(c) Emma Brooks

This October, Brazil will be holding its general elections to vote in a new president and a new government. This election marks quite a turning point, namely because Brazil’s outgoing President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (more often known simply as Lula) will not be re-elected again. Lula has been president since 2002, a long 8 years in office, and a change of President though it may be welcome, will definitely be a new turning point.

But first, it’s important to set the background to these elections. What exactly is the political history of Brazil and what are the implications of this upcoming round? One could call it tumultuous to say the least. For a start, Brazil’s democracy is still quite young, having suffered several military dictatorships until the 1980s, followed by many corrupt governments and elections later on. In fact, Lula himself was the victim of corrupt elections during the 1980s against Fernando Collor de Melo, only achieving success in the presidential elections much later on in 2002.

Lula’s election to presidency was a major breakthrough in Brazilian politics, particularly because of his background, coming from a poor state from Northern Brazil, and having established the Workers Party. Initially Lula started his political career involved with Trade Unions gaining popularity very fast, a popularity which propelled him towards São Paulo and his political career as it stands today. Before Lula, this large part of society that are the workers was not really represented, and Lula himself coming from a poor background with little education, managed to gain the heart and trust of many voters in Brazil. His personal experience, travelling with difficulty from Pernambuco to São Paulo with few possessions so as to pursue his political career, positioned him as the perfect candidate to understand what the working class would want from Brazil, and how to give it to them.

Highlights of Lula’s career include many social reforms such as the goal to end hunger in Brazil, actions to counter juvenile pregnancy, and redistribution of goods to the poor. In particular, the program Bolsa Familia is the largest social assistance program, which provides allowances for food and gas, which is conditional on school attendance for children. He has also brought the country to the position in which it finds itself today: a booming economy, not really hit by the recession, and increasingly present on the world political scene. But although Lula’s career includes many successes, when speaking to Brazilian people you will also find many of them who do not like him.

In fact, Lula himself also suffers from many complaints made by today’s population, who dislike him and have criticisms to make. Many people feel that he has moved too far away from his original Workers Party background, so that in fact he is no longer representing their interests. Others are not completely convinced by his reforms, feeling that in fact he has not done much for society and that the existing social programs are not having any effect.

Unfortunately, the Lula administration as well as Lula himself have also be tinged by various scandals and allegations of corruption, making him no better than his predecessors. Having faced corruption himself, and being from a socialist background, it was hoped that Lula would not make use of corrupt political methods, yet his administration has been criticized for relying on political barons to ensure a majority in congress.  So although Lula is widely known for having brought about change in Brazil and is seen as a pioneering president, people will also be glad to see him go.

So who exactly are the candidates for this year’s presidential election, who aim to take on the presidency of Brazil after Lula? There is José Serra, of the Party of Brazilian Social Democray, Dilma Roussef of the Workers Party and therefore seen as Lula’s “appointed” successor, as well as Marina Silva from the Green Party. According to The Economist, Dilma Roussef is the most popular candidate for the time being, mainly since she has been part of Lula’s government since 2005, but also since she has been appointed as his successor, guaranteeing her the votes people would have cast for Lula if he had been able to run for president again.

Still according to The Economist, José Serra does not stand much of a chance against Dilma Roussef and will find it difficult to gain votes. Marina Silva on the other hand, suffers from the same syndrome as other green party candidates around the world: unfortunately their parties are just not strong enough yet to gain major representation in any government. Despite the fact that she is popular, she stands hardly any chances of becoming president or even going through to a second round of elections.

If Dilma Roussef is elected, what will this mean for Brazil? Will she be capable of taking on Lula’s legacy, and even more importantly will she be capable of being president? Will she merely continue Lula’s policies, or bring about change? There are many questions that can only be answered with time. To find out who will become the next President of Brazil and what this will mean for the future, we will have to wait until October 3^rd when the first round of elections is held.

(c) Anthony Mansell

Climate change has always been an issue where transatlantic discord was easier to find than unity. The European Union saw their efforts to curb carbon emissions against US ignorance on the issue as a result of a backward presidency unwilling to confront what they regarded as a critical threat to twenty-first century life. Underpinning this view was the hopeful optimism that, with a change of presidency to a candidate committed to environmental concerns, American involvement lay just around the corner. But what happened next?

Comprehensive energy legislation formed an integral part of the Democrat agenda at both a congressional and national level over the last two election cycles, including carbon reduction as a pillar of any bill. Whilst this was not exclusive to Democratic policymakers (Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain had taken an aggressive stance in favour of tackling climate change) it was seen as a distinctive part of the policy platform against Republicans that would appeal to centrists more concerned about the environment. When they swept the upper and lower houses in 2006 and then the White House in 200,8 it seemed assured that the US would move to act against reducing emissions.

However, the movement of the bill has been fraught with policy risk from the outset. The original legislation that was introduced by Democratic senator John Kerry and independent Joe Lieberman looked to take on the twin issues of energy security (or as it is ludicrously espoused, energy independence). It was more modest than the Waxman-Markey bill that had safe passage through the House of Representatives, but was still far more balanced politically because of the divisive nature and tough mathematics of the Senate’s composition. There needed to be complete Democrat support in the Senate for legislation to go through to a reconciliation stage, and this inevitably meant some compromise in the Democratic caucus. However, the legislative difficulties were accompanied by a larger political problem engulfing Democrats.

Given the economic woes that America has suffered since the onset of the financial crisis in late 2008, there has been a rise of anti-governmental sentiment pointing at Washington for the nation’s woes. In particular, there was a feeling that national politics was no longer working for the people, but behind their backs. This hit Democrats the hardest for two reasons; first, as the party in power they were more open to being blamed and their ideas being dismissed; and second because as the party that has generally been more in favour of a larger role for government their policies were more open to attack than Republicans who see government taking on fewer responsibilities.

The extent to which this outrage that has continued to bog Democrats down and threatens to give them a hiding in the mid-term elections in November is not to be debated here, although it makes for an interesting argument. The more pressing question here is how this sentiment has affected the climate change bill that was such a key pillar of the Obama administration’s agenda.

Cap and trade is the structure that was hoped to be used in order to create a limit on the amount of carbon emitted by businesses in the economy. The principle behind it is that there is a quantitative cap on carbon emissions set by government, and an auction for carbon permits is conducted so that those businesses that pollute pay for the legal authority to do so. As time passes the number of permits is reduced, putting upward pressure on the price of each permit. From there the business has an incentive to make investment in clean technological improvements or substitutes at the point where it becomes cheaper than the marginal cost of purchasing the extra permits needed to continue polluting. The aggregation of these actions will divert resources away from polluting activities and into investment in cleaner technology, and the setting of a cap on emissions will allow for targets to be limited to levels that provide a real cut in pollutants over a desired period.

There is much to be said for the system, and similar efforts have been implemented within the European Union to price carbon. However, what is crucial to understanding the politics of cap and trade does not relate to the science of climate change; it is the fact that cap and trade provides a mechanism for the state to correct a failure in the current energy market to put a price on the social costs of the emissions that occur as a by-product of the many industrial processes of the modern economy.

It is the role of the state that unlocks the key for understanding the problem of cap and trade. The science of the problem of climate change is often portrayed by those on the right as shaky, and by those on the left as gospel. The vigour with which progressives have taken to advocating climate action can be linked back to a Wilsonian belief in the strength of reason in public policy formulation, and the depoliticised solution that must be found and implemented to counter it. In the case of climate change, it seems obvious then that a carbon pricing system is the reasonable answer to altering the microeconomic incentive to businesses and reversing course from potentially devastating consequences.

None of which rings true to conservatives. The belief that a decision can be arrived at without parochial interests leads them to be sceptical that science has found a definite problem. However, this is not a war over whether climatologists are certain in their findings. It is the policy prescriptions that climate change brings out that has brought the scathing political division in America, and has derailed progressive ambitions of passing a bill. And it is down to the perceptions of government and the role of the state.

The politics of 2010 in America centres on, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, whether government is the solution or the problem. The tea party movement embodies the far reaches of this thought, based on its aversion to government becoming involved in any aspect of their lives (or ironically taking away their medicaid or social security). However, in the centre ground there has been an eroding of belief that the state should be taking a larger role in the economy and society, regardless of good intentions. This is understandable. In a recession where many Americans have seen what havoc can be unleashed by factors that are (to an extent) beyond their control, and from that they feel helpless. If government could not prevent the mess, and then not do a good enough job alleviating their pain once it hit, a sizable number of independents have moved against giving it more of a role now.

For the energy bill this was the noose around the neck of cap and trade. It is a policy where the state must become more involved in industry and business, regulate its output and put a legal curb on its freedom to pollute. This might be for the reasons that these Americans see as important, as there is an agreed need to look at climate change, but the state should not be entrusted to solve it. The fact that it can be painted by detractors as an ‘energy tax’ does not help, as it also brings in the fiscal requirement that businesses already under severe pressure would need to be involved in permit purchasing. The Democrat conceded to giving the majority of permits away in the initial phase, and then to exclude sectors outside of energy generation. However, the cap and trade system would still involve revenue collection from businesses, and is gaining political traction for opponents eager to point this out.

It is for these reasons that the Democrats have been unable to solidify moves to pass comprehensive legislation during the Obama administration. The aspirations of the progressives had to make way in the political reality of dealing with nervous so-called ‘blue dog’ moderate Democrats that were more worried about being punished politically for support than arriving at the reasoned, optimal policy decision. When a Senator’s job is at stake, politics will inevitably (if regrettably) trump principled belief. Nevertheless, the political capitol was still there to move ahead with a bill, and the Democrats can blame circumstances but wont avoid the consequences of their inaction. The progressives looking for real action on the environment will be dismayed and will punish those perceived to have disappointed them by apathy in November, when the opposition seems to have little problem with motivation. If anything the anti-progressive cohort are a little hyperactive in the run up to the mid-terms.

The current bill has a chance of passing if compromise is met and there is successful reconciliation between the versions in each chamber but will be much watered down in environmental policy. It will speak misguidedly of moving away from foreign oil (a fantasy way beyond anything that could conceivably be made of climate change campaigners) and of altering incentives, but missing the teeth that legal regulatory structures such as cap and trade can bring. Furthermore, it will be unlikely that it will be debated and legislated upon in the near future given the scalded fingers of Democrats who tried to handle global warming in this election cycle.

Whilst this is a policy debate occurring in Washington D.C, and the article has been biased towards that side of the Atlantic, it is important to Europe. The anticipation that America would, upon inaugurating President Obama, commit to long overdue action on the problem of climate change, was based on a fallacy; that the White House was the key to energy legislation, and the government could make intrusions into the pollution of industry because of that mandate. But Capitol Hill is not Brussels, and the poll tracker is more important than the policy proposal. Moreover, climate change is an unchanging problem. The science has not changed over the past eighteen months. However, the politics are in constant flux and have turned against climate action as it becomes more toxic and as more Americans turn against the government as capable of solving their problems.

The implications of this for Europe is that it remains the sole major player committed to real action on carbon reductions in a global system that is finely balanced economically and politically amidst current crises and issues. For climate change, this will dampen the spirits of Europeans that their example can be followed by other powers and that the real cuts in countries such as America, China and India can be made moving forward. This is because the lack of US commitment to a climate policy has often been cited as reason enough for emerging, industrialising nations to remain on their path of unrestricted emissions growth that threatens to create a disastrous climate later in this century.

Furthermore, the failure of the United States to pass regulations on emissions has economic implications within Europe. Businesses already straddled by European regulation will see a higher potential for them to move across the Atlantic, where they can at least avoid energy restrictions and carbon pricing. At a point where competitiveness appears a key to future prosperity, and productivity the main spur of growth in coming decades, this could have negative consequences for the European economy. Hamstringing itself in this way then has the potential to cause a popular backlash against climate change from within its own citizenry, and is an issue that Europe will find increasingly difficult to explain. If it is the only party willing to make the sacrifices necessary to avert climate disaster, the question will almost inevitably emerge: Why bother?

As Ed won the support of the UNITE union to turn the Labour leadership battle into a two horse race, Miliband senior won the support of famed Labour leader punchbag Gillian Duffy. The heavyweight nominations have changed the face of the leadership contest.

It’s all become terribly exciting, watching these two go head to head, unless you are someone with, say, hobbies (I know, hypocrisy abounds me). So which Milipede will win? Socialist Milipede (or Ed, as some have nicknamed him) or Intellectual Milipede (Dave the Second)?

In one sense, it’s a shame that it’s likely to be a Milipede winning this battle. There is something strange about this battle. It’s most un-brotherly for a start. The famous Kennedy brothers were the epitomy of brotherly love in 60s America, and would never have run against each other. The cynic in you does question how, if they cannot resist the urge to take each other on in this most public of contests, they can unite a party or a nation behind them. More cynical still is Ed Miliband’s public image as the ‘nice Miliband’, which comes across as simply a reflection that he probably has a better PR team behind him than his brother. Bobby and John Kennedy would never have let politics split them in the way that it seems the Milibands have.

But alas, with the endorsement of Ed Miliband over the weekend, it is looking increasingly likely to come down to a brotherly race, as Ed Balls considers stepping aside and throwing his backing behind one of the siblings.

Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott look increasingly likely to fall by the wayside, given their relatively sparse budgets. Which is ironic, as you’d think the idea that money can buy success would not get anywhere in a party so committed to banker bashing and redistributing wealth. But this is New Labour after all. Or is that New New Labour?

And that is an important question that whoever wins this race will have to answer. What exactly is Labour all about? They’ve already abandoned Clause IV, so unless they want to renege on that amendment to their constitution, they’re going to have to reinvent themselves again, as they seem so keen to cast away the legacy of the Blair years.

But this would be a catastrophic mistake. It was the Blairite side of things that was actually quite successful under Labour. For just a few years, they were electable, as shiny Tony demonstrated a genuine understanding of the concerns of the middle classes. Blair was a fine leader and orator. And under him, New Labour actually made some good progress, in particular with the NHS, crime and their achievements in areas such as care for the elderly have gone relatively unnoticed. Sure, New Labour was largely a failure, but most of its failures were down to Brown, not Blair. Blair’s biggest ‘failure’ was the war in Iraq, and it does seem a bit strange to label the liberation of a people from a murderous tyrant a ‘failure’, even if it wasn’t the best planned. Indeed, there was some seriously dodgy evidence used, but it should be remembered that Blair was as duped as the rest of us about the authenticity of the evidence. Anyway, I digress, but any opportunity to defend the Iraq war is too tempting not to take.

The thing that lost Labour the election was the economy, or to put it another way, the thing that lost Labour the election was Gordon Brown. It was he who wrecked the economy with a series of systemic mistakes from 1997, from the sale of gold reserves which cost the UK £4.2 billion, to an underestimation of borrowing forecasts which led the structural deficit that plunged the UK into the most serious recession to face the western world. His successor, Alistair Darling, achieved some small but nonetheless notable successes in underspending, in particular over the last year. It was Darling and Mandelson who tried valiantly, though unsuccessfully, to convince Brown not to press ahead with his plans to increase National Insurance and to raise VAT instead. That Brown won this battle demonstrates the error of Labour’s economic ways in the last 13 years.

And it seems that Ed Miliband is just as economically illiterate. He proposes the breaking up of banks, which would only make banking more expensive for all of us, as would his other banking proposal – forcing banks to lend. This would reduce capital levels in banks, and banks will ensure that they pass on this extra cost to consumers. Every business passes on extra financial burdens imposed by government to consumers. His proposal on minimum pay is also backwards – it will force jobs abroad as the cost of business expansion rises, and businesses are already put off by the high tax rates in London. And if there are fewer jobs around, that won’t help the poor.

Labour must get a grip of this, and it has to understand that it went wrong on the economy. And despite epiphanies over the evils of Iraq, the mistakes over immigration and other errors they may have made, none have learned that the biggest problem Labour have is their economic policy. Labour have always been quite good at social justice and welfare, but what they are terrible at, and I mean absolutely jaw droppingly shocking at, is economics. The party retains a tribal desire to spend excessively and to tax the rich. No one personified this better than Brown.

But there is little sign from the leadership candidates of any willingness to acknowledge this error. Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott committed themselves to the 50p tax rate, whilst Ed Balls, perhaps unsurprisingly, has called for the expansion of the tax rate. The only candidates to indicate that they would abolish the rate, are David Miliband and Andy Burnham.

And in that lies the key point. Burnham’s lack of success in the campaign highlights Labour’s error in lurching to the left. Labour have to appeal to the centre to win the next election. Incorrectly, some candidates have been led to believe that Britain is now a centre-left country, despite the electorate voting for a centre-right led coalition. The reality is that Britain is neither right nor left. It is fundamentally centrist. Voting for a tribal, more left wing politician such as Abbott or Balls would be Labour’s biggest error since allowing Gordon Brown anywhere near the budget.

Labour must become less tribal if they are to hope to win back power, and regain some economic literacy, which means that only Burnham or David Miliband can win them an election. Burnham is the only candidate who comes across as having some semblance of honesty and any principles that he won’t throw away for a few votes, and with David Miliband they are the only candidates who can appeal to individuals in the centre ground. It is here that elections are won. It’s now up to Labour to realise this.

(c) Anthony Mansell

Washington DC was the focus of the British political following this week as the new British Prime Minister David Cameron flew in to the capitol to meet his US counterpart Barack Obama.

Conversations were had, issues discussed, gifts exchanged and every hint of insight into the proceedings analysed fervently by the British press for instant relay to a public apparently gripped by this. However, in spite of these efforts to create intrigue and drama, the fact remained that this was a meeting, which as any office worker can confirm rarely serve as great theatre (although state visits often involve similar levels of scripting). And when the meeting remains and the attention shifts, what is left is the actuality of the ‘special relationship’ – not stage managed talks but the day to day tackling of international issues and interests.

For the reality is that the UK-US relationship does matter, and the fact that the importance is not weighted equally amongst the parties does not alter this. Whilst it is true that the United Kingdom no longer commands the global role that it was able to at the height of its power, it remains a formidable actor in the international sphere. Those who diminish its significance since its retreat ‘east of Suez’ in 1967 (or at various points before this) ignore the old saying that it is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog matters. In this respect, Britain has remained committed to a global outlook and involvement in the issues of the day, even if it can no longer back up its will with gunboats and redcoats.

Washington is aware of this, and can count on Britain to aid it in its international actions as the world’s prominent superpower. Cooperation in the grassroots of military and intelligence matters is a crucial component of this, as the two countries are constantly interacting in areas of the upmost state secrecy on a daily basis for the purposes of more effective foreign and security policy. It is therefore an oddity that the British remain fearful of the present and future condition of the relationship and pour scrutiny at the relationships between the representatives of the countries whenever they are in contact. The reality is that, like all relationships, there are issues of discord and even anger that can be fractious. But neither are likely to be filing for divorce any time soon.

Case closed? No. Because the problem that appears to consume the fretting analysts is not of the importance of the relationship but its exclusivity. For in a world of emerging powers and G20 meetings there are other diplomatic relationships that a global power such as the United States need to focus on, maybe even at the expense of time and effort spent with the British.

Reality dictates that, as both governments have made clear, a broad range of diplomatic relationships that go beyond pleasantries will be necessary in order to act effectively. Nations such as Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia have strategic and commercial interests that a nation such as Britain can no longer rival, and therefore has to rely upon less tangible assets to gain influence. But they are not alone in this.

For the United States, there are nations where diplomacy does go above interests and strategy and evokes the existential values so often espoused by foreign policy craftsmen. Israel provides an obvious example, where security commitments to the Jewish state are based on more than geopolitical calculation or a mere player in the game of international politics that Henry Kissinger would describe. Embedded is a bond of historical and cultural significance that necessitates close cooperation, and can cause a similar level of concern as the transatlantic relationship when things go wrong.

The current frostiness between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama shows the potential for tensions, but both are committed to the future of Israel for reasons above strategic interest. It has been true also of Europe since the end of the Cold War, where the relationship has moved beyond strategic importance with the removal of the common Soviet threat lined across the Iron Curtain, but has instead become based on shared goals and views on international issues.

For Britain, David Cameron’s focus on India demonstrates a new awareness of opportunities to broaden close partnerships, and whilst the ties to India follow an awkward past – to say the least – it should not hold back efforts to gain a special understanding and cooperative bond with an emerging power. These alternatives do not diminish the importance of the relationship, because a strengthened British foreign policy increases its capacity to influence other actors in the world. From a pragmatic perspective, this is a pretty good hedge against a diminishing image of Britain from the Americans, as it makes the relationship more useful to both parties.

Diversification is the future of the ‘special’ relationship. It will not be about who you are, as Britain itself is not a great concern for America and vice versa, but rather who you know. Without this the relationship can spiral negatively into either overdependence or uselessness, depending on the relative position of each. This has often been how the relationship has been manifested in the British discourse with regard to the direction is heading. Dismay has often prevailed and strikes chords with a nation often looking fondly in the rear view mirror rather than the road ahead. It is too deterministic however, and can belittle the abilities the UK can draw upon.

The UK holds an ace up its sleeve with a formidable diplomatic service operating throughout the world, and whilst this may not be as intimidating as a well positioned fleet it remains a signal of great strength of perspective. It is the belief of the author that this is an area that will come under pressure in an age of austerity, but the government would be wise to consider the real implications of dismantling the global diplomatic outreach of Britain.

In a globalised world open dialogue and contact with world governments allows for leverage, or ‘soft power’ to be exerted to further interests, and this is an area that will become crucial for Britain in the future. Cameron’s insistence that diplomats use their contacts to increase commercial trade for ‘UK plc.’ may not be to the taste of all Britons, especially with implications for military equipment exports, but it does demonstrate the power an effective foreign service can.

For the United States, its great challenge is to maintain its level of power without sparking conflict amongst new powers. This is a task that requires great diplomacy and tact as much as firm actions. Both can see the establishment of a range of new relationships based on more than fickle necessity of strategic interest will bolster their aims in international affairs.

A great relationship allows each partner to help the other without impeding their independent actions. Finding new ‘special’ allies allows the United States and Britain to maintain their own unique dynamic of cooperation and friendship. The world is fluid and relationships have to adapt to the new circumstances in which they exist; without this they can become a stale hindrance. The transatlantic partnership may be special, but it can not afford to be an exception – for either country.

Anthony Mansell is a British postgraduate student at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington DC.

Many of the accused seem to have stepped straight from the set of Desperate Housewives and there is something very suburban about the whole affair. Moscow allegedly tasked the eleven with becoming Americanised and, in order to maintain their cover, they have achieved university degrees, joined appropriate professional associations and sought the same material goods as many average Americans in order to fit in. Posing as couples, some even have teenagers who “shovel snow in winter” for their neighbours, or in one case, an elementary-school-aged daughter, which begs the question whether these children knew their parents were undercover spies? In fact, an expenses claim was put in by ‘the Murphys’ to purchase a house as it is the type of thing their American counterparts would do.

However, though the depth of the deception would normally make the case more extreme (and worrying), the fact that no classified information was found, or indeed sought, by the accused renders any comparison to the Cold War mere hysteria. Some of the things being reported, such as messages in invisible ink, ‘brush pass’ techniques and coded greeting messages (“Could we have met in Beijing, in 2004?”, “Yes, we might have, but I believe it was in Harbin”) surely means that the James Bond scriptwriters are still creating accurate dialogue.  But the case is hardly akin to Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen (look them up).

One thing that has emerged is the softness of the claims and charges being made. Although one allegedly met a prominent nuclear scientist, no classified material was procured and the general message is that these people were tasked with infiltrated policy-making circles, lobby groups and becoming friendly with prominent policy makers in order to learn, and perhaps persuade, American policy toward Russia-related areas.

Ultimately, this could have been done without resorting to anything bordering on espionage. Al Jazeera has said that it would be difficult to follow through with proceedings as there are many national lobbies speaking out for their interests and the softness of the task seems to suggest that this case is no different. Anyone familiar with how powerful the Jewish, Israeli and Latin-American lobby groups are in America will understand that there are far more persuasive lobby groups than a spy-led Russian one. As such, as much as many right-wingers may want to, a return to Cold War politics is unthinkable. To put it in perspective, the crime the eleven are accused of carries a maximum five-year prison sentence – money laundering would get you 20.

The timing is of course, highly unfortunate following so closely Obama and Medvedev’s fast food dinner date. Both a senior White House official and Russian President Vladimir Putin have stated their intention to maintain the momentum that is being built with US-Russian relations, which can only be a good thing, despite the fragile nature of these charges. Something that can be drawn from the reports is the element of gamesmanship that is involved in the espionage and counter-intelligence industry.

The New York Times interviewed Oleg D Kalugin, a former KGB operative who worked within the US during the 1960s and 1970s. Following this though, he become an American citizen and now lives a hassle-free life in New York. It comes across like these ‘spies’ are playing a game and don’t want to get caught, but that the opposing state is equally playing the game in trying to find them. Both know that the other is out there, but that is the sport.

There is no doubt that Russia is an underrated and highly powerful actor in world affairs and its energy monopoly over most of Europe makes it an unavoidable political counterpart. As such it should be regarded as a powerful actor and reconciliation with the US to bring Russia in from the cold can only be a good thing. This case does have echoes of the Cold War but it bears little similarity to the nature of the ‘conflict’ and, likewise, should not really see a dent in its relations with America. Unless further claims are made, the case will be nowhere near as controversial as the Alexander Litvinenko affair.

One thing is for certain; you’ve probably met a spy.

(c) HM Treasury

Analysis of European data showing that a £70 reduction in welfare spending per person resulted in a 2.8% rise in alcohol-related deaths and 1.2% rise in deaths from heart disease should be carefully considered but the evidence should not be used to soften the hard headedness needed in what could be the most significant battle in our politics for a generation: the re-alignment of the welfare state.

Ever since the Liberal government of 1909 introduced the first non-punitive and interventionist action of any British government, that allowed the children of poor parents to have free school meals, the welfare state has grown into a monolith of state bureaucracy that in some cases has rewarded inactivity.

Writing in the British Medical Journal a UK based research team said that ordinary people will end up paying the price for the sweeping cuts that may come to tax credits, housing benefit and Job Seekers Allowance following Tuesday’s Budget. The findings, that considered government spending in 15 European countries from 1980 to 2005 will give political ammunition to the left who will state that cutting the budget deficit will cost lives.

It is a serious thought and any good society should be judged by how it looks after its most vulnerable. But there is nothing progressive about keeping people camped on benefits, afraid to work or so stigmatised by worklessness that an alternative becomes impossible. This resignation and inactivity is what makes lives become blighted by drug addition, poor diet and alcoholism. A £70 reduction in money per person may accelerate this decline but the rot would have already set in.

According to the Office of National Statistics 21% per cent of the UK population do not currently work. The government need to tackle this, not just to cut the economic deficit but also to try and begin to solve the social deficit that a life on benefits can mean. Britain is not broken and it must be realised that in a time of recession jobs are not easy to come by. But the sentiment must be there to begin to change this problem because a profligate welfare state hasn’t necessarily worked. In this respect the Labour Party would be safer using the findings from the research as a political opportunity to distance itself from the stifling intellectualism of middle class sociology professors, who were its compass for approaching welfare. Labour MP Frank Field was asked in 1998 to think the unthinkable on welfare by Tony Blair. He finally has a chance to complete his work 12 years later but for a coalition government.

It is much more complex than ‘get out to work,’ but the consultation process – with which Frank Field is involved – must begin on how we reform social security. And this means the other side of the desk as well. Benefits must be simplified in order to deflate bureaucracy and make it fairer for the infirm and unemployed who need a state that is on their side, efficient and uncomplicated. It is frightening to consider how many benefits are available and the labyrinth of loopholes, requirements, mistakes and means testing that makes the administration of what should be a simple process, so frustrating and so condescending.

The alternative is clear. A leaner and less forgiving social security system that removes itself from responsibility if somebody decides to drink himself or herself to death after they refuse the help that is offered to them. A system that gives opportunities to the unemployed but withdraws if the hand that feeds is bitten off.

Because it is the current system that is costing lives and research into the effects of rolling back welfare should not make us loose our pragmatism and independence in developing Britain into a fairer place to live. Because to solve heart disease and alcoholism, it doesn’t need to be measured by an economic index that relates how healthy you are by how much money in welfare you receive.

Work pays; those who work are fitter, healthier and less likely to encounter the social problems highlighted by the research as long as there is a fair system and an interventionist health system that is pro-active and honest in its prevention of disease linked to poverty. The answer isn’t to forget about people and reduce their welfare, leaving them on the scrap heap,  but to create a society where work is central to life and the difference in how much you earn working and could earn on welfare is irrelevant.

(c) Army.mil

Change: the concept by which Barack Obama has chosen to define his presidency. We have certainly seen evidence of this in the past week in the shape of his replacement of General McChrystal with General Petraeus as the American commander in Afghanistan. However, he has been keen to emphasise that in this case he has limited his action, with the move constituting a “change in personnel but…not a change in policy.”

This statement has been liberally quoted by the press, but does it necessarily convey the appropriate message?  The obvious implication is that the policy is sound, but that General McChrystal is no longer the right man to implement it. Is this really the case, or is the actual problem more fundamental than the President is willing to admit? Does the real rationale behind this action have more to do with domestic politics than the war effort?

In order to establish whether the policy needs to be reassessed, let us consider some of its features. The Western forces are seeking to establish a model of governance based upon the US system, which has been criticised as oppressively centralised, and as responsible for the marginalisation of many sections of Afghan civil society. One need only look to the debacle that was the 2009 presidential election, characterised by electoral fraud and poor security, to know that this is not working for Afghanistan. Perhaps Obama should not have been so hasty in dismissing the need to re-evaluate policy. Institutional reform, at least, should assume a prominent position in the list of strategic priorities.

General McChrystal recognised that this could not realistically be achieved through military force alone, and highlighted the need for interaction and negotiation with the civilian population. His strategy highlighted the importance of boosting morale within the country, and ‘winning over’ the Afghan civilians in order to secure lasting change. He has demonstrated his practical commitment to this approach by actively working to reduce the number of civilian casualties. This earned him the crucial trust of the Afghan authorities. Co-operation will undoubtedly be necessary if the Taliban are to be suppressed. In that respect, the continued promotion of this policy seems desirable.

If one pays regard to the more cynical analyses of this change, it appears that the best interests of both the military and the Afghan civilians have occasionally strayed from the forefront of the President’s mind. A principal criticism directed at the Obama administration is that it has been characterised by indecision. Barack Obama’s expeditious handling of this incident presented the perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate his capacity for decisive action. Needless to say, this is not a condemnable end in itself, although if this was the President’s motivation then it is in questionable taste.

Obama claims that this is not a matter of his having suffered a personal offence, although his private outrage at the remarks has been noted. Of course the remarks were personally insulting, and he would have felt disrespected. It would, however, have conveyed unpalatably totalitarian overtones if Obama were seen to have relieved the General on this basis.

Far more sinister are the allegations that this move was politically motivated in the light of General Petraeus’ potential candidacy in 2012. However this claim does seem rather far-fetched and unsympathetic.

As Obama presents the situation, it would appear that the bottom line is that division must be eradicated. This is perfectly commendable, given the magnitude of the task facing the troops in Afghanistan. The President has also presented the General’s lack of judgement as his fatal flaw. It is no secret that morale, both in Afghanistan and in the West, has been low for some time: a particularly acute issue during the worst month in terms of casualties in the whole of the nine-year war. Obama’s concern to improve confidence in the war effort has been demonstrated by this controversial move.

Ostensibly this is his primary motivation, although it is clear that other considerations may actually have prevailed. His desire to appear to be a strong and decisive leader seems to have superseded his specific concern for the situation an Afghanistan, and for the coalition forces.

However, we know that this news has not been well received in Afghanistan. General McChrystal had established a solid and amicable relationship with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, who has expressed regret at the General’s demise. He is, however, open to the idea of working collaboratively with General Petraeus, who has achieved respect in Afghanistan through his much-lauded success in Iraq. This appears to be the crux of the issue – General McChrystal’s ideas are sound, but the infrastructure is not. If General Petraeus can expand on the excellent work which General McChrystal began, then it is right that this particular policy should remain in force. Though that is not to say that it could not benefit from reappraisal, which is certainly necessary in the broader context of governance reform.

In his consistent endeavours to be all things to all men, Obama risks overlooking the overarching issues and occasionally missing the mark. It remains to be seen what the impact of this ‘change in personnel’ will be; and whether, contrary to the President’s outward confidence, strategic reform will be forthcoming under Petraeus’ command. General Petraeus’ involvement in the formulation of the contemporary policy suggests that this is indeed rather unlikely.

Nonetheless, if the Vanity Fair letters page is to be trusted, I gather that Petraeus is ‘adorable’. Let’s hope the Afghans agree.

(C) World Economic Forum

He was involved in politics from an early age and has experience of high-responsibility roles since university. However, one can tell that Dr J Gordon Brown’s term as prime minister was not his finest hour when contrasted against his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Throughout this period, Brown earned the epithet ‘The Iron Chancellor’, and frequently declared how good he was at running the economy – a proud boast, but to an extent true if one checks history over the period.

Having now left No. 10, it’s interesting to look over his previous role and the long term impact of his tenure. Did he just inherit a promising situation? Or, did he really achieve as well as any other Chancellor on record? You’ll be surprised to find that Dr Brown had a wide-reaching and profound effect on the UK economy.

Less than a week after landing the job as Chancellor, Brown gave monetary policy responsibilities to the Bank of England. This had three major effects:

1)      It took away responsibility from the government for future blunders after 1992’s ‘Black Wednesday’ which ruined John Major’s image.

2)      It put the responsibility into the hands of trained professionals – where it should always have been.

3)      It set out an environment of equilibrium and low inflation in the economy, resulting in long-term growth.

This move was wise, prudent and unprecedented. The prolonged economic growth that followed showed how economic stability can eliminate the textbook economic phenomenon of ‘boom and bust’. Growth over the consecutive ten years was even and showed little signs of stopping – between ’97 and ’06, the economy grew by roughly 3% on average.

Considering the boom and bust of the 1990s under the Conservatives, nobody can deny that the Labour’s ability to keep inflation within 1% of the target rate of 2% is nothing short of outstanding. By being a healthy mix of pessimistic and realistic about the climate of the world economy, Brown avoided falling into any traps. The housing boom of 1999 could have been catastrophic, as in July of that year house prices rose by up to 2.2%, the greatest since 1988. By avoiding it, we avoided what could have resulted in an early credit crunch.

If the low inflation of the time had been higher, then stability would have been lost, as average spending power would not follow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, meaning less consumption, less demand and less growth. To explain: in the UK GDP per capita in 2007 was roughly £31,000, whereas GDP per capita in Uganda is closer to £300. However, a pound in Uganda will buy you much more than a pound in the UK, as GDP per capita is often a misleading economic statistic.

A more controversial move was to change the powers of the Financial Services Authority under The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It outlined new powers of ferreting out market abuse, made it a criminal offence to mislead a market or investors, and allowed people to sue for damages if a financial firm breached any of the new rules.

While on paper this sounded excellent, it didn’t accomplish much. Over the next decade the financial squalor that plagued Major’s premiership in the early nineties was, to a point, eliminated, but it did not prevent the credit crunch. To be fair, that particular cataclysm was caused by a product of factors, such as faulty mortgage sales in the US and the previous housing boom. Without the legislation in 2000, it’s arguably that the crisis could have been exacerbated.

Brown is also famed for staying as fiscally prudent as possible. He wrote a rule stating that government borrowing should never exceed 3% of GDP. Taking loans with interest counts as a liability in terms of accounting, and the UK was still paying off loans from World War Two which we as taxpayers still pay for today. If a government borrows money in substantial amounts, then this translates to a heavier burden on taxpayers for generations to come, as all money spent by the government is that of the public.

On the other hand, health and education spending became more and more extravagant over the decade. Between 1997 and 2005, health spending rose from £41.6bn to £82.6bn, and education spending rose from £11.6bn to £21.3bn. One could argue that spending on such facilities is due to natural inflation and growth in the economy, but to double a budget in less than ten years is  astonishing.

Brown’s aversion to joining the Euro also contributed to the economic success. His five ‘tests’ of the currency were set out as: 1) the synchronisation between UK and European markets; 2) flexibility of control over the currency from the UK’s point of view; 3) effect on investment; 4) effect on financial services industry and 5) effect on the economic growth and jobs. There was no immediate obvious benefit to joining to Euro, and if there was a European economic crisis anywhere, the UK would be dragged down with it. The Bank of England would no longer have control over the country’s currency, and many believed that leaving the pound sterling behind simply would not do. Also, the UK housing market and interest rates are interlinked, so a small increase in interest rates from Brussels could result in mayhem in the UK housing market. Not joining the Euro avoided such a mess.

Whichever end of the political spectrum you look from, you cannot doubt the prudence of Gordon Brown’s chancellorship. We avoided potentially disastrous circumstances by erring on the side of caution and stability, and in the end the credit crunch could have not have been foreseen or stopped. The UK left behind the era of boom and bust of the 1990s, and the economy grew ad infinitum. So, while he was not our greatest prime minister, Mr Brown certainly did a good job as our Chancellor.

Thank god for Diane Abbott, and perhaps even more so, for David Miliband. Were it not for these two sterling defenders of human rights, liberty and diversity, women and ethnic minorities would be unrepresented in the Labour leadership election. Since this divine intervention by the senior Miliband saved us all from the horrors of a contest devoid of any form of political correctness, I’ve been trying to answer myself a troubling question. Who should feel most insulted at this?

Should it be the white middle class Oxbridge graduate; or a more generic version of the white male? The nomination of Abbott on the basis that as a black woman she represents ‘diversity’ implies that it isn’t really possible for a white male to really understand what it is like to be black or a woman. Perhaps this is also insulting to transsexuals, who presumably have good experience of performing as members of both mainstream genders. It is rare that I take an opportunity to defend Ed Balls, but on this occassion it seems that he along with his fellow candidates (David Milipede, Milipede the second and Andy B) is being judged on things out of his control. None chose to be white males, but all are being treated as though incapable of listening to anyone who isn’t a vague mirror image reflection of themselves. The fact that they have all climbed to the top of the Labour party (the party that brought us diversity) suggests that they may not have a firm grasp of economics, but that one of the things they probably can do is listen to and understand the concerns of ethnic minorities and women. To cast the entire white middle class bracket as being incapable of empathy seems too harsh.

Maybe it is the black female or similar minorities who should feel insulted. Here we are, insinuating that they are incapable of listening to anyone who isn’t to them as Nick Clegg is to David Cameron. There are many non white non male non Oxbridge graduates who I feel can represent my views, and I would never suggest a black person or any other minority is any different in that sentiment. Give me Condoleeza Rice over Michael Moore, or Baroness Warsi over George Galloway any day.

Or perhaps it’s Diane Abbott herself who should feel most insulted. I have skipped to this question without even considering whether she got there on her own merit. The reason being that thanks to Milipede I, we’ll never know.

But Abbott herself represents one of the greatest arguments against positive discrimination. That is that it favours able members of disadvantaged groups over equally able members of groups which are not disadvantaged. Here is a Cambridge educated, Simon Schama tutored candidate who has got to the top on the back of positive discrimination at the hands of equally talented white people. Positive discrimination only benefits the most priveliged, most talented members of the ‘discriminated against group’. It does nothing for the most disadvantaged members of a disadvantaged group, and the people who suffer most are the least talented or privileged members of the white male class. It is a counter intuitive concept, and it is leading to a worrying rise in extremism.

Are we surprised that it is mainly white males  who are flocking to the BNP en masse? Maybe not all are inherent racists, it could just be that we have let them down completely with our politically correct drive for an equal multicultural blend, and driven them into the hands of the only group who will stand up for them, regardless of how purile the BNP may be.

The reaction to the BNP and similar groups is ‘let’s defeat racism by winning the argument’ – or by giving houses to many people from ethnic groups prior to the election in Barking to increase the Labour vote, depending on who you believe. I’d suggest that rather than simply painting the BNP and their supporters as all being intolerant racists (sure some are, but not all), that the cause of the rise of the far right is in fact rooted in the politics of the far left. It then stands to reason that the left cannot solve the problem, as they are the ones who have caused it; presumably if they realised they were causing the rise in extremism they wouldn’t have implemented waves of legislation committing us to diversity and equality. It is up to those in the centre and the moderate right to remedy the politics of moral relativism and political correctness, and defeat far right extremism in a more intelligent, thoughtful way – i.e. actually tackling it at its core, at the very root of the problem.

But it is still important to listen to the merits of the argument of the equality brigade. The philosopher Brian Barry made probably the most compelling argument for equality on the logical basis that as we are all born with inherent characteristics that are a matter of pot luck, none of us deserves any of our qualities, positive or negative. It’s a good argument, from a purely moral perspective it is hard to disagree with, but its real life implications are worrying. This implies that we should all have roughly equal talents, and that therefore we should all achieve roughly equal things in our lives.

The conclusion of this argument is troubling. It implies that as we do not deserve any of the positive or negative characteristics we possess, nothing is ever our fault. It is the fault of our genes, which we don’t deserve of course. And of course, that logic dictates that Diane Abbott deserves no credit for her achievements. It also devalues the achievements of all ethnic and disadvantaged groups. Ultimately, it devalues all achievement, because nothing we do is deserved as the talented are undeserving of their abilities.

It means that every human achievement, from the creation of the wheel to the internet, is the result of undeserved genetic ability. Worst of all perhaps, it devalues the achievements of some of the most inspiring tales of success; Barack Obama to start with. What makes his achievement more remarkable than his white counterparts is that he has had to come further to succeed; this is the reasonable way to compensate the disadvantaged. Their achievements genuinely count for more than their more advantaged peers, and the positive discrimination would devalue the most impressive and remarkable of human achievements, the most inspiring successes which are often won by those who are disadvantaged.

This drive for equality really is a drive against achievement, including the greatest achievements of the likes of Martin Luther King.  At no point did this movement stop to question whether achievement is purely a material concept; reflected in exam results, money and possessions. So why the obsession with equalising the monetary result of our individual labour? Are we going to go beyond this and equalise the number of friends we all have, or start a drive to ensure that everyone has a husband or wife? Are we going to start punishing attractive people for being better looking than others? Presumably marriage and family are achievements as well, so this would seem the logical conclusion of the ‘let’s all be equal’ argument.

Diane Abbott though, was able to go to Cambridge thanks to one of the greatest tools of social mobility we’ve ever had – grammar schools. These rewarded achievement, regardless of background. They allowed disadvantaged pupils to go to our greatest educational institutions and enjoy the best education money could buy. Abbot’s success to date is the result of equality of opportunity. Unfortunately her party did away with grammar schools, but if a person like her can achieve what she has, we have succeeded. What is wrong, is devaluing her achievements by using political correctness and affirmative action to elevate her into the Labour leadership contest.

It seems that the answer to my initial question, who is this most insulting to, is every human achievement in history. The equality movement appears to be a drive against accomplishments, success and the results of competition. This is an insult to each and every one of us, and all of our respective achievements.

(c) rubberpaw

For students across the country, the sun is setting on another academic year. It’s been a somewhat volatile few months, as spending cuts and department closures at several UK institutions have sparked often violent clashes between university management and protesting students.

The increasing marketisation of higher education has begun to cast a shadow over the original intention of university: a place to pursue academic study and extended research, rather than a money-making institution. However, every cloud has a silver-lining and the cuts and disputes have served to revive the spirit of the student activism of the 1960s, or rather proven that it never died.

It’s no secret that things look rather bleak for the current crop of undergraduates and graduates: the recession has bitten away at the graduate job market, there is more competition than ever for university places; tuition fees and mounting student debt weigh heavy on most students’ shoulders and universities’ own credit has been crunched, with lack of funding leading to the closure of many departments which are not seen as sufficiently cost-effective.

Sadly, this has meant that the more traditional, academic subjects have suffered because of the rising giant of capital-attracting courses such as business studies and other more vocational degree programmes. With Tony Blair’s decision to implement top-up fees and plough 50% of Britain’s youth into higher education, universities have become much more concerned about money and capital gain rather than the pure pursuit of academic rigour. Universities resemble businesses and students are losing out.

Patrick Rolfe, a student at the University of Sussex and one of the six to be suspended after he peacefully protested on campus against departmental cuts, explains current students’ attitudes towards the direction higher education is taking. “Education is a business, but it’s still a state-owned business,” he says. We don’t have a privatised education system; rather, we have a system which uses state money to serve the needs of business. It’s just like the bail-outs that went to the banks – state money serving private interests, and students are pawns stuck right in the middle of that.

However, the row over spending cuts and the hovering cloud of financial difficulties brought about by the recession has revealed the fiery side of student politics. The spirit of radical student activism may have lain dormant since the 1960s when students famously fought for their rights against the established order, but the recent troubles have once again incited students to take up placards and protest.

Students have shown they are not happy with the way their universities are being run and are unsatisfied with the relatively bleak future facing them upon graduation. But can student-led protests have any effect on the decisions taken by either university management or the government?

Patrick talks about the uncertainty involved when it comes to student politics: uncertainty as to whether the efforts of the student body will have any real impact on the decisions taken by the powers that be. He says: “The act of occupying university buildings and taking back a space is very liberating, but it’s what happens inside that space which is important – people discuss, read, write, and make decisions, they form a social network and a movement that can have a power to counter the decisions of management. Student activism will only really make a difference as people start linking up with each other, formulating alternatives to business-oriented education, and trying them out. This may sound like a big project, but like I said, it’s amazing how quickly people change, and become empowered to change their own world.”

A campus-wide campaign was put into place at Sussex University last year when the Linguistics department, highly ranked in all major league tables, was threatened with closure. Led for students, by students, it involved meetings, sit-ins, placards and petitions. Lecture theatres were occupied and classes were disrupted.

The campaign was splashed across the front of the student newspaper but despite the best efforts of the student body, the department is still going to be axed. It’s a concrete example of traditional, academic subjects sadly losing out to departments which will be more financially viable for universities, and the sad impotency of some student-led protests.

But perhaps the university management themselves isn’t wholly to blame? With public spending cuts taking chunks out of university budgets, it does not appear too surprising that management are forced to increase capital where possible, in a strategic management of departments and disciplines.

But it’s not just at Sussex University, the left-wing institution notorious as the hotbed of sixties student radicalism, that student politics has seen a revival. In response to cuts in spending and departments, student protest movements have swept through the student bodies of several different universities across the country. The backlash looks set to continue into the new academic year, with threats of further public spending cuts under the new Cameron/Clegg administration.  The threat of higher tuition fees and mounting student debt is a heavy weight on the shoulders of most currently pursuing higher education.

It’s more difficult for students to fight against the unfortunate circumstances which result from the global economic downturn. There is little a student political movement can do to counter the shrinking of the graduate job market, for example. Patrick gives a bleak summary of a current undergraduate’s view of their post-degree prospects: “Students are lucky if they get a decent job after leaving university, and the ones that do make a decent living often have to take jobs in government or big companies – it’s really difficult to find something that pays the rent, and that you can also do with a social conscience.”

Some prospective students may not even get the chance to air their views about the actions of their university’s management, because they may not successfully secure a place. Vince Cable recently announced the new administrations’ plans to slash a further few thousand university places, in an attempt to cut costs and kick start the economy.

Blair’s target of 50% into higher education appears to have been overambitious, and a burden on the shoulders of universities and tax payers. Thousands will lose out on university places over the coming academic years, as the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat alliance has pledged to cut the extra number of university places promised by Labour from 20,000 to 10,000.

Whether or not the student-led protest movements have had any lasting effect – and in the face of government policy it’s doubtful – the general atmosphere of vociferous student activism that knew its heyday in the sixties has undoubtedly had a rebirth. In the face of a common grievance, students have united, and Patrick explains how it feels to be at the heart of student politics: “Being involved in the anti-cuts movement in Sussex has been amazing. It’s shown me that people really do change their opinions, and their whole world-view, when they start fighting against policies that they don’t like.”

Despite the problems facing today’s students due to the economic climate and decisions taken by the powers that be, students have shown they have determination to fight for their education and protect their universities against budget cuts before all higher education institutions begin to resemble businesses rather than centres for the pursuit of knowledge and academic study. They’re protesting not only for their future but for the future of academia and an education of quality for undergraduates of the future, in the face of conditions out of their control.