Trading blows

Ah, yet another brawl in the Taiwanese parliament. Haven't had one of those for a little while....

stop the BNP from gaining any power!

Well I actually have done some work, albeit much less than I should be doing. I now have a page and a half of writing for my first results chapter, though I suspect that will look woefully diminutive once I've converted it to typing on a computer screen. But it's a start, and the advantage of having worried about the papers for my work first is that I now have a structure to work from and the go-ahead from my supervisor to lift sections from the paper.

As for other things, I've been finding it a bit disconcerting to hear advertising vans driving around my area blaring out promotional material for the BNP. For those who don't know of them, the BNP (or British National Party) is an utterly racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Islamic and thoroughly fascist political group which shamefully has enough of a support to stand in government elections. Only white ethnic groups are allowed into their membership (assuming anyone else would ever want to join!), and they are actively against immigration, particularly of non-white ethnic minorities, but also against many Europeans. They also wish to overthrow all legistration that is anti-discriminatory. Basically, and this is strong language from me, they are hypocritical scum.

The sad thing is that the support for the BNP, especially in the poorer Northern regions of England, has been growing. As the economy collapse has continued and the unemployment rate soared, people have started to look for other people to blame and the BNP have taken advantage of the growing discontentment of the Caucasian working-class. Most of the other political parties focus on getting votes from the middle-class but have neglected the massive numbers of working-class umemployed in the North. And whereas I'm sure some of my friends from Cambridge would frown upon my suggesting there is still a class hierarchy, believe me, it is much more apparent when you live in the North, as I have done and now do, that there are still distinct differences between middle- and working- class, and indeed, between North and South.

In one way I cannot completely blame some people for turning to the BNP - the papers have been splashing their front pages with stories on how Eastern European immigrants have come in and 'stolen' jobs, and how the government is not doing their job and looking after the 'British people'. How much easier it is to lay the blame at someone else's feet than to look for a good solution! That there is a racist problem has always been much harder to ignore up here in Manchester than in well-behaved, well-educated Cambridge (where it is not the done thing to admit to racism even if you have such sympathies). There have been gang fights between Caucasian and Pakistani gangs in Oldham, instead of the Bangladeshi vs Pakistani in Moss Side conflicts I heard of when I was growing up.

The UK Independence Party also seems to be getting a lot of coverage, at least after the BBC news I seem to see a lot of their promotional broadcasts. Whereas the UKIP professes to be non-racist (their main aim is to withdraw from EU politics so that the UK is politically and legally independent of the European government) I can envisage that if support for them grows a whole can of worms might be opened. Politically and morally easier to swallow than the BNP, it's a slippery slope towards racist leanings once you establish your country as being too good to mix with the rest of Europe.

But what worries me is that there has always been traces of racism remaining in the UK, even when some people choose to deny it, but now with the current economic crisis people's views are polarising. I really hope that multicultural Britain, as it undeniably is, will pull through.

With regards to whether the BNP may actually have any real power in government dealings, the other political parties have finally woken up. As they say, most people don't support the BNP in any way, but because they don't believe that the BNP can ever get any power, they don't bother to vote in elections because they think their area is safe Labour/Tory/Lib Dem. Unfortunately that means that if the BNP have a large enough proportion of the votes, they can have a seat in council. The Green Party have offered an alternative - if people don't want to vote for Labour/Tory/Lib Dem, they can vote for the Green Party, who will never win, but might be able to grab the seats that might otherwise be BNP's. That seems like a good strategy, so come the European Parliamentary elections, I may be voting Green.

US presidential elections- the final round

After all the awaiting and speculating, we will know who the next president of the United States will be in less than 48 hours. Although Barack Obama appears to have a clear lead in all the US national opinion polls at the moment, none of the spectating news reporters and politicians are willing to say for sure who will win in the end. There has been a lot of ups and downs during the course of the primaries and in the run up to these final elections, and they're too aware that it could still change.

I would say the current 'down' in the world economy has really helped Obama. The Republican party doesn't have a good track record with keeping the economy afloat - just look at what happened to the national budget under George Bush. Americans, like most of the developed world, will be more concerned with their economy and will probably be looking for a leader who can bring them through the current economical crisis. Previously, Obama's relative lack of experience was a sticking factor - but the extent of the current Wall Street crash is no more familiar to John McCain, losing him this card from his hand. Disillusioned, Americans may be more inclined to welcome the change that the Democrats are promising.

I'll be checking early on Wednesday morning to see who wins the seat in the White House (as if I could avoid finding out when I walk into my office) but other than that, I've lost interest. I'm hoping the Democrats will win, but more from the fact that I've been inclined towards the Democratic party all along, and also because I have a strong contempt for Sarah Palin. Whatever possessed John McCain to choose Palin as a running partner? I'm sure he lost a lot of votes that way - if I were eligible to vote, this strange choice of Vice-President would convince me not to vote Republican.

Unfortunately, that does not mean that I support Obama. Not that I am against him. But for all his charisma and big dreams and big promises, I've heard very little from him that truly convinces me he has the ability to carry them through. All politicians promise bigger and better things, but few deliver. Maybe I'm being too skeptical, and maybe Obama will have the chance to prove me wrong. I hope so.

But to end with a little comment on the current economic crisis - for the carrot of four years in the White House, nearly a whole year has been spent on campaigning and travelling around the USA - if you add up the phenomenal amount of money spent by both parties thus far, doesn't it sound a bit too much? I would say ridiculous, if it wasn't for the immense power the President of the United States, either in reality or in our minds. And what about the carbon cost?

Oh wait, we're talking about the USA here. They don't contribute to climate change really. Apparently.

Round 2: Democrats vs Republicans

So the Democratic Party have finally got their presidental election candidate, and Clinton is finally out of the race. They took their time about it! Now the Democratic party can start concentrating on the general elections instead of fighting it out between themselves.

I'm curious as to how supporters of Hillary Clinton will vote in the autumn. How much damage have the Democratic campaigns done to voters' confidence in their party and/or their confidence in Obama? Whilst Clinton and Obama have been 'battling it out', the Republicans have had the advantage of campaigning as an unified force, and preparing themselves. Whist the Democratic candidates have been telling people why NOT to vote for their opponent and casting doubts onto the other's ability to govern, McCain has been telling them why he will make a good President.

Over the last few decades, the issues that people and governments have had to worry about have been of an increasingly global scale. Gone are the days when 'strong' countries ignored everyone else and felt secure in their own insular environment. For one thing, it is less clear which are the 'strong' countries and which are the 'weak'. The balances of power are more evenly distributed now. People are in general also more aware of what is going on in the wider world, and more concerned. Global warming, substainable resources, epidemics, world poverty, terrorism, these are being flagged up more and more.

In times like these, it's hard to say which way the scales will tip for Obama. He's young, has idealistic views, and can be said to represent a new direction for America. Things are changing in the world and as such, flexibility and a fresh outlook can be a major advantage. On the other hand, in times of change, people also look for stability and experience. Will Obama be able to convince people that he has the necessary strength and leadership skills?

The next few months will show us how well the Democratic party can work together and forget their differences as they support their chosen leader. Otherwise, it's hello to another four years of a Republican US government.

1st May elections

I nearly forgot to vote in the local elections today. I kept reminding myself that the elections were on the 1st May, but it was only after I got home after work that I remembered what it was I was supposed to do....

What annoys me most about the campaign tactics used is the amount of negative campaigning all the parties do. Instead of focusing on what they can actually achieve, the newsletters and flyers that come through my door are filled with why I SHOULDN'T vote for another party. For example, the Liberal Democrat flyer tells me that 'Labour and the Greens can't win' in Trumpington, whilst Labour tell me that there is 'disillusion' with the Lib Dem party. But they neglect to tell me why it is I should vote for THEM.

Actually, I have voted this year. If only because I believe that the UK political system is one of the fairest ones in the present world, and I am fortunate to know that my vote will be counted. It may not be a powerful or particularly influential voice, but it still has its part to play.

Yet another sex scandal

Today's the day of the Mississippi primary but the political spotlight seems to have been usurped by Eliot Spitzer, the governer (for how much longer?) of New York. He's been said to have been hiring prostitutes - at a massive $1000-an-hour - which is all the more ironic given that he investigated prositution cases when he was still New York's attorney general. It's not just a sex scandal case though; it seems likely to escalate into a full-blown investigation of corruption charges and even money laundering.

So how much can we demand to know about the private lives of our politicians? Or indeed, other figures of authority? When I was at high school, the headmaster of one of the schools in our area was nearly forced to resign after copies of Playboy were found in his office drawers. This seemed a little extreme to me, especially since at that particular time a lot of the boys on our school bus were publicly ogling the same sort of magazines. The problem though of course, was that as headmaster as a school, his conduct and moral behaviour would influence not only the reputation of the school, but also all the pupils in that establishment. If a cleaner could find the magazines, what would prevent a student from entering his study and finding them as well? However, knowing a lot of the boys on my bus, they didn't require much 'corruption' in this area and if they did, the older boys were already doing a very good job of it. And to have found the magazines in the headmaster's (normally locked) study, students would have had to be snooping around somewhere they shouldn't have been in the first place.

But this current case, at least in my mind, another matter entirely. Spitzer is refusing to comment on these charges, saying that it is part of his private life, separate from his work and ability to govern. However, Spitzer has based his political reputation on his intentions to stamp out corruption and bring a high standard of ethics to New York politics. This goes down to the issue of trust and whether he can deliver the promises he made to the citizens of New York when he was voted into his post. Using prostitutes is one thing (not that I condone it, but that's a different issue), to cover it up and use state money to arrange these meetings is another.

Not that it's entirely all that surprising to the American political news reporters. It's only been a few years since the governer of New Jersey, James McGreevey, had to step down after having a homosexual affair with his state's head of Homeland Security. Mark Foley had to resign from the House of Representatives in 2006 after he was found to be sending 'sexually explicit' text messages to teenage male interns in the House (which I think is worse). And of course, there was that high-profile case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky several years ago, when he was still US President. I wonder how long it'll be before that case gets dragged up and used in negative publicity against Hillary Clinton, with this political sex scandal case emerging at such a crucial time in the election process?

Of course, American politicians don't have the monopoly on sex scandals. Plenty of UK MPs have been thrust under the spotlight over the exposure of affairs and the use of prositutes, or indeed, 'rentboys'. The question we have to ask is whether or how much their conduct in their 'private' lives affects their work and standards, and our perspective of them and their suitability as decision-makers for our country. A lot of it depends on the nature of the 'indiscretion', the legality of it (for example, an affair with someone not in the political or business sphere is very different from someone who's a subordinate you've just promoted!), and also how honestly and well the politician deals with it once it comes out under the public eye. In the case of Eliot Spitzer, having built his reputation on the moral high ground, he may find that the higher you rise, the greater the fall.

Politics do get dirty. Why act surprised?

A few days ago, I mentioned that I thought the American Democratic candidate race, although close-run and very competitive, was still fairly civil. Yes, there has been a lot of canvassing, and a lot of playing each other off, but on the whole it wasn't TOO dirty, at least not by historic standards.

As soon as those words streamed from my fingertips onto the screen, it appears that the going has just got dirtier. All the negative publicity against Obama that Clinton harnessed; how one of Obama's close aides allegedly told Canadian officials that Obama's campaigning on negotiation of trade agreements was just for campaign purposes; the trial of one of his early patrons for corruption and money laundering; the doubts cast into voters' minds about the experience and ability of Obama as a President - these worked in her favour last week and it seems that she is keen to carry on in this vein.

But politics has always been dirty - at least, I've always thought so. The battle for the power and control of the country, and for the right to speak as a world leader, on an international platform; these are high stakes, so of course the competition will be fierce. The question is - who will prevail, and how far can they go without alienating their supporters OR their rival's supporters when it comes to the General Elections? Barack Obama has his hands half-tied at this stage, he's made a big point of wanting to be 'a different type of politician', one who doesn't resort to the political lecturn's equivalent of a no-holds-barred, fists bared, street fight that we've seen so often in the world of politics. However, if he can hold his ground and deflect these attacks with dignity and confidence, it will be a real demonstration of his strength of character and ability to deal with problems.

It appears though that the Democratic party leaders are already thinking of damage limitation when this is all done and dusted and the Presidential candidate is finally elected. They're currently corresponding with both Clinton and Obama to consider collaboration of the two rival campaigns when the primaries are finally over. I still think it's possible. After all, they haven't resorted to setting up the assassination of either their rival or themselves, and they haven't throw tables at each other. Not yet.

Primary elections

It would be impossible to spend time in the US without being aware of the primary elections going on around the country now. When I turned on the TV on Monday night there were 5 channels discussing the US politics, and another 2 news channels that were mainly covering the election run-up to the voting in Texas and Ohio yesterday.

I have to confess, I spent over 3 hours last night watching CNN as it broadcast the live updates on the vote counting in those states - it was better than any soap opera! The numbers were amazingly close, when I first turned on the box it was 49% : 50% of the counted votes going to Clinton : Obama in the Texas primaries. A few minutes later it had shifted to 49% : 49%. The tension was enhanced by the advert breaks that occured every 10 minutes, very much like how they broadcast dramas and action films on Channel 5 in the UK!

Of course much of the focus was on the race between the Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as the Republican candidate McCain had more or less already won his party's nomination (which by the end of the night he had). In my case, I know a lot more about the American Presidential candidates, especially after these last few days in the US, than I know about the Members of Parliament in England. The political policies and the MPs themselves that are discussed in the run-up to the general elections generally seem quite similar to me, and more middle-ground. I know I don't pay enough attention to politics, but it seems to me that part of the reason why the American Presidential race has caught so much attention is that the Democratic candidates are so different from the typical upper-middle class white male. There's an excitment that even I, as a non-American, can sense when the politics are being discussed, and the feeling that the US might be ready for a big change. Granted, we have had Margaret Thatcher (though most of my generation is too young to remember Britain when she was PM) and the UK politicans seem to be getting younger, and less distant from our generation of voters. In England, we perhaps need a 'youth vote push' similar to that being driven on the other side of the Atlantic. Many of my peers are not so aware of any major differences between our political parties, and I have to confess that I myself have only voted once in any election (I'm only 23!).

Last night, when half of the votes in Ohio had been counted, the Clinton supporters were already celebrating (Clinton had 57% of the votes), which made me wonder what would happen if Obama won after all! But what did strike me when Hillary Clinton came out and made a speech, is the sheer energy and enthusiasm that was present, not only in her, but in the supporters around her. A similar aura was present when Barack Obama spoke in front of his supporters, but oddly, although I could sense the charisma that Obama clearly has, I don't feel quite the same conviction and confident strength I sense from Hillary Clinton. But of course, different people will differ from my view, which is clearly evident from the way the country appears to be split in their voting for these two candidates!

What makes me wonder is, how will they work together when the Democratic Presidential candidate has been chosen as one of them, and the other has to step down gracefully? Although at the moment I agree that there doesn't seem to be any bad blood as such, and no personal feelings hurt, it looks like the race is getting dirty. But maybe they will be professional enough to put aside their differences in the end. After all, they must remember that they are in the same party, when all is said and done.

PS - For those of you who are interested, but haven't checked yet, Clinton DID win Ohio, with 54% to Obama's 44% of the votes. And she won Texas with 51% to 48% for Obama. This should be an interesting few months....