POLITICAL BOFFINS AT WEYMOUTH COLLEGE

To what extent can Britain be regarded as an awkward partner in the EU?

2009-05-18T02:07:00.000-07:00

The EU can be traced back to the European coal and steal community. This was set up between France and Germany, to bind these two states economies so tightly together that it would be impossible for either state to go to war. The institute evolved over time to regulate nuclear energy, industry before being renamed the EEC. When the European Economic Community was first established Winston Churchill said that the UK supported the move to a united European super state, but Britain does not plan to be a part of it. In 1973, 15 years after it was first set up, the UK became a member. The EEC then went through major reforms, emerging as the ever growing EU.
Britain however has always been unsure of where it stands within the EU; it has caused a lot of problems for parties and politics in the UK. there has always been adversarial politics on the issue of the EU, so when the conservative government under Major took the UK into the EU, the Labour party strongly opposed it, however when the conservative government was opposing certain areas of the EU, for example the EU social charter and the UK joining the EU, labour strongly supported it. This has caused many problems, not only between parties, but within parties. It has caused both of the major parties to be torn apart by factions within the party, for example it almost crippled Major’s government, where he had to take away the whips and allow the MPs and ministers a free vote on whether or not the UK can become a partner of the EU. If he did not do this then the issue would have lead to the collapse of his government. it has also caused the labour party many problems, as the issue of the EU and whether or not the UK should join the euro, also threatened to split the party, as tony Blair was promising to join, and on the other side was Gordon brown who was refusing to join, by saying the UK is not in the financial position needed to join the euro. In the end tony Blair had to let the issue go. This has caused the UK to look like such an awkward partner, as there is no strong political consensus. The issue of the EU constitution also saw a divide between the parties, wit labour supporting it and conservatives opposing it. It was the same of the Lisbon treaty; however neither got ratified due to other countries opposing it. This suggests that even though the EU has a weak political consensus, it has not been the member state that has stopped the EU growing and evolving, it was the French that stopped the EU constitution and the Irish that put a halt to the Lisbon treaty.
It is not only the UK Politian’s that cannot decide whether or not the European integration is a good thing, it is also the UK public. The opinion polls at the moment have seen a surge in euroscepticism in the UK. This can be down to a number of reasons such as the latest influx of immigrants from Poland, which cannot be limited or controlled by the UK government. These especially in times of a recession has caused Gordon Brown many problems. The term “British jobs for British workers” has come back to haunt him. Recently, with thousands of jobs going every week, large companies are packing up and moving abroad, have caused despair. Then where one factory opens in the UK, creating hundreds for the UK people, it employs solely Italian workers. This cause mass demonstrations and protests. This was another reason why the UK people are uncertain on the EU, as they believe that it has eroded the UK’s sovereignty so much that parliament has very little actual power, as the UK has now lost control of its own boards. This has caused the UK to become an awkward partner.
It does not help that the major newspapers such as the daily telegraph and the sun and even the times are all eurosceptic. They print stories only showing the EU in a poor light, this makes it very hard for the UK government to become fully integrated with the EU if half of the population is against the EU. This is because the government cannot go against the wishes of the UK citizens, as they risk being voted out at the next election.
The UK however is not the only awkward partner within the EU, for example Norway and demark also refused to enter the euro. This means that the UK is not alone. The UK is stilling bring to bring an ever close Europe, in the fact that tony Blair is now president, it is bring to get the BBC it broad cast more stories the show the EU in a good light, however neither of the two major parties are willing to give the citizens a referendum on whether the UK should remain part of the EU. This suggests that the government knows that it does not have the support of the majority of the people.
The UK can also be considered an awkward partner as some suggest that it puts is special relationship with America before its duty to the EU. Britain however say that it can act as a bridge between the EU and the USA, however critics say that the gap is becoming ever wider since the war in Iraq, and that he UK must now chose ne side. The USA’s decision to invade Iraq was opposed by the whole of the EU, except the UK, which followed the USA into war. Some say that the UK and USA have very intertwined histories and cultures, so it is only natural that the UK sides with the USA over the EU, as it has more in common with the USA. This has caused the UK to become more of an awkward partner within the EU.
In conclusion the UK can be considered an awkward partner for much reason including that there is a weak political consensus, which makes it very hard for the government to act, as there is a strong opposition in parliament. There is a growth of euroscepticism in the UK’s public, and the UK has a special relationship with the USA, which tends to get in the way of its role in the EU, this can be seen when the UK sided with the USA over the war in Iraq. The UK however is not the only awkward partner, and it has not got in the way of progress, instead it has been other states such as France or Ireland that stopped the EU evolving into a semi federal state.

Oh Lord! Will we ever see an elected upper house

2008-07-18T09:57:00.000-07:00

Another plan for Lords reform has been published. But yet again there appears to be little political will behind the idea
It is a certainty that each of the main parties will have something on reform of the House of Lords in their election manifestos. Equally as certain is that the documents will offer three different versions.
This week, Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, (who also has constitutional reform responsibilities – don’t ask) reported back to Parliament with the findings of his 17-month long cross party investigation into the future of the upper house.
The White Paper presented lots of options, but no clear plan. This is unsurprising. The major barrier to progress is the lack of consensus about what to do.

Straw’s proposals:

• Not all peers would be elected, but most would
• Numbers would be cut from over 700 to “not more than 400-450 and maybe less”
• The voting system to elect peers is open to debate
• Peers would be paid somewhere between the devolved legislators and MPs

I’d hate to ask the bloke what he plans to cook at a dinner party.
But to be less unkind, it’s not really his, or the government’s, fault. Since not only can’t the parties find agreement, there is also disagreement within the parties. The respective front benches generally give the impression of favouring a primarily elected chamber, but privately they worry that this could lead to gridlock. And the current Lords membership argue that much of the talent and expertise present would be lost if its composition was determined by the ballot box.

Straw plans a further round of consultation before making clear what the government’s line is. As the accompanying headline to a recent Peter Riddell article in the Times reads: “Missed the Lords reform? There’ll be another one along soon”.

Written by: Mike Mc Cartney
Questions by : Boris ze Russian Yeltsin

Questions

Explain why it may or may not be undemocratic to have a fully appointed House of Lords?

What problems could a fully elected House of Lords cause for the Commons?

To What extent is Military Power the main currency in International Politics?

2008-07-14T07:06:00.000-07:00

‘Power’ is often used to define a country’s role and stance within international politics – it is that which attributes influence to a state, and it is influence, ultimately which allows politics to function in any context. Power itself is multi lateral – it does not appear in any single form. Germany and the United Kingdom lost power prior World War Two with the collapse of their economy, here power being defined in economic terms, giving way to the Soviet Union and the US emerging as the most powerful, this leading to an arms race, hence their power here being defined in military terms, this being just one example of the stark contrast in power definitions. Military power is the most palpable and the most traditional method of influence, equating to it being the most common understanding of power within international relations. However, with struggles in military power being at the very centre of the Cold War conflict, its role in the modern political world is being reassessed in its aftermath.

Under Realist political theory, power is seen to be used solely for a state to assert their own needs, although this will always be contested by the state itself in order to preserve their international reputation. There are several examples of military power being used to this realist affect – The Falklands war of 1982 saw Argentina attempt to distract their citizens from a rising against their governance and economic difficulties by leaning on their military power and contesting the origins of the Falklands islands against the British. Here a reliance upon military power as almost a last resort, where economic forms of power have dissipated.
The G8 and the UN Security Council are also examples of the importance of military power – here stand two collections of the most powerful states in politics, acting on behalf of the lesser powers of the international world. If, then, each of these states holds their power and sphere of influence through military means, then military power can be presumed to(*) still play a significant role in today’s international relations - the most powerful of both these coalitions is the US:

The US holds a great deal of military power, a factor which they have recently relied upon to exert influence or to debatably, as in realist theory, assert their own needs with the Iraq war. At the same time their arms deals, or exchanges in military power, allows for a sense of equilibrium to be built between the US and it’s trade partners, in many cases (although obviously this isn’t absolute), and as such military power can act as a kind of equilibrium, as well as a tension, between ‘first tier’ and second or third tier countries. However, the original aim of the G8 was to use countries with a strong economy in order to help preserve the economy of struggling lesser powers within the international world – the US’s economy, although their trading income is vast, seems to be in crisis with its capitalist economy resulting in economic proliferation followed by over-production. The value of the US dollar has been on the decline, and its value continues to depreciate. The US’s place not only as a great power, as evidenced by its role in the G8, but as the single super power of the modern political world, is therefore questionable. If it does not excel economically, then it must secure its superpower position from an alternative source – militarily. This can be further substantiated by the US’s most recent political history – Iraq, for example, serves as an example not only of realist power application (in terms of military action under controversial requisites), but as an example of a military currency. The US and British invasion of Iraq was able to go ahead amongst much opposition from the rest of the world, including other first tier powers such as France, Russia and China, without more than diplomatic opposition, this being largely due to the US’s huge military influence.

On the other hand the contemporary political world is faced with a rising power that is does not use military power as its currency – China – a country who are weak militarily, and yet are vastly expanding the possible scope for their exertion of power in economical terms. It is true, also, that the EU also works in both diplomatic and economic powers, using trade sanctions and free markets with which to increase its influence, both of these states having great potential to become hugely successful in the contemporary political world – and yet neither of which are using military power with which to do so.

Some International Relations scholars argue, then, that military power is no longer the main currency of international politics, particularly those taking a liberalist stance; realism is beginning to be contested. Liberalists argue that military dominance or power politics are less relevant today in a world with decreasing amounts of wars and political movement through military means, UN peace keepers and global trade institutions helping to establish alternative links between states, all with a pacifying effect. The rise of Democracy has also acted as a substitute for military power (although there have been examples of attempts to transgress to democracy proving to evoke violence, such as with the elections in Angola where the rebels lost, instigating a more violent reaction than had originally erupted with their separation from Portugal), with other states identifying the lack of military action between democratic states and hence attempting to join this military free method of political operation. Although the world is not yet ready for a complete shift in the significance of the military exertion of power, as evidenced by the US’s place in world order, It is certainly true to say, then, that there is significant evidence in our contemporary political history to suggest that the means by which a state communicates with others is changing, no matter how slowly or unnoticeably that change may occur.

Tom M. (A2 Government and Politics student 2007)

The Big Question...Who will explode the next atomic bomb?

2008-07-14T06:22:00.000-07:00

We have always wondered who will explode the next nuclear bomb, and most importantly, will it be caused by accident, or on purpose?

The atom bomb was first tested by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects were devastating. In Hiroshima, 66, 000 people were incinerated instantly, by a fireball that was nearly as hot as the sun. This was followed within minutes by nearly double that number, who died in the harsh winds and fire that followed. All in all, 80, 000 people were left severely maimed, and by 1950, almost 200, 000 people had died as a result of radiation poison. In the decades after the blast, almost 100, 000 more people succumbed to cancer as a result of this explosion, bringing the death toll to around half a million souls. And that is just in the one city. If this were to occur today, with modern advances in technology, and population growth, the death toll would be much, much higher.

During the Cold War, both East and West could rest easy, knowing that if the other one decided to launch a nuclear strike, then they could retaliate back, which could eventually lead to Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD- the destruction of life as we know it), which was something that neither side wanted, meaning that therefore, neither side wanted to detonate the next nuclear bomb. However, the nuclear weapon may not necessarily act as a deterrent...

Nowadays, nuclear weapons are a lot easier and cheaper to acquire than they used to be. The acquisition of them by India and Pakistan showed this. Neither of them were part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which means that neither had to worry as to who they shared them out to, and them gaining nuclear weapons also proves that the NPT may not be as effective as it should be. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the supposed police of the nuclear world, also showed that it could not do its job very well, because they could not work out where the knowledge of manufacturing nuclear weapons came from. Finally, this also shows that if there is a demand for something, like nuclear security in this case, then there will be a way to circumnavigate the system which tries to stop this.

So, on to the question at hand: Who will explode the next atomic bomb?

The Israelis, among many others, feel threatened by the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons, much in the way that they felt threatened by Iraq’s nuclear program. And like Iraq’s program, an Israeli air strike may be all but powerless in stopping the process- it may in fact speed the process up. Iran is too far from any major Israeli striking distance, and its air defences are strong and effective.

So, to stop Iran getting the bomb, or for any other reason, will Israel explode the next atomic bomb?

Past evidence suggests not, because only when Israel is on the brink of destruction, will the bomb be likely to go off. Past experience shows us that the Israelis will not fire the next bomb because the threats they face are mostly from conventional weapons, as their immediate enemies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria) do not have any nuclear capacity. Even when they were attacked during the Yom Kippur war, by surprise and out numbered, they still kept to using conventional arms.

How about the other side, then? Will it be Iran who explodes the next nuclear bomb?

Although it is not certain that Iran actually is heading for the bomb, it does seem likely, so to understand the reasons for them causing the next nuclear explosion, we have to first look at the reasons why Iran would want the bomb?The primary reason whyt Iran would want the bomb would be for security. In the post 9/11 world, Iran may feel that it is not safe from anyone. The enemy to the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies, and named as an international threat by the Americans and their allies, the Iranians are surrounded by enemies. After the disposition of Saddam’s regime from Iraq, and the Taliban from Afghanistan, it could be asserted that Iran’s position would be alleviated, but from an Iranian point of view, they are now surrounded not by two separate fields to defend, but two frontiers of the same possible Western assault. Iran is also probably more pre-occupied with keeping a check on its neighbours than actually using a bomb- although threats have recently been sent out towards Israel recently; their primary concern is their Sunni neighbours who surround them. The biggest threat around them is Pakistan, who already hold nuclear weapons. Pakistan is a Sunni stronghold, whereas Iran a Shiite stronghold, and both want to exert their influence in the area, as shown in the 1980’s, where they had a brief border skirmish, and they also used Afghanistan as a proxy theatre for the regional “control”, after which, Iran gained another major enemy in the region. If Iran attained nuclear weapons, this could put the “ball” back into their own court, possibly even destabilising the region in their favour.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could potentially see itself as a world power, capable of flexing its muscles on a world stage, something that it currently struggles to do. An advantage to Iranians if they had nuclear weapons may not be that they can use them, but rather they could use them to blackmail the smaller surrounding states, such as Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, and surrounding countries with sizeable Shiite minorities, such as Iraq, and could become the number one Muslim state in the Middle East in the 21st century, previously having had to compete with Turkey and Iraq. However, this scares other Middle Eastern states, who used Iraq’s power as a buffer between them and Iran, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; because they know the Ayatollah would love nothing more than to have more influence over these areas. It scares them so much, that they may wish to sanction Iran somewhere in the future.

The argument in Iran’s favour says that it is surrounded by enemies and reluctant allies, who are all nuclear powers. It shares borders with Russia and Pakistan, and is very close to China, India and Israel. There is also a very strong American naval presence, and of course the United States is also a nuclear superpower. This means that a nuclear defence would seem like a viable option for Iran, and they could also want “in” on the regional action. Iran has also seen first hand the effects of Chemical weapons utilised by surrounding states, due to their frequent use by the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq war from 1980 to 1988, and they also know that the international community may not help them. No wonder they are attempting to obtain nuclear weapons!

Another factor is the deterrence theory- if not used; a nuclear stockpile is potentially more threatening than a one-time blast at an enemy. The question that should be asked is why would the Islamic Republic want to launch a nuclear weapon? However, the Iranian regime is very unstable, and very unpredictable, so the answer is, we just may not know.

Iranians may also argue that the United States, or indeed the entire international community, did nothing to hinder Israel’s nuclear process. In fact, they openly supported it, even though the Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited this. Even the sanctions against India and Pakistan were dropped in the wake of the September 11th attacks, due to the West’s need for allies in the region against the War on Terror, even though neither country was willing to give up their weapons.

Two things to take into account on the subject of Iran are:
There will be a new regime in charge of the US at the time Iran manages to acquire a nuclear weapon, and due to the continually changing world order, Iran may be a very different nation in, say, 10 or 15 years time.
Since 1945, nuclear weapons have not been used before- Why should Iran’s case be different. Even in the tensest moments of the Cold War, both sides only talked out their differences, they never actually used the bomb. Surely, Iran would behave no differently!

So, where could the next nuclear strike come from, if not a nation who is already a nuclear power, or on their way of being one? The answer could come in the form of Terrorists. So, could Terrorists be the group who cause the next nuclear explosion? And if so, how would they gain the required materials?

To answer the second question in two words, quite easily. It could be as simple as someone selling the technology, and although this is forbidden by international law, it can be very difficult to both find and verify who is selling the technology. In fact, the international community knows very little of the programs of even the best-known sellers of nuclear technology. As long as they can find a seller, any terrorist organisation can potentially acquire the technology to manufacture a nuclear device.

Another potential source for nuclear materials, such as polonium and uranium, could be the ex-Soviet states. They may be an easy target for any terrorist organisation, due to lapsed security of some locations where the material is dumped, s guarded at some times with little more than a barbed wired fence, a padlock, and a solitary guard who works during the day time. Russia alone has around 12,000-16,000 nuclear weapons, and the extra materials to be found in locations such as the ones described above could possibly make up to 40,000 more! If you add that corruption is high in Russia, if not stolen, this material could also be sold by corrupt officials, or disgruntled, underpaid security guards. Throughout the ex-Soviet states, there are hundreds of tonnes of material- as stated above, enough to make up to 40,000 nuclear weapons!

As such, it is surprising that no terrorist has yet obtained this material, especially considering that factions such as Al Qaeda have enough funding to easily obtain the rest of the materials, know-how and manpower to manufacture at least some kind of crude “dirty bomb”, which is all that they really need. If they looted ex-Soviet supplies, they probably could not manage to run away with the same amount of materials as most nuclear states, but they would have “enough” to fashion a primitive nuclear weapon. This weapon would cause a simple atom explosion- it would not have a very high yield, and would not be very protected, but would get the terrorists job done, by spreading fear through society, and causing massive financial damage, due to sections being cordoned off because of the high radiation levels, as well as a large loss of life (probably not as much as, say, Hiroshima, but enough to cause lasting damage). If the materials are obtained from Russia, then the overall mission may be less costly, and more difficult to track than if bought from an independent supplier.

The last possible location for nuclear materials for terrorists would be Pakistan. Pakistan has around 40-50 nuclear weapons, making it a good possible choice for terrorists. Pakistan also has an unstable border region with Afghanistan- a favourite hideout for Muslim terrorists, and it also has a large majority of terrorist-sympathising Islamic extremists. Its government is ruled by a very unstable dictatorship, which requires the utmost support from the army; else it could be ousted at any minute, with the greatest threat coming from the aforementioned extremists. It is further threatened by the prospect of the Taliban re-emerging as the leaders in Afghanistan- the chaos which may ensue could very easily cross into Pakistan.

Should chaos ensue, you have to wonder who will get their nuclear arsenal? Who will get the materials to make more nuclear weapons? Who will get the scientists with the know-how? Who will be overall in charge of pushing that button, or handing out information to those who are deemed “in need” of it? In the blink of an eye, Pakistan could go from being the West’s number one ally, to its worst nuclear nightmare! The high levels of corruption in Pakistan, although not as high as the previous Bhutto era, is still as such that an engineer who is working with nuclear materials could slip some into their pocket, and buy enough commercial materials to make a crude nuclear weapon, containing all that any terrorist would need, and packed off into a small, anonymous vehicle that could take the bomb almost undetected to its target.

All in all, the evidence points to some kind of international terrorist organisation gaining the materials to cause the next nuclear explosion, with Al Qaeda being the primary suspect for this. Due to the relative ease of obtaining the materials, and constructing some kind of crude device, it can only be described as shocking that a dirty bomb has not been used, and it cannot really be a case of “if” they will set one off, but “when?"

Questions

Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan at the end of WWII may be justified under the "doctrine of the lesser evil". Explain if this was the right policy to adopt and give reasons for you answer.

Why is Pakistan perceived to be amajor threat to Iran?
Why was the Non Proliferation Treaty ineffective, give reasons for your answer? In your opinion, who do you think will be next to explode a nuclear bomb:

A nation state; or

A terrorist organisation. Give reasons for your answer.

By Oliver C (A2 Government and Politics 2007)

Explain the implications of EU enlargement for European integration

2008-07-14T06:12:00.000-07:00

Although the EU has expanded several times over the decades since its establishment with the Treaty of Rome, and looks set to expand further in the future, there has also been fierce resistance to expansion of the EU, particularly in relation to integration.

Critics of EU expansion claim that the more the EU grows, the harder it will be to integrate, due to the larger amounts of cultures within the EU. As such, this means that each different culture would have to integrate with each others culture, which would be more of a longwinded process the more cultures there are, and the more different cultures there are.

Critics only need point towards the fact that many cultures are not even integrated within their own societies- such as the Roma of Eastern Europe, who have not really integrated at all in their societies, and appear to most ordinary Eastern Europeans to be a stain on their states. This further damages the ideas of integration, because the already established members of the EU, such as France and the Netherlands, fear that their own societies could be fragmented in the same ways due to the cultural clashes.

A large thorn in the side of enlargement and integration is Turkey. Although Turkish entry is supported by many states, there are many reasons why Turkey could damage integration. Firstly, Turkey, although secular in government, has a large Muslim majority, which clashes largely with the Western Christian ideals of the EU. Then, Turkey has many issues with the nations it borders who are already in the EU, such as Cyprus (it has control of Northern Cyprus) and Greece, due to issues relating to territory and ethnicity.

Oliver C (A2 Politics Student 2007)

Lisbon Treaty derailed by Irish referendum “No vote”

2008-07-12T14:20:00.000-07:00

The rejection by Irish voters of the controversial Lisbon Treaty has dealt a worrying blow to leaders of the 27 member state EU, and has, for the moment, halted the enlargement process. The treaty was meant to have replaced the ill fated EU constitution, which was rejected by the French and Dutch in 2005. More significantly, before a treaty can become European law, it must be ratified by all member states, so it now seems unlikely that the treaty will come into force on January 1 2009. The main aim of the treaty is to enable further expansion into Eastern Europe, while also attempting to increase the efficiency of the European Commission. It also allows for the removal of the national veto in an increased number of policy areas, a President of the council of Europe and a stronger foreign affairs post.

The Irish rejection was a close run race where 53% of voters rejected the treaty outright compared to a 46% “yes “vote. Only Ireland held a referendum as a change in the Irish constitution is required to accommodate any EU treaty. Some European leaders have stated that there is no “plan B” of how to proceed, but have insisted that the ratification process in other member states should continue. Such an insistence is reflected in the optimism European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who is still confident that the Treaty will be ratified. This ray of hope lies in the fact that there is an established precedent for holding a second referendum in Ireland. The Nice Treaty 2001 was initially rejected by Irish voters, but was put to the electorate in another referendum and a year later; the “Yes” vote won and ratification ensued.

The Lisbon Treaty has also been stalled by the Czech Republic due to legal difficulties, which further fuels the arguments of critics who state that three failed referendums on an EU treaty may reflect a gap between the desires of the people and their leaders. Ratification is to continue in the United Kingdom but this has been challenged by millionaire Stuart Wheeler who brought a case to the High Court demanding that the UK government promised a referendum and should therefore “keep its promise". The government deny that a referendum is not required as the treaty is only an amending treaty. Gordon Brown has stated
“If this was a constitutional treaty, we would hold a referendum. But the constitutional concept was abandoned."

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS IN THE UK

Parliament approves bill to ratify treaty

The Queen gives Royal assent

The "instruments of ratification" are drawn up by the Foreign Office

These documents - three pages of goatskin parchment - are sent to the Queen

The Queen signs the front page and a warrant authorising them

The documents return to the Foreign Office and are signed by the foreign secretary

They are sent to the Crown Office in the House of Lords who affix the great seal

The documents return to the Foreign Office, are tied in a blue ribbon and bound in blue leather

They are sent to the British Embassy in Rome and then to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Only then is ratification complete

So it seems that the Lisbon Treaty may be either dead in the water, or stalled for the foreseeable future. It seems unlikely that it will come into force in January 2009. What then does the future hold for Europe? As an increasing number of citizens become disenchanted with European institutions, resulting in a general apathy towards European issues and low turnouts in European elections. Perhaps it is time that the EU began to rethink its future purpose, direction and strategy.

QUESTIONS

What do you think the reasons where for the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty?
Using all your knowledge and this article, how would you direct and guide the future policies of the EU?

Keep the faith man!

Your old friend Boris ze Russian

"Oh dear!" what has happened to New Labour: Gordon Brown one Year on.

2008-07-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

They say that Prime Ministerial power ebbs and flows, Thatcher dominated, Blair charmed, and Major the "grey man" of politics suffered a landslide general election defeat in 1997 which seen the return of the first Labour government since 1979. How then, do we judge the power of our current PM? Well for Gordon Brown, many commentators state that it has gone from an initial surge of popularity to an all time low. Let us cast our minds back to June 2007... Blair finally stood down from office and handed the reins of power over to his Iron Chancellor, who, like his predecessor promised the politics of change and a new direction for Labour. A new direction has certainly been the result as New Labour reaches an all time low in the opinion polls. They were ripped apart in the Henley by-election coming fifth behind the BNP and the Green party. However, all is not lost; Henley was Boris Johnson's (London Mayor) old seat and traditionally a conservative stronghold. The most significant defeat came in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, which seen the Conservative party candidate Edward Timpson win 7,860 more votes than his Labour rival, overturning a 7,000 Labour majority at the general election.

The worrying fact for Labour and of course Brown is that Crewe was a Gwyneth Dunwoody safe seat and therefore a Labour stronghold. Gordon Brown blamed the faltering economy and high fuel prices for Labours defeat. However, opinion differed for those at grass roots level who listed problems such as immigration, the 10p tax rate, class-war and Post Office closures as contributory factors.

Previously to this disaster came the Northern Rock fiasco and the General Election that never was. This rocked Labours ratings in the opinion polls and seen their popularity fall second to the Conservatives. Yes, this has certainly been a bad year for our new Premier. His only saving grace was a quick response to the flooding of last June. But this now seems to have faded into the distant past. After all a week is a long time in politics. More recently Brown has faced rebellions in his own party over the 10p tax rate and the increase in detention without trial from 28 to 42 days. Brown relied on the Support of the Democratic Unionist Party to push the Bill through the House of Commons amid rumours of shady deals.

Finally, it seems that Brown lacks the ruthlessness of Thatcher and the charisma of Blair. So it could be suggested that the reins of power are slipping through the hands of our new Premier whereby his power and support from the electorate and his party seems to be continuing in a downward trend.

Questions

Using the evidence and your own knowledge, what do you believe the future holds for Gordon Brown?

Write an election manifesto which Gordon Brown may use to fight his next campaign.

Does PM power ebb and flow?

Gordon Brown Video - 1 year on!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/7473832.stm

All the best Boris Yeltsin