Different Back Bench Factions within the Conservative Party
The Sunday Times recently ran an interesting article outlining a number of different back bench groups within the Conservative Party. These groups range from those seeking a new approach to Europe, a return to traditional conservative values and ultra modernisers.
read more...»Anarchism: The Shopping Riots and Anarchy in the UK?
Here is a useful article on Anarchism - given that it was penned at the time of the ‘shopping riots’ it is not too current, but interesting none the less. Its author is none other than ‘Boff Whalley’ self proclaimed anarchist and lead singer of Chumbawumba, that anarcho-collective who threw a bucket of water of John Prescott’s head at an award ceremony [if you recall they got knocked own but they got up again - or just click here!]
Writing in the Independent under the title of ‘In defence of anarchy’ Boff argues that although the term Anarchy has been used as a catch all to describe the week’s riots, he asks “But is this really anarchy?”. and the answer ... Not even close!
Here is a quick excerpt where Boff shows he knows his stuff [even so far as being able to draw a theoretical divide between a ‘hoodie’ and a proper anarchist]:
The latter is now used to denote those opportunist consumers who are, according to The Sun, “anarchists”, despite not having the slightest idea of who Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was. He was the first self-declared anarchist, who in 1840, in What Is Property, defined anarchy as “the absence of a master, of a sovereign”. Later, in The General Idea Of The Revolution (1851), he urged a “society without authority”. See, no mention of disorder or chaos. Whatever we might think of our latter-day looters, they’re not anarchists. But this current crop of masked lads is not the one bandying the word “anarchy” around, after all. All they want is to do some free shopping and have a laugh. Perhaps it would be a good thing if these disenfranchised, disengaged kids did learn a bit about the brush they’re being tarred with – anarchist? Wot, me? Then again, they’re growing up under a government that seems to actively dissuade poor families from pursuing higher education.
Worth a read. discussion wise also might be worth cross referencing with a previos post: London Riots: Liberals to blame?
Global Issues: WMD: Iran and danger of proliferation
Iran’s nuclear ambitions could plunge the Middle East into “a new Cold War”, warns UK Foreign Secretary William Hague. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph (Iran risks nuclear Cold War), the Foreign Secretary said that if Iran developed nuclear weapon capability, other nations would want to as well. Mr Hague warned of a “crisis coming down the tracks” which could lead to a “disaster in world affairs”.
Foreign Secretary says that Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could be more dangerous than the original East-West Cold War as there are not the same “safety mechanisms” in place. Hague asserts:
“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme … If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.
“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms … That would be a disaster in world affairs.”
The current and ongoing crisis over the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions castes into relief the debate over nuclear proliferation. Does proliferation seriously endanger global security? William Hague’s interview would point in that direction, founded on his belief that a nuclear Iran would result in a cascade as the Middle East races to acquire them.
However,importantly there has been alternative opinion’s expressed - RUSI’s [the defence think tank] Shashank Joshi is of the opinion that fears over Iran are being exaggerated. He asserts
“If we could live with nuclear weapons in the hands of totalitarian, genocidal states like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China, Iran in contrast - whatever its repulsive internal policies and adventurism abroad - is far more rational,”
Mr Joshi said Iran may not be actively pursuing the creation of nuclear weapons but leaving the option open as an insurance policy. “If they feel their regime is under existential threat, if they feel they face a Libya-like situation, they would have the option of building a bomb.” Thus, this ties in with the realist argument that states act in their own self interest in seeking security but also linking in with Waltz’s idea that nuclear proliferation might also create security by creating more rational actors understanding the consequences of a ‘balance of terror’.
The BBC website carries a useful article Hague fears Iran could start ‘new Cold War which has a video clip of an interview with RUSI’s Shashank Joshi.
Other useful links are:
CFR’s Crisis Guide on Iran: Click here.
BBC’s Q&A Nuclear Issue
Conservatism: Phillip Blonds the ‘Red Tory’ on Local Government
Phillip Blonde a.k.a. ‘The Red Tory’ had a philosphical input into modern Conservatism with his ideas on ‘civic communitarianism’ which in turn David Cameron has been able to borrow in floating his ‘own brand’ of ‘compassionate Conservatism’ and the ‘BIG SOCIETY’. The key idea being a growth in civic communitarianism which sees the state becoming not so much a provider as a faciliator.
In today’s Independent there is an interesting piece authored by Phillip Blond and Graham Allen - We need a magna carta for true local government . The article is worth reading in full, but here is an excerpt:
What if everyone everywhere could make a difference to their neighbourhoods and their communities? For decades, people have bemoaned the gradual erosion of local authorities and the centralisation of, well – nearly everything. Happily, the principles behind the Government’s Localism Bill achieved a great deal of cross-party consensus and support.
AND:
Throwing away the crutch of central government will be both frightening and exciting. There will be no one else to blame any more. Let local people decide on their spending, their services, on their electoral system or the use of direct democracy. This would also deliver a tremendous revitalisation to our all-too-moribund local politics. Once again, it would really matter who got elected locally and how well they were equipped to handle local government. We would recreate that invaluable network of citizen politicians of all parties, in touch with their communities, close to their constituents, empowered by and empowering their local areas.
The undemocratic relationship between the centre and the localities should
not be sustained. Localism will either default back to Whitehall control or move towards a real independence and a true flourishing of our cities, towns and villages. Which would you prefer?
Constitutional Reform: Is devolution leading to inevitable break up of UK?
This year’s big constitutional development could well be the issue of the fate of the Union. Has Devolution which was meant to arrest the centrifugal political forces at work within the Union actually have ended up accelerating them?
Very accessible piece by James Macintyre [Political Editor of Prospect Magazine] entitled From Devolution to Indepence in of all places the New York Times which focuses nicely on the question ‘How did it come to this?’ which given that it is written for a US audience gives a clear overview of the issue, its recent origins and possible directions. He writes:
Today, Salmond is skillfully navigating the biggest test of his long career — a referendum on independence which, according to consistent polls, is still opposed by around half of Scots.
When British Prime Minister David Cameron last month tried to call Salmond’s bluff by demanding an “in or out” poll “sooner rather than later,” he was swiftly outmaneuvered by the S.N.P. leader, who paused for several days, allowed an argument to begin about “Westminster meddling” and then, during Scottish questions in the House of Commons, almost casually announced that 2014 would be the date. That year sees both the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth Games come to Scotland, and is also the 700th anniversary of Scotland’s victory over England at the battle of Bannockburn.
Now even the staunchest Unionists accept that the breakup of Britain feels inevitable, if not this time then in a few years. Reports of the Union’s demise are not exaggerated.
This follows on a from an earlier article from Prospect - Would the Tories surrender Scotland?
UKIP - the importance of Nigel Farage
An analysis in this 10-minute video which examines whether UKIP is really just a one-man band, reliant on the charisma and profile of its leader Nigel Farage.
read more...»Religion and Politics in the US
In Britain politicians tend to avoid getting involved in debates surronding religion. Although the UK has an estbalished church, major ethical and moral debates such as abortion and stem cell research are left to the scientisits and medical professionals. In the USA however, where you stand on abortion or stem cell research may either improve or weaken your chances of electoral success.
read more...»Explaining the role of Select Committees
This 10 minute video from the UK Parliament site provides an introduction to the role and activities of Commons Select Committees.
read more...»UK Electoral Reform demonstrated with Lego!
A hat-tip to Nicola Morgan for spotting this terrific video from Dr Simon Usherwood (Department of Politics, University of Surrey) who uses the universal medium of Lego to help explain some core concepts in electoral reform…
read more...»Global Issues: Humanitarian Intervention: Sryia ~ Time to intervene?
Syria’s crises seems to deepen with no apparent end in sight. Amid increasing fears of a civil war in Syria following the failure of the UN Security Council resolution, commentators remain divided over the question of intervention and how best to address the crisis.
The US foreing polict think tank CFR has two articles which highlight the debate and the possible different options available:
1. It’s Time to Think Seriously About Intervening in Syria which asserts:
After all, if the many Syrians who have been in open revolt since March of last year are on the verge of bringing down Assad, then, as the conventional wisdom has it, there is no need for a international response and thus no need for an agonizing debate about whether to use force in Syria. But this logic seems less convincing every day, and it might be time to reconsider our assumptions about intervention.
AND
2. We Intervene in Syria at Our Peril which argues:
This is a juncture at which to rebuild and renew the United States, not be consumed by the civil war of a complex nation. Syrians will decide their own fate. When the British said to Gandhi that without their involvement, India would be in chaos, Gandhi retorted “At least it will be our chaos.”
Global Issues: Changing Nature of Conflict - Pakistan Relations - A double game?
The leaking of a NATO report claiming that Pakistan’s intelligence agency continues to provide support for the Taliban is the latest in a string of events demonstrating a breakdown in the relationship between the West and Pakistan. The porous and Af-Pak border and the role crucial role of Pakistan in possibly brokering talks with the Taliban in the elusive search for an end game to the conflict in Afghanistan makes this recent development all the more significant. With relation to the Global Issues course, the issue is worth realting to the question of ‘why are assymetrical wars so diificult to end?’.
Chatham House’s Gareth Price has an excelleent analytical piece in the Huffington Post: NATO’S Leaked Report: A Breakdown in Relations With Pakistan Here is an excerpt:
At the same time, there is little hope of success in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s engagement. And as moves towards some form of peace process or reconciliation with the Taliban are expedited, the need for Pakistan’s involvement becomes greater still.
The leaking of a report suggesting that Pakistan continues to back the Taliban will probably have less impact on Western engagement with Pakistan than the bombing of a Pakistan border-post at the end of November; an act which led Pakistan to prevent NATO supplies transiting via Pakistan. That said, given the urgent need to start rebuilding the relationship it will do little to engender trust.
At the heart of the problem lies a void in Western thinking over how best to deal with Pakistan. Carrots, in the form of large cash transfers, would seem to have singularly failed in reducing Pakistan’s ambivalence in its dealings with Afghanistan. And the Western toolkit is somewhat lacking in sticks, short of threatening to withhold those cash transfers, in dealing with nuclear-armed Pakistan.
