidarity movement, the people of Poland reminded us of the power each of us has to write our own destiny. In the face of tyranny and oppression, they chose freedom and democracy and, in doing so, changed their country and the course of history.”

This raises an important point; Solidarity was always more than just a political party or even a trade union but was a social movement that brought the people of the country together against the U.S.S.R. Solidarity was strongly influenced by Catholic Social Teaching which is unsurprising given that even today more than 88% of people belong to the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the Pope at the time, John Paul II, was Polish and in a major document called ‘Sollicitudo Rei Socialis’ supported the concept of solidarity.

More importantly though, the movement was underpinned by the philosophical teaching of Leszek Kołakowski who concluded in his Theses on Hope and Hopelessness that “the best way to counteract prosecutions is massive committal….thus in the countries of socialist despotism, those who inspire hope are also the inspirers of a movement which could make this hope real”. Or, as it was put in Kołakowski’s obituary: “self-organised social groups could gradually expand the spheres of civil society in a totalitarian state”. A big idea and one that retains its importance even today for many countries where groups seek social change; especially when we look at the types of state described.Kołakowski speaks of states which have destroyed historical memory, manipulated all information and where memory has been nationalised so that citizens have been robbed of their identity.

This could be used to describe a worryingly large number of countries in 2010, including many post-Soviet Republics. In fact of the 15 post-Soviet states, the organisation Freedom House has declared eight not to be free, three to be partially free and only four are considered to be free states. Some offenders are worse than others though and ought to be highlighted as such. Turkmenistan continued to be controlled by the Communist Party after 1991 and the country soon became isolated and the media strictly controlled. The President died in 2006 and whilst his successor, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, promised reforms including a new constitution, in reality there has been little political reform and most political dissidents are locked up.

Meanwhile in neighbouring Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov has been President since 1991 and since then he has stripped all other institutions of any meaningful power and there is no effective opposition. Finally we have Belarus whose President, Aleksandr Lukashenko, has been described as ‘Europe’s last dictator’ as opposition is crushed with violence, harassment and intimidation. The people of these countries, and others like them could learn a lot from the teachings of Kołakowski and the way they were put into practice by Wałęsa.

The path to freedom is often long and arduous but the story of a fired electrician in a Polish port becoming President ought to be one that inspires people all these years later and there are indeed modern day examples. The Dalai Lama in Tibet, Morgan Tsvangirai in Zimbabwe and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma are all people who deserve our support in the way that Solidarity received widespread support in the 1980s. Wałęsa may not have attended the celebrations at the weekend but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to thank him for and can’t still learn from him today.

What does Solidarity mean 30 years on? by MarcusCleaver was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) World Economic Forum

I’m contemplating writing my memoirs. I hear they are in vogue. I fear, however, that my offering might not be as eagerly anticipated as Tony Blair’s memoirs, published today under the title A Journey. I can make my peace with that, however, since Amazon.co.uk has predicted that Tony Blair’s will be “the biggest political memoir of all time”. It was inevitable that this publication would be swathed in controversy, and it hasn’t disappointed. Even the book’s title incited dispute, and it was changed from The Journey. The indefinite article is known for its ability to dispel allegations of narcissism.

Blair is no fool. He knows that his legacy has been tarnished by the war in Iraq. Now he is endeavouring to rectify this both through his words and his actions. His decision to dine at the White House tonight, where he will engage in Middle East peace talks, sends out a message of his dedication to the cause. This could easily be dismissed as more hype, much as his donation of the royalties to the Royal British Legion was. Cynics suggest that Blair has left the country in order to avoid the spotlight. It is undeniable that the book’s publication today has attracted significant media attention, but it seems counterintuitive to suppose that Blair is seeking refuge from this in America. After all, he is about to embark on an international tour to promote the book. Is that the action of a man who is media-shy? I think not.

No, it seems that his motivation lies elsewhere. He has acted consistently in the weeks preceding the publication of his memoirs. Whatever his ulterior motives for donating the royalties to the British Legion may have been, this was still a substantial sum of money which will allow the charity to continue its essential work. His choice to direct the money in this way displays a commitment to remedying the aftermath of “the nightmare that unfolded” in Iraq. His enthusiastic involvement in the Middle East peace talks again demonstrates his concern, and the timing of his visit to the US actually appears to have been politically astute. He has been keen to emphasise the effort he has devoted to the peace process since leaving Downing Street. Perhaps this dinner is another verse of his mea culpa. This seems more likely than the idea that the erudite, calculating Blair should be running away.

Whilst his decision to take Britain to war in Iraq was viewed as defining his premiership, this is not a single issue memoir. Blair illuminates several of the political and personal challenges he has faced throughout his career, as well as offering his opinions on Brown’s ill-fated leadership and the future of the party. Whilst he does not explicitly comment on the contemporary leadership contest, he does cast veiled aspersions on the ability of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to offer a viable solution to the country’s financial problems. It is this aspect of the memoirs which is likely to have an impact on the party, as Blair delivers very clear advice on how the party could be returned to its former glory.

Actually, this advice could be summarised in two words: New Labour. Blair attributes Gordon Brown’s decline to his departure from the New Labour ideology. His words do ring true: “Labour won when it was New Labour… It lost because it stopped being New Labour”. Then again, it is hardly surprising that he should be an advocate for that manner of government.

The current leadership candidates have consistently been wary of praising the benefits of New Labour, which David Miliband recently dismissed as “a thing of the past”. The aim seems to be to appeal to the Left. Neither Brown nor Blair is especially popular with the British public any longer, so this is an understandable reaction, but is it a wise one? We shall have to wait and see whether Blair was correct, and whether the next Labour leader will take heed of his warnings.

Actually, maybe this memoir-writing lark is too stressful after all.

Tony Blair: The Biggest Political Memoir of All Time by laura.macphee was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) Scottish Government

Back when I met Alex Salmond in January I was not surprised to find he held several attributes: he was cocky, he didn’t seem to love the English, and he wanted Scottish independence more than anything else. As leader of the SNP in power he has considerable power at his disposal to bring about the latter. Why then, has he not put out a referendum? Thankfully, there have been several dynamics blocking this.

First, Scotland could not legitimately break off from the UK without the consent of both the Scottish people and the Parliament of the UK. If the UK says no, then sorry mate, but you’re still with us for the long haul.

Second, and I hope Salmond has realised this, independence would not be beneficial to Scotland. It is purely idealistic nonsense. Without the attachment to the UK, Scotland would lose its mostly-free health care, free university for undergraduates, and the money to develop its wind energy projects.

Yes, independence worked for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That’s because each of these countries had their own economic structure, and could stand up on their own two feet. Not only this, but they were geographically far removed from the UK. Canada had vast resources and fur, Australia had minerals, and New Zealand had a broad farming economy. Also, each of these countries was a financial burden to the empire.

Looking at countries in Africa once owned by the empire, one can easily see the effects of ‘independence gone wrong’. Many of these countries are in need of mass aid, and some are controlled by nepotistic dictators. It was only recently when some of these countries came out of mass genocide and civil war. Some are still in turmoil. The economies of these countries are dire. Aside from Guinea and Afghanistan, African countries fill up the top 10 lowest GDP per head in the world (2007). In Zimbabwe, an average Joe has purchasing parity 1/250th of his American cousin.

Of course Scotland is not going to descend into civil war. The point I’m making is that Scotland will not benefit from secession. The economy of Scotland has performed well in recent years, with consistent economic growth, urban regeneration, a growing population, and historically low unemployment rates. Edinburgh is Europe’s fifth largest financial centre and Scottish GDP per capita is the largest of any part of the United Kingdom after Greater London and South East England.

As a result of this, Scotland is economically stronger as a part of the UK economy, and a country as relatively small as Scotland is comparatively better able to prosper in an increasingly globalised world with the international influence and stability derived from being part of an economically powerful state. Moreover, Scotland currently under performs economically, relative to other small countries in the region such as Norway, Finland and Ireland. Remember also that Scotland has more influence on international affairs and diplomacy, both politically and militarily, as part of NATO, the G8 and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Polls show consistent support for a referendum, including amongst those who support the continuation of the union. Most opinion polls have a figure of ‘in-principle’ support for a referendum around 70–75%. In March 2009, The Sunday Times published the results of a YouGov survey on Scottish support for independence (mirroring the earlier 2007 poll). Support for a referendum was found to have fallen to 57% of respondents, with 53% stating they would vote against independence and 33% in favour.

Within the Scottish Parliament secession is opposed by Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems. Since the 2007 election these parties collectively hold 79 of the 129 seats, over 60% of the Parliament. Opposition to Scottish independence is also held by many individual figures such as George Galloway and smaller political parties such as the Scottish Unionist Party and UKIP.

It is a broad viewpoint that ranges from those in support of the United Kingdom as a centralised unitary state governed exclusively by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to those who support varying degrees of devolved transfer of administrative and legislative responsibilities from Westminster to Holyrood, including those who support a solution to the controversial West Lothian question, such as federalism, similar to Germany, Canada or the United States.

In August 2009 a YouGov survey with the Daily Mail asking if Scottish voters would support independence found 28% would vote Yes, 57% No, 11% did not know and 5% would not vote. Even the Scots don’t want independence so don’t ask for it.

SNP: try to break the Union and you’ll lose the election by Jonathan Baldie was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(c) Steve Caplin

Dear Labour leadership candidates,

You may have run your campaigns by the book: criticising the Party’s unpopular decisions and distancing yourselves from those that made them, calling for a return to “traditional Party values” (whilst of course acknowledging the need not to rely just on the “core” of the Party) and exercising an eloquent mea culpa regarding:

-          the rise in inequality;

-          the levels of immigration, and;

-          the erosion of civil liberties.

To name but a few. Having performed your roles perfectly, can we now see leadership?

I do not intend to be flippant; I have found a lot of the broader policy discussion interesting and worthy of air-time and debate; the graduate tax, the living-wage and Andy Burnham’s most recent proposal for a land-value tax are some of the highlights. However, I cannot help but feel that the candidates, in their desperation to appear passionate and in their genuine desire to win, have allowed the contest to descend into petty bickering.

I do not want to see stories about the Miliband rivalry putting strains on brotherly love or that Mrs Miliband (the mother) dislikes her boys’ “squabbling”. It was perhaps inevitable, but the prominence of such stories should be a cause for concern, and more recently there is news that Miliband the Elder has criticised his younger brother’s a-wooing of Lib-Dem voters (the article which I have parodied in my opening). A criticism I feel inclined to agree with, after-all – this is a Labour leadership election – I would rather Ed leave the electoral courtship until after he has won my vote.

Now, for various reasons I have not been able to participate in the Leadership contest and this has allowed me to scrutinise the campaign in a way that I could not during the General Election. At the very beginning of the campaign I attended what was perhaps the first major hustings: the Youth and Student hustings at Stratford Town Hall. I enjoyed the event immensely and found the policy debate interesting, but my problem is not with policy; there was an “atmosphere” that was very calm, relaxed – almost chummy between the candidates. Miliband the Elder often would whisper something in Ed Balls’ ear, to which both of them would heartily laugh – I found myself thinking – share the joke! I do not have a problem with a well-mannered – or even a friendly contest – on the contrary, it’s what we all want, but it captures something that Michael Portillo (of all people!) highlighted when Ed Miliband appeared on This Week – none of the candidates seem to have a burning desire for change; none demonstrate leadership.

For truly new leadership the Party would ultimately need a clean break with the past, which is impossible from four ex-Cabinet ministers and one ideologically bereft TV pundit. It was that freshness that did so much for David Cameron and the Conservatives.

Another problem is that even though the main four are former Cabinet Ministers, with considerable experience and political clout; they operated a very managerial style of government, which has come to characterise modern administrations. There are notable exceptions; and I personally see Ed Balls as one of those exceptions; yet, his bullish style and energy, whilst it would make him a lively Leader of the Opposition and could see some radical new policies; he could not appeal to the broader population.

The question is: what does Labour need from a leader? More engagement with and input from Party Members, acceptance of past failings (without trashing Labour’s entire record in government or its past leaders) and crucially someone truly aspirational. The last of these is something I think it does not have. I do not see a bold vision for how the country should be or a clear ideological zeal, but rather I see the sort of outlook one could expect from a policy advisor, which four of the five once were.

I would have no objection to either of the Miliband’s taking up the mantle; both seem highly competent and it is of course true that the inspirational side can take time to develop (Margaret Thatcher was unimpressive upon first becoming leader). All the same the Coalition is a very new and formidable force in British politics, which will need to be opposed in a very different way. The Labour Party has to adapt to this new climate and find in-roads into the centre, which has been effectively seized by the new government in a more profound way, perhaps, than ever before. It is for this reason that I am uneasy about the candidates appearing to be almost…nonchalant.

I don’t know where the Party should go next; I would like a leader to show me.

Dear Labour leadership candidates: where is Labour going? by Sean Cable was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

(C) Zoriah

On June 4 2009, President Barack Obama gave a historic speech in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, significant in both its occurrence and for the implications of what was said. The presence of Obama so soon after his inauguration and in a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, was a deliberate effort towards improving relations between East and West, between the Muslim world and America.

The New York Times called the event a “bold overture to the Islamic world”. Bolder still was the content of the speech. President Obama went further in his criticism of Israel than any previous occupier of the Oval Office, calling on the state to end settlement construction in the West Bank. In describing the state of the Palestinian people as ‘intolerable’, Obama was making a direct reference to the Israeli blockade of goods to the Palestinian state.

It was in his overtures to Hamas, the Palestinian political organisation responsible for numerous fatal attacks on Israel, that Obama drew most fire. Recognising Hamas support among Palestinians, Obama called on the organisation to ‘renounce violence and recognise Israel’s right to exist’ if it wants to play a role in unifying the Palestinian people

Fox News, rarely the bastion of moderate opinion, ran the headline: “Obama Overture to Hamas Suggests Inevitability of Terror Group’s Dominance Among Palestinians”. Factually correct (Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by the United States) but critically misleading. Hamas successfully won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament following legitimate elections in January 2006. The organisation can fairly claim the support of a significant percentage of Palestinians and that dynamic, however unpalatable, must be accepted, not rejected on grounds of political expediency.

Obama’s oratorical commitments during the infancy of his presidency, which spoke of a renewed vigour to achieving a two-state solution, have amounted to little tangible progress on the ground until the announcement of a new round of peace talks last week, scheduled for September 2. Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal labelled the talks illegitimate, the product of Washington coercion. They “do not obligate our people to anything,” he said. Whether these talks can be successful without Hamas involvement is for others to discuss in depth. Here I will look at the broader principles of whether refusing to engage with political groups with unpalatable and often violent histories, is the most appropriate strategy to sustainable resolutions; do the ends ultimately justify the means?

Case by case

There is no template structure for how to deal effectively with pariah states, para-military groups or designated terrorists organisations. In some situations different responses to the same problem produce the same result. In March 2009 President Obama made a video appeal to the Iranian people calling for a “new beginning” between the two countries built on honest engagement and mutual respect. The tone was markedly different to that of the George W. Bush administration, which included Iran in the infamous ‘axis of evil’. The results, thus far, however, have been alarmingly similar.

Less than 12 months after his extended olive branch, and following reports Iran had begun the progress of enriching uranium to 20% for use in a medical research reactor, Obama was deploying a different kind of stick, pledging to develop a “significant regime of sanctions” at the UN. In the end these sanctions were diluted to the point of vapour when passed in a vote of 12-2 in June this year.

Chinese officials were always going to be reluctant to support any action jeopardising growing trade relations with Iran and impeding their buoyant economic growth. We have seen similar action from China before at the climate talks in Copenhagen last December. Deliberately obstructive, the Chinese delegation was accused of blocking a meaningful cut in emissions for developed countries to preserve its booming coal-based economy.

Both cases are instructive examples of why multi-lateral agreements can only be effective if all stakeholders are agreed on the course of action and the intended outcomes. Iran’s belligerence to any efforts to curtail its nuclear enrichment program is a product of personalities, ideology and historical distrust of the West. Their trade position with China, however, provided them with a strong guarantee that the gravity of sanctions first threatened did not materialise into a crippling reality.

Striking a balance

The most difficult decision to make when considering how to engage in dialogue with groups such as Hamas is striking a balance between total isolation and conditional discussions. With the former, one risks creating a cause célèbre, a rallying point for disaffected individuals who already feel ostracized and neglected by their state or the international community. Pursuing the latter, on the other hand, often sparks a tirade of criticism from moderate organisations that claim the de facto legitimacy deferred upon the group by opening discussions legitimises their prior acts of violence.

In some cases the repercussions of engaging with a group using force or intimidation to accomplish their goals are such that they will always remain outcast from civil society. The case of the British couple, Paul and Rachel Chandler, kidnapped by Somali pirates last year and still held hostage, illustrates this. Pandering to the pirate’s demand will only encourage a spate of similar acts.

Kidnapping is a lucrative trade for impoverished Somalis and this context is critical for understanding the distinction between organisations seeking purely monetary gain and those whose actions are linked to a broader struggle for political or societal inclusion. Those who demand something more than financial reward will not be placated by the cold shoulder treatment. Their aspirations are often tied up with history and they will pursue them with dogged resilience born of a genuine belief that their cause is just and legitimate.

Justifying the unjustifiable

The question remains how we justify engaging with organisations that have committed reprehensible acts and how we open dialogue without angering moderate groups to the extent they withdraw themselves from discussions. The answers can only be provided on a case-by-case basis. No two situations will be the same; no two dynamics perfectly replicate one another.

The tentative peace we have in Northern Ireland today would not have been possible without Sinn Fein sat around the negotiating table, despite its links to the Provisional IRA and a roll-call of violence stretching back to 1971. Such an approach, however, would not be suitable for tackling Al-Qaeda, whose membership is the preserve of the fanatical and whose ideology and aims are obdurate to compromise. Key figures in the Taliban insurgency – a body of individuals with disparate aims that lacks coherent leadership and is poorly resourced – on the other hand, will be more amenable to solicitations form foreign governments.

The Afghan insurgency is not a defined army. Its membership is made up of individuals from most sectors of society, including business and agriculture. Their concerns are analogous to our own – the provision of security, access to good quality education, the opportunity to provide for one’s family, and so forth. Denying their engagement in negotiations will do nothing to address these concerns. A father will still want to provide, a mother will still fear for her infant, and children will remain uneducated.

There is no panacea, no generic rulebook on how organisations such as Hamas or the Taliban should be handled. The answer is dependent on the groups’ aims and how much popular legitimacy they command. One can find examples in history of multi-lateral agreements that successfully isolated organisations to the benefit of the many. Just as cases can be identified where a similar path led to abject failure. History is a useful reference for telling us where we’ve been. However, it cannot be a map for where we want to go.

Isolating groups like Hamas and the Taliban doesn’t always work by Chris McCarthy was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation

“It is totally unacceptable that a country that so blatantly violates (international treaties) should enjoy the fruits of using nuclear energy.”

You could be forgiven for thinking that this comment was made about Israel. However it is really a statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry in response to the fuelling of the nuclear reactor at the Bushehr facility in Iran. Attended by Russian officials this was sold by the Iranian government as a victory for Iran and a step on the road to nuclear power supplying electricity for the country.

Unsurprisingly the facility opening has caused worry and concern around the world. Israel has been most vocal, whilst the UK and America have emphasised the age of the facility – it has taken 35 years to complete – and that it is not equipped to produce weapons-grade uranium. Discussion has re-emerged on the prospect of a nuclear Iran and the majority, if not all, have condemned Iranian efforts to gain nuclear power. But why? Despite repeated denials by the Iranian government the world is convinced that Iran is aiming to build their own nuclear weapons. Much of the world believed Tony Blair and George Bush when they announced Iraq had WMD which turned out to be a lie. Why are we so quick to question foreign governments but accept as truth what we are told at home or by our close allies? Why do we continue to believe these governments, which have been proven as liars, when they tell us that Iran is gearing up to bomb the world to oblivion?

I will not attempt to go into the debate about nuclear proliferation and the right of countries to dictate who is allowed the power and who is not when they themselves hold the greatest stashes of these WMD. However, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recent speech regarding nuclear weapons exposes the double standards of international politics: “Only the US government has committed an atomic crime.”

Commentators, politicians and activists are obsessed with the hypothetical but rarely look at the facts. America is the only country to ever use atomic weapons against people in war or in peace time. Not once, but twice. Why then are they seen as an international standard and a key player on the nuclear non-proliferation scene? You should not judge people (or governments) by what they say but by what they do. It is possible to say anything, espouse high morals, give support to an issue or a group but it is not so easy to practice what one preaches.  However, no one really believes that America will use its nuclear arsenal, even if they have done it before, but speculation and fear-mongering continues to focus on Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Is there a precedent for this? A couple of examples will help illustrate:

1. Are Iran inherently violent and war-mongering? In the past 50 years, Iran has been directly involved in one war, the Iran-Iraq war ,which lasted 8 years and cost a million lives. In contrast, America has been directly involved in three wars in the past 20 years. Now take Israel, who many think will use pre-emptive strikes against any Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel is 62 years young and has already been directly involved in seven wars and a number of ‘conflicts’. Now these two countries are nuclear-equipped, seemingly prone to war but no one fears that they will use ‘The Bomb’.
2. Yes, but in the Iran-Iraq war biological weapons were used, one might say. This can be seen as proof that Iran will use highly dangerous weapons.  While this may be true, one only has to look at very recent conflicts involving America and Israel which have seen biological weapons used. During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces were accused of using white phosphorus as well as during the invasion of Southern Lebanon in 2006. The same agent was used during the surge on Fallujah by American troops.

So it would seem that Iran, on the face of things, is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than some of the big players in the region. Perhaps the biggest fear is that a powerful, nuclear backed Iran will upset the balance of power in the region. Israel is currently the only country in the region to be nuclear-endowed, supposedly giving it leverage over its neighbour. Saudi Arabia, America’s staunchest ally in the region, has a long history of suspicion and conflict with the Iranian republic as they wrestle for regional hegemony. Could America’s reaction be in defence of its main ally and main source of oil?

It’s impossible to know Iran’s intentions or future actions, however, consistent opposition to its acquisition of nuclear power for peaceful means by demonising their intentions could in fact push the republic to reactionary moves. Could the insistence that Iran wants nuclear weapons push them to develop such weapons just to prove they can? You would hope that such infantile behaviour would not be part of international politics but sadly this is often proved wrong. The blame would not sit solely with Iran but also its opponents who feel they have the moral high ground and the right to tell a sovereign state what they can and cannot do. I highly doubt this will come to fruition because I for one do not label someone a liar until they out themselves as one.

Iran’s nuclear ambition by Frankie Wilkinson was originally published at The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation