The Curious Case of Douglas Carswell

  Douglas Carswell was first returned to Parliament in 2005 for the Essex constituency of Harwich. A Conservative Party member since 1990, he defected to UKIP in August 2014 and stood down as MP for Clacton, triggering a by-election which he won by a landslide.

  Since then, Carswell has been one of the principal figures in the UKIP surge and an outspoken member of the party leadership. He also, however, has been reported as clashing with UKIP leader Nigel Farage on a number of occasions - something he has, of course, denied.

  But it is clear that Carswell is something apart from the mass of Ukippers. Whilst he is in line with general 'UKIP-py' policies such as opposing equal marriage for same-sex couples and scepticism about anthropogenic climate change - as well as, of course, the core UKIP mission of getting the UK out of the EU - he is something of a radical when it comes to other areas.

  Particularly of interest is his dedication to electoral reform. The Daily Telegraph named him their Briton of the Year in 2009 for his commitment to shaking up what he calls 'that cosy little clique called Westminster'. In a speech at the UKIP conference on Saturday, he outlined his proposals for changes to the electoral system.

  First on his list is recall elections. The coalition has introduced a form of this in the Recall of MPs Bill, but this is a weak form of recall which only allows voters to replace their MPs if they are sentenced to more than a year in prison or the Commons Standards Committee bans them from the House for 21 days. Carswell believes that real reform means having a threshold at which a simple petition can trigger an election - in his proposal, 20%.

  Another policy of his is to mandate that ministerial appointments are confirmed by the relevant House of Commons Committee. This procedure already occurs in the USA, and would prevent the Prime Minister from appointing favourites who do not command the confidence of the House as a whole.

  Of course, the jewel in the crown of these reforms is replacement of the archaic Single Member Plurality (or first-past-the-post) system with which we choose our MPs. Moving towards a more proportional system would, of course, benefit UKIP hugely - but it would also make Parliament far more democratic. My own article outlining the reasons for reform can be found here.

  All of this is rather sensible, and somewhat removed from the immigrant-bashing, Thatcherite-plus rhetoric of the majority of UKIP's leadership. Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage have seemed strange bedfellows since the beginning, but now with the election campaign beginning in earnest, the differences between the two may become more important.

  It is far too early to say whether the fault lines of some future split have emerged, but one thing is clear: Douglas Carswell is a UKIPper apart.

A 21st Century Crusade: The rise of the anti-Islam movement in Europe

The organisation Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Pegida by the German acronym) has announced its first UK rally, due to take place on the 28th of February in Newcastle. 

In just four months, the group has racked up nearly 160,000 Facebook likes and has staged a number of protests in Germany, some attended by up to 25,000 people. Offshoots have sprung up in Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and - now - the United Kingdom.

Former Pegida leader
Lutz Bachmann

According to reports, the UK branch is expecting somewhere between 500 and 3,000 protesters to attend the rally. This is by no means, therefore, a major demonstration. Indeed, Pegida itself as a European movement has suffered serious setbacks since the height of their popularity following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. 

Founder Lutz Bachmann was forced to resign from the organisation after a photograph of him styled as Adolf Hitler went viral on the 21st of January. German politicians, including Angela Merkel, have criticised the organisation over its use of the Charlie Hebdo incident for political purposes, and counter-protests in Germany have reached the stage where they are drawing more participants than the protests themselves. 

This might seem to suggest that Pegida, less than four months after its foundation, is already on the way out. But we cannot afford to be so optimistic. Pegida itself is just one part of a wider campaign across Western Europe which is targeting Muslims as a group. The very concept of 'anti-Islamisation' is nonsensical - the Muslim population of the UK is just 4.6%; in Germany, it is 5.4%. There is no 'Islamisation'; the fastest-growing belief group across Western Europe is, in fact, atheists, not Muslims.

But the narrative has been picked up, not only by radical rightist groups like Pegida and Britain First, but by the media - and from there, it has filtered into general society. A report last October showed that anti-Muslim hate crime rose by 65% over the preceding twelve months; in France in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, 24 violent incidents against mosques were logged in just six days. The last ten years have seen a seemingly inexorable upward trend in anti-Islamic sentiment across Europe, fuelling the rise of anti-immigration Parties like the French Front National and UKIP, as well as direct action groups.

There is a real danger that the actions of tiny extremist minorities on both sides will increase the polarisation of society around the issue of Islam. The stage is fast approaching where it is no longer possible to take a balanced view on the subject: one must either be an apologist for Islam in all its forms, or emphatically opposed to it. This is dangerous. Islam, like any religion, has inspired some people to do terrible things in its name, but the vast majority of its adherents are peaceable, friendly citizens of our countries. We must stand in solidarity with them.

The narrative of mutual warfare - crusaders vs. jihadists - is one which Islamist and far-right groups alike benefit from and seek to encourage. Those of us who are moderates - the vast majority - are easily capable of shrugging off the efforts of these bitter fringe elements. So let us not succumb to their poisonous rhetoric, but expound the virtues of tolerance and liberty and the right and ability of the human species to live in harmony despite our differences.

The 'crusaders' of the 21st century are no less brutal and self-serving than those of the 11th. We should treat them and their misguided 'anti-Islamisation' campaign with the contempt they deserve.

A Royal Coup? – Queen Guitarist Brian May Considering Standing for Election

Brian May might not be of the House of Windsor, but the Queen guitarist is certainly rock royalty, and earlier today (4th February 2015) his agent announced that the 67-year-old is considering standing as an MP in the 2015 General Election. Coming on the heels of comedian Al Murray’s decision to stand against Nigel Farage in Thanet South (albeit in his guise as the Pub Landlord), it seems like 2015 may follow in Britain’s fine tradition of celebrity candidates.

However, whereas Murray’s campaign is – I’m sure the guv’nor himself would admit – a bit of a joke, May’s political credentials are a touch more serious. The CBE he was awarded in 2005 was a decoration both for his services to music and his charity work; for May, as well as penning hits such as ‘We Will Rock You’ and ‘The Show Must Go On’ and attaining a Ph.D. in astrophysics, has also devoted much energy to campaigning, principally on behalf of wildlife.

He – along with actor and fellow Brian, Brian Blessed – led the Team Badger (with the unfortunate acronym TB) campaign against the proposed badger cull in 2013. May also heads the organisation ‘Save Me’, dedicated to protecting animal rights, particularly with regards to fox hunting and badger culling.

His campaigning, however, has since expanded from the sphere of animal welfare: the Common Decency initiative, founded by May just last month, focuses on reform to Parliament and our democratic system, intending to root out corruption from Parliament and establish a new system whereby MPs vote according to their conscience, not strict party discipline. It is under the banner of Common Decency that May’s proposed Parliamentary bid – if it materialises – will be fought.

Brian May’s announcement today is more, then, than just another celebrity poking their nose into politics for an extra five minutes in the limelight. The Common Decency initiative is aimed at one of the greatest problems with modern British democracy – that MPs simply do not represent the people, leaving us effectively powerless. The fact that May – a self-confessed habitual Tory voter – has decided to throw his weight behind this important issue shows just how far the traditional parties have failed the electorate.

If he does choose to stand at the General Election, there will no doubt be people lining up to vote for him. I, for one, hope that he does, and brings a little new life and new energy into our stifled political system. Long live the Queen!

Victory for Syriza

  Syriza, the left-wing alliance, have won the Greek elections. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone who has been following the situation - all the pre-election polls pointed towards this result. Nevertheless, this is a pivotal moment in not just Greek but European politics: The first time since the financial crash that any Eurozone country has had a government opposed to ruthless austerity.

  The votes at the time of writing have not all been counted, but Syriza looks set to win 149 seats in the Greek parliament - just two short of an absolute majority. In order to form a majority government, therefore, they need a coalition partner willing to work with them against EU austerity. That partner is the right-wing Independent Greeks party, led by Panos Kamnenos, a splinter from the centre-right New Democracy. Both parties are fiercely opposed to austerity and to EU interference in Greece. 

  Independent Greeks have 13 seats in the new parliament, giving the coalition a majority of 11 - not ideal, but still a massive achievement for Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras. At the age of 40, he is the youngest Prime Minister Greece has had for 150 years, and he has transformed Syriza from a fringe party of the left into the largest in Greece. 

  Syriza's victory changes everything. Tsipras has stated that he does not intend to leave the Eurozone, but has made it perfectly clear that he is no Europhile either. Syriza's partnership with the Independent Greeks will also bring a more Eurosceptic bent to the new coalition government. The policy clash between the two partners on non-economic issues, such as immigration and the position of the Greek Orthodox Church, may also cause problems down the line. However, for now Greece appears to have a dynamic, anti-neoliberal government capable perhaps of overturning the austerity measures imposed by the Eurozone's central command.

  Make no mistake, the election of Syriza is not a panacea. Greece's Eurozone partners, particularly Germany, will be as determined to preserve the status quo as Syriza is to overturn it. Centre-left figures such as France's Francois Hollande and Italy's Matteo Renzi have failed to overturn the austerity consensus at the EU level, and Syriza will have to work with others across Europe if they intend to succeed. 

  But Syriza, unlike the previous New Democracy government, offer the Greeks hope. The economy of Greece buckled under austerity, contracting by 25% under the ministrations of the so-called 'troika' (the ECB, IMF and European Commission). Austerity has failed in Greece as it has across Europe. The Syriza victory will spur the anti-austerity movement across the continent. With general elections set to take place in the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Spain (where the left-wing Podemos is vying with the governing People's Party for first place), 2015 may well be the year in which the ideology of European austerity crumbles.

  We can but hope. And vote.

Charlie Hebdo: A Warmongers' Dream

  Unless you have been absent from the planet Earth for the last week or so, you will know that Islamist terrorists killed 17 people in Paris and the surrounding area over the three days from the 7th to the 9th of January 2015. This was the most deadly act of terror in France since 1961. 

  The attack on the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) was carried out by Islamists apparently connected to al-Qaeda's Yemeni branch, while the gunman who struck the kosher supermarket Hypercasher near the Port de Vincennes self-declared his membership of ISIS.

  On the 11th of January, 3.7 million people marched in Paris and other cities throughout France to show their unity in the face of these terrorist networks' actions. The march was led by the families of the victims and more than 40 world leaders, including the French President, the British Prime Minister and German Chancellor. 

  These were the largest rallies in France since the liberation of Paris from Nazi German occupation in 1944. They were also a moving demonstration of the unity of not just the French people but also of the global community in the face of the despicable, murderous actions of Islamist extremists. The fact that the rally was attended by both the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Palestine underscores just how important a show of unity this march was.

  And then, on the 12th of January, France announced it would deploy 10,000 soldiers and armed police onto its streets.

  The political necessity for such a show of strength, I understand. Hollande, France's embattled President, needs to salvage some credibility from the disaster that this attack has been. It may also be that there is a valid strategic and security reason for this massive mobilisation, which has already begun. But the deployment has been accompanied by such violent, warmongering rhetoric that I fear the consequences.

  In less than a week since the shootings, more than 50 anti-Muslim hate crime incidents have been registered across France. That is a worrying trend. The presence of ten thousand armed men on the streets will not calm this - it will fuel the fires. What is suspiciously close to a declaration of martial law is a move which will cause further polarisation, in France and across Europe.

  And that's what they want. The Porte de Vincennes gunman, Amedy Coulibaly, said in his ISIS propaganda video that his actions were in defence of the Palestinian people and in protest of the Coalition actions in Syria, Afghanistan, Mali and Iraq. Make no mistake, in his mind his murders were an act of war. Responding to rhetoric of war in kind will only worsen the situation. And the more Muslims in European countries suffer as a result of the backlash against these incidents, the easier it will be for Islamists to radicalise young Muslims in future.

  The ideology of these people - Salafi-Jihadism (ultraconservative Wahhabist Islam mixed with a quasi-fascistic personality cult and the willingness to undertake violent jihad) - is vile, make no mistake. It should be eradicated. But we must remember firstly that the ideology is our enemy first and foremost, and that the young men brainwashed by its demagogic leaders are victims of the virus. 

   That does not mean we should not defend ourselves against them. I am no pacifist. But we also cannot afford to become locked into an exchange of violent and ever-ratcheting rhetoric with the adherents of Salafi-Jihadism. That will only play into the hands of warmongers like Marine le Pen in France and Britain First here in Britain. And we especially must not allow our justified anger to spill over into attacks on moderate, law-abiding Muslims in our own countries or overseas.

  We may be Charlie. But we are all humans first.

Killing the Music Industry

  Something's killing the music industry. That's just a fact. How else do we explain the presence of One Direction, Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor at the apex of the UK music charts. In the US, the Billboard 200 is topped by Swift, Nicki Minaj and Ed Sheeran as I write. Someone save us.

  Yes, something's killing it alright. The question is, what? Well, on the 8th of January Korn drummer Ray Luzier became the latest artist to declare the culprit online music piracy. This, in and of itself, has a fine petingdigree, going all the way back to Beethoven. More recently, Metallica have faced down LimeWire and - at the last gig I went to - Skindred singer Benji Webbe accused all the members of the audience who admitted to pirating his music of 'stealing from my fucking children's mouths!!!'. Which, hilarious as it was at the time, slicked in sweat and a dash of spilled blood, is kind of true.

  Declaration of interests: I have, in the past, downloaded music illegally. Shock, horror, all my metal friends leave me. Yeeeaaahhhh... No. All of them have too. So have all of you. Crucially, though, I stopped doing so before the age of 15. Why? Quite simple, really: I had a little bit of disposable income by that point, and wanted to support the artists I like(d). So, now I buy CDs or (if the CD is hard to come by) download albums legally. A reformed man.

  Here's the issue: I don't have THAT much disposable income, even now. So, while I buy as much music as I can afford, that's not too much. So, being a music-loving sort of chap, I use services such as YouTube, Spotify, and even occasionally Last.fm. The thing is, whilst these services are legal, they are't particularly lucrative for the artists either. They only receive an estimated $0.005 per play, which is pretty poor by anyone's standards. Although the disparity between this figure and the revenue from music sales has been subject to debate, everyone agrees the former is a fraction of the latter.

  And therein, dear reader, lies the issue. Illegally downloading music is bad. You shouldn't do it. We know these things. But the thing which will replace piracy will not be increased album sales; it will be increased use of streaming services. This is because the average UK household income is between £44,000 and £51,000 for a two-adult, two-child family. Take the mean of £47,500 - that's just under £12,000 per person. Before tax. And bills. And rent/mortgage. And clothes. And food.

  Are you getting the idea? People don't have the cash on the hip necessary to indulge what for many of us is a deep passion for music. Which means that people will continue to use streaming services, which pay artists a tiny amount of money over often extremely long periods of time. Granted, this is better than nothing, but not by very much. While we're on the subject, even album sales aren't making musicians that much - about 13% of the total album cost for a physical copy, and less for iTunes downloads and their ilk. This has always been the case - and in fact some artists who have been in the business a while, such as Pink Floyd's Nick Mason, say things have actually improved quite considerably in recent years. Which is to be welcomed, but 13% still seems pathetically small.

  The thing is, there's always something 'killing' the music industry - recorded music itself was attacked as damaging when it first emerged. Piracy is the current bugbear, and I will admit it's a problem, but the prevalence of streaming services at the expense of album sales is - to my mind - a greater long-term threat. But artists have to adapt. And there is hope for the future in the internet as well as fear, by making it easier for artists to access their audiences without the middleman of a record label taking a hefty cut (about 30%). Independent labels and artists should of course be encouraged, and we should support the musicians whose music we enjoy where we can. But let's not get too het up about the death of the music industry because the charts may be flooded with utter dreck, but in fairness they have been for years, and we will preserve this industry we love best by determining to ourselves that we will never let it die.

Orwellian Britain

 
  In his 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a dystopian, totalitarian state ruled by an inner core of detached elites who manipulate the lower orders with deft use of a pet media machine; conduct endless foreign campaigns in order to drain resources and keep average quality of life at a level which prevents resistance; and use a secretive security organisation to pluck suspected enemies of the state from the streets and torture them into submitting to the guiding ideology of the day. Oceania is a place where surveillance is everywhere, poverty and hunger are widespread, and foreigners are senselessly demonised as scapegoats for all the ills plaguing society.

  Sound familiar?

  One could be forgiven for thinking that political leaders both here in Britain and in other western democracies have been reading Orwell's magnum opus a little too much like a blueprint, rather than a warning. We have seen, for example, that David Cameron and George Osborne have been accused of being too closely involved with BBC appointments; that the organisation has faced numerous claims of bias against anti-establishment parties such as the Greens - over 85,000 people have supported a petition declaring they believe this to be the case; and that other media organisations, such as the Murdoch group, are just a little too friendly with certain politicians.

  We have six million CCTV cameras in this country - roughly one for every eleven people - which is one and a half times as many as in China and nearly a quarter of the world total. Security services are able to access our every online and telephone communication, and all three establishment parties in Parliament collaborated back in July 2014 to force through a bill overturning EU regulations which would have banned this practice in just eight days. The Home Office has the power to tag, relocate and restrict the movements of terror suspects without any judicial oversight and for an essentially indefinite period, even if they don't have enough evidence to make a criminal charge.

  Over 900,000 people rely on food banks to live, as a direct result of the Coalition's welfare 'reforms' and ideologically-driven, economically-illiterate spending cuts. The UK has not had a single year of peacetime since 1935. Nigel Farage and David Cameron are engaged in a seemingly desperate race to pile as much of the blame for our economic woes on immigrants, rather than attack the reckless finance capitalists and ineffective regulation by establishment politicians which caused the problem in the first place. Quality of life has stagnated for years; income inequality has been growing since the 1980s and wealth inequality is at its highest point since the late nineteenth century. Politicians are aloof, disconnected and seemingly deliberately unengaging, resulting in voter turnouts lower than at any point since the Second World War.

  Our country has yet to plumb the depths of Orwell's fictional super-states - luckily for me, or it would be off to the Ministry of Love for a little stay in Room 101 just for thinking this, let alone writing it - but the direction of travel is clear. The CIA's use of despicable torture against untried foreign nationals, the growing instability in North Africa and the Middle East and the disturbing actions of Russian President-stroke-Mafia-boss Vladimir Putin show that the UK - or should I say Airstrip One? - isn't the only part of the world seemingly falling in with the writer's dark predictions.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Welcome to 2015, boys and girls.

The United States of America: The Real International Terrorists

On the 9th of December, the US Senate released a report into the interrogation techniques practiced by the CIA in the aftermath of 9/11 and through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Particular attention in the $40 million investigation was lavished on the secretive COBALT detention centre. The 'techniques' employed here range from unnecessary rectal feeding of detainees, leading to one sustaining 'anal fissures', to being forced to sit naked in cold concrete cells, with at least one confirmed death from hypothermia.

I will spare you any further details of the physical and mental torture that detainees of the COBALT prison - and others - were put through.  It makes for grim reading. Bear in mind, of course, that these people were suspects. Not one had been convicted of any crime, and many (the CIA puts a 'conservative estimate' at 22%) weren't even supposed to have been there according to the CIA's own guidelines. Yes - the guidelines of an organisation which sees waterboarding, enforced sleep deprivation and threats to kill detainees' wives and children as legitimate interrogation tactics. When even this lot think imprisoning someone is a step too far, but it happens anyway, we need to be very, very worried.

Discussion about the futility and the dangers of Bush and Blair's 'War on Terror' abounds - I've written on the subject myself. But these new revelations go beyond anything else we've seen. This report is set against the backdrop of the continued Western military presence in Middle Eastern and North African countries, the leviathan surveillance state and the still-extant Guantanamo Bay detention centre. We must open our eyes to the true lengths that the US and UK governments are willing to go to in their zealous crusade against the 'terror' they themselves created.

And yes, I say US and UK governments. The Senate report also shows quite clearly that - along with a number of other supposedly 'liberal' democracies - the UK has been fully co-operating with and assisting in the mass torture and systematic human rights abuses perpetrated by the CIA. Other culprits include Germany, Italy, Poland, Australia, Denmark... the list goes on. The CIA have now come clean - when will MI6 follow? 

Returning to the Americans, the CIA misled US government officials, lied to the White House and fed misinformation to the press. To date, not one CIA employee has been prosecuted or even reprimanded so far as we can tell.

The brutal irony of the situation is this: if another country were perpetrating human rights abuses on this scale, the USA would probably use them as grounds to justify an invasion.

The thing is, they'd have a better case against themselves than they ever did against Iraq.

The Failure of George Osborne's 'Economic Plan'

  The Tories say the economy is recovering, and they point to GDP growth statistics of 1.7% last year and a forecast of 2.7% for 2014. Labour, however, say that this doesn't matter, because the cost of living is still high and on the up. At first glance, this might seem absurd - how can a growing economy not lead to increased living standards? The reason is actually quite simple.

   By making significant real-terms public spending cuts, Osborne has stifled inflow of money from the Treasury into the wider economy. Keynesian economic theory holds that governments should use public spending to stimulate demand in times of recession, but Thatcher threw Keynes out of the window back in 1979 and Osborne has ramped up the neoliberal experimentation to the point where even Maggie would be disgusted.

  Lack of economic stimulus. has contributed heavily to wage repression - as this graph shows, wages have increased at below the rate of inflation in every quarter since the coalition came to power bar one. It is interesting to note that the brief pre-election recovery in real wages came only after two years of fiscal stimulus packages by the Brown ministry. His chosen method of stimulus, relying heavily on quantitative easing and the bank bailouts, was far from optimal - it injected money into the finance industry but neglected other sectors - but it did actually start to show some results by early 2010. Naturally, the Tories took swift steps to shut that nonsense down immediately upon assuming power.

  With average wages so far below inflation, it is easy to see why most people just aren't feeling the so-called 'recovery'. Abstract GDP growth figures, however promising on paper, just don't mean anything to ordinary people if the money in their pocket isn't there. But if the economy is growing, and yet it isn't making its way down to us, then where the hell is it?!

  That's an easy one too. It's in the pockets of CEOs and bankers, of company shareholders and major landowners. The combined wealth of the richest 1,000 UK households jumped 15% in 2013 and now stands at almost £520 billion, with the result that the UK now has more billionaires per head than any other country. The baseline for entry into this super-elite group is now £85 million - £5 million more than before the recession. So, while the UK as a whole has only just surpassed 2008 levels and the average person is still some considerable distance from that, the richest members of our society are actually much better off than they were six years ago. 

  Some people, then, have done very well out of the global economic crash and the suffering of millions. The rest of us, meanwhile, are a little more strapped for cash - and it doesn't look like it's getting any better anytime soon. With the Tories plotting a law which will make eliminating the budget deficit by 2018 a legal requirement, more cuts are on their way, which will lead to further wage depression and thus falling demand in the economy. The current trend towards underemployment, with more and more people disappearing from unemployment stats into false self-employment or abusive zero-hours contracts, will continue and the queues outside food banks and job centres will only grow. 

  Of course, that will push up the welfare bill, sending Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth and baying for blood. Then the government will be 'forced' to slash social security further, driving more and more people - particularly young people - onto the scrapheap. Welcome to the age of austerity politics. It hasn't worked so far, but the elitist, neoliberal mainstream parties aren't about to let a silly little thing like that stop them! They have the lower orders to crush.

Israel's Apartheid Continues

  

  Benjamin Netanyahu is at it again. He is not content, apparently, with the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip, with the government-sponsored construction of illegal settlements on Palestinian soil, with the occupation of the State of Palestine itself in violation of any semblance of international law, and with the periodic brutality of the Israeli armed forces in their fruitless assaults on Palestine and her people. No, none of this is enough for this genocidal warmonger - now he is to make the Palestinian people second-class citizens in their own lands.

  A bill currently going through the Israeli parliament will make Jewishness a condition of the 'national rights' of Israel. For the 25% of the population who are not, including the Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation, lesser 'civil rights' will still be available - according to Netanyahu - but they will be officially, legally second-class citizens. The bill also bans the flying of the Palestinian flag and a number of other measures dressed up as counter-terrorism but in reality targeting the oppressed Palestinians.

  This bill is so blatantly ridiculous, even Netanyahu's fellow Likud party member and President of Israel Reuven Rivlin has come out against it, calling it 'unnecessary' and 'harmful' and pointing out that it will play into the hands of Israel's critics. Damn right it will: this is further evidence of the Likud government's ultra-Zionist, far-right agenda to crush the Palestinian people out of existence - or at least, out of Israel.

  The ridiculous thing is, the quickest way to remove the Palestinians from Israel, halt the majority of the inter-community violence in the region and make the bill truly unnecessary would be to recognise Palestine's sovereignty and accept the two-state solution - but that is something Netanyahu will not do. Meanwhile, Palestinians - who  have always been treated as second-class citizens in Israel - will not take this new legal confirmation of their status lightly. One commentator, Abu Azzan Saud, went to far as to call this 'the beginning of the third intifada'. 

  So, more deaths to come, then, on the back of a law allegedly designed to reduce the killing. Welcome to Netanyahu's apartheid state.

Deja Vu: UKIP By-Election Victory. Again

  Yesterday’s by-election was more or less a foregone conclusion, with the Tories’ original promise to ‘throw the kitchen sink’ at Rochester & Strood having been ashes in the mouth of the Prime Minister for at least a week. So, Mark Reckless – UKIP’s candidate – retakes the seat he held as a Conservative MP from 2010, and no-one in the country with so much the suggestion of a finger on the fluttering political pulse of the nation should be at all surprised.

  That doesn’t mean the win is insignificant, however – not by any means. There have been noises for a few days now about a UKIP win triggering at least two more defections from the Tories. There are about as many candidates for this as there are Tory backbenchers, but two frontrunners are the arch-Eurosceptic Peter Bone – who has called for UKIP and the Tories to work together in the past – and John Baron, who when questioned about whether he would defect replied with the deliciously clichéd ‘never say never’.

  With the General Election approaching fast, it is more and more unlikely that the new tradition of forcing a by-election if you decide to jump ship to Farage’s mob would hold. Therefore, any future defections could well be automatic, potentially swelling the ranks of UKIP substantially in the run-up to May 2015. However, whilst Farage will be keen of course to pinch as many Tories as he can get his made-in-the-UK purple mittens on, what he is really after now is a Labour defector. This would fit in with his growing narrative about UKIP being a party of neither the left nor the right – and, considering polling shows their appeal among former Conservative voters is approaching its critical mass, it is looking increasingly necessary if UKIP want to keep up their admittedly impressive momentum.

  And what about Rochester & Strood itself? Well, with a much-reduced majority of 7.3% on a low turnout of just 50%, Reckless is far from secure. Lord Ashcroft’s polling shows that the Tories are likely to reclaim the seat in 2015, when – as Grant Schapps put it this morning – ‘the future of the country will be on the ballot paper’. Lib Dem, Labour and even Green supporters might be willing to lend their votes to the Tories to keep out a UKIP MP for a full parliament where they were not willing to do so for the sake of five months. We shall see.

  Speaking of the other parties, it didn’t go too well for them either. The swing against Labour was -12%, nearly as much as against the Tories, while the Lib Dems got just 1% and lost their deposit once again. The Green Party, meanwhile, continued their recent trend of thrashing the Lib Dems into fourth place with 4% at the expense of some of the Labour vote. Sixth place, for those who are interested, went to a dominatrix who was last year voted Britain’s favourite sex worker. She got just 300 votes less than the Lib Dem candidate.

  To summarise: UKIP continue their march, while the Tory and Labour high commands will be quaking in their respective boots at the prospect of further defections. The Greens are still doing quite well and the Lib Dems look like the next general election may well see them wiped off the face of the Earth. 2015 is going to be an interesting one, methinks.

Remembrance

For King, flag and country they took to the field

For Kaiser and Sultan they snatched up their guns

For Tsar and for Emperor they readied their cannon

For freedom and glory they pounded the drums

For France and for Belgium the Entente declared

No German or Austrian the Channel would sight

The Tsar of the Russias swore his Slavic brothers

Would be beholden no longer to the Habsburg Duke’s might

The Germans for their part defended the honour

Of their Austrian cousins whose son had been slain

Austria-Hungary readied its armies

For the death of an Archduke, now bloodshed would reign

Uncle Sam and his legions came late to the fray

The Italian Prime Minister switched sides at the last

The Ottoman Empire was wooed by the Germans

The Balkans rose up against their Austrian past

The fighting was bitter; the casualties many

Sixteen million lives were snuffed out in the war

Four Empires were shattered; the others were crippled

The balance of power was balanced no more

What did they fight for, those bravest of soldiers?

For what did they struggle through barbed wire and shells?

What reason could send seventy million men

To risk their lives and their futures for four years of Hell?

Some fought for freedom; against oppression and empire

Some fought for justice and a world free of fear

Some fought for their families, to safeguard their future

Some fought for the countries that they held so dear

Some fought out of shame if they didn’t contribute

Some fought because their governments told them they must

Perhaps the bravest of all, did not fight at all

But stood up for their principles in the face of disgust

They each were lied to, those valiant warriors

Each man and each woman who stood up and risked death

There was no free world at the end of the struggle

Victor and vanquished; neither tasted success

No worker in London or Paris or Rome

Gained freedom from toil or protection from harm

No peasant in Hungary or France or in Poland

Gained the land or the bread for which he had borne arms

The Revolution in Russia – so much hope at the outset

Quickly dissolved into killing and lies

And no Treaty could bring back the 3 million innocents

Lost in the genocide the Turkish denied

And lest we forget, the war settled nothing

Versailles was a stitch-up, the peace was a fake

Twenty years later the fighting restarted

And another 85 million went to their graves

The Middle East was carved up by imperial powers

Now we see the results of this spelled out in blood

100 years later we cannot escape it

The sins of the fathers are the deaths of the sons

So then, my friends, my brothers and sisters

My comrades in peace, though pray never in war

Let us remember, this dreary November

The dead then and since – but do not be fooled

War is not and is never a glorious thing

And freedom is rarely the prize at the peace

So when political leaders extoll conflict’s virtues

Just keep in your minds who fights for whose needs

And though sometimes a war can be grim but be just

And to sit and do nothing may not be the remedy

Always be wary when the battle-horns sound

And remember – who is the real enemy?

Who Rules The World?

Forbes has released its annual 'The World's Most Powerful People' list - so who's on it?

  For the last five years, American business magazine Forbes has published a list of the world's most powerful people alongside its traditional rich list. The new edition is out today, so without further ado, let's take a look at the top ten.

No.10: David Cameron

  David, as I'm sure most of you are aware, is our own darling Prime Minister. Educated at Eton and Oxford University, he was elected to the House of Commons in 2001 for Witney in Oxfordshire. As the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, he is in overall charge of the seventh-richest economy in the world and the sixth-best-funded military. Cameron has climbed a place since last year, presumably due to his stronger position internationally in the wake of a successful vote for 'No' in the Scottish Independence referendum and the increase in the UK's GDP. It should be noted, however, that this power is highly conditional; upon the favour of his increasingly fractious party, and of course upon the outcome of the General Election next May. 

No. 9: Sergey Brin & Larry Page

  The Google co-founders are in joint-ninth place; this is a considerable jump from seventeenth last year. They own 14% of the company, and control 56% of its stockholder voting power - this gives the Stanford University classmates, then, effective control of the company. With an equity of over $87 billion as of last year, and still rising, it is the third biggest company by market value in the world. Brin and Page's power comes not just from Google's value, though, but also from its domination (65%) of global online search traffic and the influence this gives them in controlling the flow of information. With Google seemingly unstoppable in its rise, they could well have ascended still higher by next year.

No. 8: Mario Draghi

  Draghi is probably one of the least well-known names on this list; as President of the European Central Bank, though, he is one of the most powerful men in Europe, essentially at the heart of EU monetary policy since 2011. Though very much a behind-the-scenes individual, Draghi's power should not be underestimated - particularly in the current economic climate, where the recommendations of this institution do so much to determine the destiny of the EU as a whole. As the man responsible for propping up much of the European financial sector, the Roman banker, despite his unobtrusive public role, is one of the big beasts of European politics.

No. 7: Bill Gates


  Bill Gates has slipped a place since last year - though he retains pole position in the parallel rich list. The Microsoft founder is no longer Chairman of the company, nor - since May - the largest shareholder; he does, however, still own a significant interest in the computer giant, and as co-trustee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the world's major philanthropists. His personal fortune and extensive network of contacts are the reason for his position on the list; his huge personal following is also a major asset - his participation in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was one of the major steps in its mass popularisation, for example.

No. 6: Janet Yellen

  Yellen is the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve: the huge, complex, semi-independent system of financial institutions which acts as the central bank of the USA. The Reserve is partly private in ownership, and exists to serve the interests of private banking firms as much as the state; it is, nevertheless, responsible for monetary policy and some aspects of economic policy within the USA. Yellen is the first woman to helm the gargantuan financial system; she has been described as a 'dove', meaning her focus is on keeping unemployment low rather than inflation - though both are important parts of her mandate. 

No. 5: Angela Merkel


  A consistent holder of the number five spot, the German Bundeskanzler is the pre-eminent politician within the European Union, with Germany the largest economic power within the union. As with any elected politician, her position on the list is of course vulnerable to electoral fortunes; however, the fact she has been in power for nine years and remains popular suggests Merkel will not be disappearing from the upper echelons of power any time soon. Her current challenge is, along with Mario Draghi, to prevent the Eurozone from slipping back into recession - that and dealing with the recalcitrant Cameron and the UK's flirtations with an EU exit.

No. 4: Pope Francis I

  The Catholic leader has maintained his fourth place position from last year; as the only religious leader in the top ten, Francis is something of an oddity among the ranks of politicians, bankers and entrepreneurs. The 77-year-old Argentinian is the first non-European Pope in over 1200 years; more, he has proved himself a zealous reformer, making an effort to strip some of the ostentatiousness and politicking from the Vatican. He has made himself no few enemies in the process, but - the days of Papal regicide being surely behind us - there is little they can do. Francis remains dedicated to catholic doctrine, however, and his influence over the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide cannot be underestimated.

No. 3: Xi Jinping

  Xi is China's 'Paramount Leader', holding the three offices of General Secretary of the Communist Party, president of the People's Republic and Chairman of the Central Military Commission. China is now the world's largest economy and has the largest standing army; it threatens the USA, therefore, as the dominant global power. Chinese decision-making is now more consensual than in previous years, but Xi nevertheless wields huge power within the authoritarian People's Republic. He has undertaken reforms to reduce corruption and increase the importance of markets within the Chinese economy.

No. 2:  Barack Obama

  The IS insurgency in Iraq and Syria, the turbulence in Missouri over the murder of Michael Brown and consistent clashes with the Republicans stopped Obama from claiming the top spot for the second year in a row. His position as he heads into the final quarter of his Presidency is rocky and, though he heads a growing US economy, his de facto power has been severely curtailed by the Republican seizure of the Senate in the US Midterms. This will necessitate a focus on foreign policy in the last two years of his premiership, but IS and the situation in the Ukraine may well be too difficult for him to resolve. In summary, this man - whilst powerful on paper - is in reality relatively toothless in the face of concerted opposition at home and abroad.

No. 1: Vladimir Putin

  The Machiavellian Russian President has edged his American counterpart into first place for the second year running, and indeed the last year has gone fairly well for Putin. He has achieved an astounding level of control within the Russian Federation itself and now, with the Crimea back under Russian control and the east of the Ukraine dissolving into chaos - to the Russians' benefit - his position regionally is strong indeed. Putin suffers from a problem in international opinion, of course - but that doesn't seem to bother the man; nor the Chinese, who have just agreed a $70 billion gas pipeline deal with the increasingly rogue northern state. Putin will not be easily dislodged from first place on this list.