In fact, on the face of it, Conservative policies are not dissimilar to Labour. Both parties propose energy saving measures like home insulation, which is a very cost effective way of reducing energy bills. Nuclear policy and the approach to renewables (especially wind energy) are also similar. Both also look to carbon capture and storage, which requires considerable development to be used on a large scale.

While some would argue that it doesn’t go far enough, or that nuclear is an unacceptable path to take, some of the Tory policies are surprisingly green. Micro-generation of energy is even given pride of place in their climate change and energy policy. Decentralisation of energy is something we would have only seen in Green Party policy ten years ago, but now is considered a mainstream policy option. While there is no denying that Conservative policy could go much further in its approach, the realists would conclude that it is in fact a considerable step in the right direction.

Whilst these are definite strides forward compared to Conservative policy of the past, it is clear that a substantial proportion of Conservative members of parliament do not share the same views on these issues.

In fact, the party is split over its attitude to climate change issues. Tim Montgomerie, editor of conservativehome website, says 6 members of the shadow cabinet are sceptical on their own low carbon policies. Other polls of Tory candidates show that climate change is in fact one of the least important considerations of the next government. David Cameron has repeatedly stated how he wishes to follow through on this energy policy; with these considerable dissenting views, this may not be possible.

On an international level, the EU announced recently that it was willing to make further concessions on emission cuts in Bonn, which has been backed by the current UK government. While the EU seems to be taking a leading role in reviving the shambolic climate negotiations, will a future conservative government, which looks to be considerably more Euro-sceptic than Labour, be so quick to back the EU’s stance on emissions reduction?

This may all come down to how much David Cameron will be willing to push the issue, will he risk a split in his party over Climate Change issues, when public opinion on the importance of Climate Change mitigation is waning? Is it really as important to him as he seems to have suggested in recent months?

Of course, whilst many of us hold Climate Change close to our hearts, it is fair to say that the coming election will not be won through a glittering climate policy; this means that it could prove very easy for the Conservatives to renege and give in to the climate-sceptic wing of the party. The election of course, could yet surprise us, but if the current polls are to be believed we could see a fascinating early rift in the new government, which could decide how we tackle climate policy in the coming decade.

Alan Bouquet 12/04/10

The Catholic Church has been rocked over the past few years by significant allegations of clergymen sexual abusing children in their care. These scandals have afflicted the Catholic Church worldwide in countries such as Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Holland, Germany and The U.S.A. One of the latest scandals hit Ireland – where Catholicism is the religious denomination of choice – with the revelation in March this year that the head of the Irish Catholic Church, Cardinal Sean Brady, was present in 1975 at the signing of vows of silence by children claiming to have been sexually molested by the now convicted paedophile priest Brendan Smyth.

Pope Benedict XVI missed opportunities to nip the worldwide scandal in the bud by failing to categorically state the Vaticans policy would be to report allegations of sex abuse to local civil authorities in the first instance, to suspend the accused pending investigation, and to defrock with immediate effect any individual charged with an offence. Instead, Pope Benedict has – fairly one could say – taken a step back in consideration that albeit these allegations are serious, they are not indicative of a religion with 1.086 billion followers worldwide, and what could turn out to be damaging to the integrity of the Church would be the imposition of speedy draconian policy. Doing so could lead to further allegations being made with no foundation – made for whatever reason, be they financial or religious – and innocent clergymen being labelled as sexual predators, in turn unfairly damaging the worldwide reputation of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it has been suggested by leading British Catholic commentator, Clifford Langley, that Ratzinger was thwarted by others in the Vatican during the eighties when he tried to clamp down on sexual abuse allegations and have the situation rectified. Although Ratzinger is now Pope, the internal power struggles remain, and the un-helpful emergence of a letter signed by Ratzinger in 1985 – tentatively being described as proof of the Popes involvement in a cover up – may be a sign of internal opponents at work.

Divisions between religious denominations are often fierce and often violent. The recent scandal to hit the Vatican has the potential to stray into the ugly territory of religious persecution against the Catholic Church. A senior figure in the Vatican, Father Federico Lombardi, was lambasted for comparing the latest attacks on the Church being akin to anti-Semitism. However, he has a point when the senior Anglican official in the UK, archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, claims the Catholic Church in Ireland has “lost all credibility”. The Catholic Church is not in crisis. Issues of child abuse – sexual or physical – are understandably met with vociferous criticism around the world. In Britain we only have to look at the criticism over the handling of cases such as Baby P, James Bulger, Victoria Climbie to see how hard it is to ensure our children are safe without becoming overly, and unnecessarily, intrusive.

The Pope is set to the visit the UK this September and British victims of clerical sexual abuse are asking to meet him. It seems the Catholic Church is faced with two methods to move forward. Firstly, it should accept requests from past victims of sexual clerical abuse to meet with the Pope and his entourage when they visit countries affected by scandals. Secondly, ithe Vatican must implement a policy in time whereby any accusation of sexual abuse is forwarded to local civil authorities and the accused is suspended from religious duties – and prevented from contact with children – whilst under investigation. However, it remains to be seen whether the Catholic Church will be allowed to move on by those opposed to the religious denomination, and whether the Catholic Church under the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI will be allowed to move on by internal agitators keen to milk the scandal and ultimately force a change of leadership at the Vatican

Louis Connor 11/04/10

With Blair’s speech, does this signal a return for the former leader in the upcoming election campaign – a campaign set to be one of the closest in history? Further, does the Labour Party miss Tony Blair? Indeed, he is the man who led the Party back from the precipice into Government after 18 years in the wilderness.

Bringing Blair back some might say would be a public relations disaster. They might justifiable point out that he – as prime minister – oversaw one of the most un-popular political decisions in modern history with the War in Iraq. Then again, as un-popular as the War was, and still is, Blair still managed to lead Labour to yet another comprehensive electoral victory two years after the 2003 Iraqi invasion in 2005. Indeed, in an election with everything to fight for I think all Parties should be using all the tools they can to secure support from the electorate. Indeed, the power of a formidable former leader – despite the individual decisions which defined their term(s) in office – should not be understated. Both Blair and Brown held high profile, ‘informal’ and ‘friendly’ conversations with former Conservative ‘iron lady’ Margaret Thatcher shortly after coming to office. This move was seen as an indication that the Party was willing to overcome strictly partisan lines, but to also attempt to cling in part to any last vestiges of power still surrounding Miss Thatcher and her public image. So equally, Tony Blair must be utilised by Labour in their forthcoming election campaign, and he should be utilised to full effect. Since he is now out of office, and out of the Parliamentary Party, he can use his high profile, and still popular, public image to affirm his support for Gordon Brown in a way he was unable – and probably deterred – to do when he was in office. Blair also has those precious qualities all politicians crave – a friendly and approachable charisma, adept at wooing television audiences and judging public mood with aplomb. A re-call to the infamous “lady’s princess” moment springs to mind here.

Blair summed up Labours main obstacles to electoral success aptly when he said last Tuesday; ”The tough thing about being in government, especially as time marches on, is that the disappointments accumulate, the public becomes less inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, the call for ‘a time to change’ becomes easier to make, the prospect of change becomes more attractive,”. In essence, it’s the simple fact that Labour has been in Government for such a long time. Indeed, it certainly does become easier when one is stuck with the ‘same old’ to start rebutting the current norm with its ‘time for change’. Undoubtedly the Conservatives are also attempting to catch on to the popular Obamaesque mantra of ‘change’ also. What Labour must do, and what I have consistently advocated, is to draw the Conservatives into a debate on the hard policy details they propose to implement if re-elected. The Conservatives are devoid of real policy substance – as the recent Chancellors debate showed on channel 4- and the forthcoming television debates between the party leaders will provide an excellent opportunity for the experienced Brown to up-stage the in-experienced and vacuous Cameron. Blair has judged the current political climate correctly yet again, and involving him in the campaign trail will reap more rewards than negative consequences.

So with Tony Blair back in the media spotlight, the question has arisen whether the Labour Party misses him? Sure, any political party will miss a strong, effective and popular leader much like a football team would miss a former effective, successful and popular manager. But like football, political tactics change over the course of time, and a new breed of players come to the fore requiring a different type of leadership to move forward. It would of course be political suicide to involve Blair in an election campaign as a way to subvert the role Brown would play.

Tony Blair oversaw a radical change in the Labour Party and British politics. He successfully – along with other key players like Kinnock, Smith, Mandelson and Brown – completely re-branded a political party from Labour to New Labour. He shed the cobwebs that had long tarnished the party with a new ideology some called the third way, and successfully maintained its links to the left without being constrained by the old leftist ideals of the seventies. New Labour became acceptable to modern business, where previously Labour had been seen as un-workable with business, and the Party became acceptable to former right wing stalwarts such as Rupert Murdoch and The Sun newspaper. Gordon Brown was very much part of the New Labour tide which swept British politics, but he now finds himself in a Party where many of the former big-guns like Hoon, Clarke and Hewitt have now left the scene. Instead Brown is faced with a youthful and ambitious bunch consisting of Milliband, Benn, and Balls, aware that New Labour cannot hang on to the successes of its past if it is to continue to progress and stay in Government.

Perhaps there are some within the ‘New’ part of ‘New’ Labour who miss Tony Blair. Certainly Blair dealt effectively with the issue of the Party’s links to the Unions which is now rearing its head again. But, the current economic climate and subsequent pressures on business were bound to lead decisions unpopular to workers and ultimately strikes. The question is whether Brown can affectively deal with the Unions like Blair did. At present it’s a mixed bag, with the failure to intervene and prevent the BA cabin crew strikes, contrasted with the victory in the High Court’s preventing a strike by rail workers on April 6th (the likely day the forthcoming election date will be announced). Finally, if the Tories only line of attack against Blair’s presence on the Labour campaign trail is by reference to the animosity between him and his then Chancellor Brown, one should remind them that it was the Tory Party themselves who ousted their most successful leader in modern history by way of a messy, conceited, and dramatic coup. Labour do not miss Tony Blair, but he can certainly vouch for the strong leadership credentials and sense of purpose abundant in Gordon Brown that Britain needs and the Labour Party needs to move forward.

This election is beginning to bare some uncanny similarities to the pre-1992 election atmosphere. A Government who has been in office for successive terms under a leadership many consider to be failed, with a leader who has been unable to capture the spark and aura of his predecessor and who the party’s past and current success is largely based upon, and a youthful opposition leader claiming to be a new manifestation of his Party whilst criticising a worn-out Government and promising change. The Labour Party really does face the fight of their lives, and electoral success will require Labour Party members to mobilise in ways not seen since 1997. High profile Labour Party members like Tony Blair, John Prescott and Alistair Campbell, can only benefit the campaign for a fourth term in Government.

Louis Connor 04/04/10

beyond the focus on minor individual cases, is the wider role of the police and how their power should be used and the way they should behave. We need an impartial monitor of individual, and systemic, police behaviour on the day that events happen. One suggestion is the introduction of ‘citizen observers’, independently vetted individuals used to monitor police, and citizen, behaviour on the day of events such as mass protests as well as within the day to day events of police stations. Police officers have powers over and above individual citizens, including the right to use violence, and this power must be visibly held to account.

Many of the protestors at the G20 protests last year were antagonists (of the non-violent kind) and are now causing a massive fuss by claiming that any police officer wielding a truncheon that day was guilty of police brutality. Take for example, the anarchist group Space Hijackers who attended the G20 protests dressed as police officers. They were arrested for this and are now suing the Met for wrongful arrest. Unfortunately, it is groups such as Space Hijackers who divert attention away from the wider issue at stake –police power and behaviour – and cause attention to fall on one insignificant event in which they set out to antagonise police and in which they acted illegally. You surely can’t be allowed to impersonate a police officer on a day where the police would play such an important, and visible, role. Oh, and too me, the photo below of the Space Hijackers in action shows they did a good job of impersonating police officers contrary to reports of innocent ‘theatrical activists’. If the Space Hijackers, or any other group, were impersonating police in order to carry out some sort of meaningful operation then so be it since such impersonation would be beneficial to its success. But in the case of a bunch of jokers like the Space Hijackers, they do it for no good reason other than to mock the police and do nothing to vindicate individuals such as Blair Peach or Ian Tomlinson – two individuals who arguably lost their lives because of excessive police power and poor police behaviour.

The Police and Government have taken allegations of police brutality at the G20 seriously and this acknowledgement will lead to the Association of Chief Police Officers releasing a ‘manual’ for policing protests. Furthermore, Home Office ministers are due to release a ‘code of practice’ for the police after the election. Besides recommended codes of practice or instructions in manuals, one suggestion which should be included as a cornerstone for future policing of protests is the introduction of ‘citizen observers’. These observers could form part of the planning, and on the day policing, of such protests to monitor possible breaches in police, and protestor, behaviour, acting as an impartial voice/witness to any wrongdoing. The ‘citizen observers’ could also be used beyond large-scale policing events such as protests, and be present in police stations to monitor police behaviour there also.

The idea of ‘citizens observers’ should be introduced to deter over aggression of police, and other security officials, who it seems have become delusional about their powers, and permitted levels of aggression, used when dealing with the public. Indeed, this is an issue which in particular affects the police but also doorman/bouncers who act as Britain’s quasi police enforcers every Friday and Saturday night.

The G20 protests were policed in a negative and wholly unnecessary way. It was unfortunate that the British media substantially increased the tension in the lead up to the protests with inflammatory headlines such as ‘We’re braced for wave of disorder’ warning of planned widespread violence. This certainly impacted on the judgement of police officers on the day who, in response to a very small minority of violent protestors, were largely over-aggressive towards the majority of peaceful protestors. Tactics such as ‘kettling’ – the cordoning off of large groups of protestors for sustained periods – were a response to small incidences of violence and further inflamed present tensions. What we should be focussed on is ways to monitor police power and behaviour. Introducing ‘citizen observers’, within a wider ‘community’ approach towards policing, would bridge the present widening gap between the police and the public, and could provide independent observation of citizens and police when things go wrong.

Louis Connor 27/03/2010

Jon Venable and Robert Thompson committed an awful crime which everyone agrees warranted the immediate involvement of state services in these two disturbed young boys lives. But, as result of the political establishment buckling under typical tabloid sensationalism – and as a result of an outdated justice system – Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were tried in an adult court at the age of ten.

If we truly want to live in a liberal and free society then we must advocate the rehabilitation of criminals over retribution in every case. On the issue of child criminals; the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to at least 12, if not raised in line with European countries such as Italy and Spain to the age of 14 or 16 respectively. I find it worrying that the tabloid press would have you believe that the vast majority of British people believe child murderers should be imprisoned for life. If the majority of British people do think that – and I hope we don’t – then what is being advocated is total retribution for serious crimes such as murder. In effect, this equates to relinquishing an individual of their liberty for life through life imprisonment without parole, or ultimately death. I hope we live in a society where this view is not the norm. I hope capital punishment will never be brought back. We have surely moved on from the days of hangings. Furthermore, we should never put ourselves in a position where the state can legitimately murder its own citizens.

When I talk of rehabilitation, I am not advocating that murderers should avoid imprisonment. Of course an individual who is a danger to society should be imprisoned. But the aim of that imprisonment should be entirely devoted to the rehabilitation of that individual so the state can be certain he/she no longer poises a risk to wider society upon release. At the moment, our criminal justice system does not do this. Proper rehabilitation is a long term process that stretches beyond the term of imprisonment served by the individual. It stretches to long term assistance in finding employment, accessing health services, and undertaking educational courses. It should not only stretch to the supervision by a probation officer to check on the individuals behaviour – although of course this should be one role of the probation services.

Back to Venables and Thompson, I watch in amazement at the archive footage shown on TV of two blue police vans escorting Venables and Thompson, flanked by an angry baiting crowd along the road, and one individual attempting to attack the vans before he is restrained by police. These absurd pictures seem to contradict the same tabloidesque sensationalism meted against depictions of extreme Islam and the apparent impending implementation of Sharia Law. It is argued by the tabloids that Sharia Law is a barbaric and un-balanced form of justice that is ‘spreading’ throughout our country. Yet, the same western media that takes the moral high ground against examples of Sharia law abroad such as the public stoning of  Du’a Khalil Aswad (a 17 year old Iraqi Kurd), then seems to tow the line of the baying mob depicted in the footage mentioned above. What are we advocating? Apart from a major contradiction, recent news coverage would have one believe that what we are advocating is some form of total retribution for Jon Venables and Robert Thompson such as life imprisonment or even execution.

The most sensible comments to come out of the current news coverage of the Bulger case is the following comment made by Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo, the probation officers union in The Independent (07/03/10) ‘”A disturbed child who kills, then spends eight years in a secure unit and then nine years having to pretend they’re somebody else is bound to be deeply psychologically affected. It’s not surprising that he may have revealed his true identity, given the enormity of what he’s done and the difficulty of coming to terms with that and a new identity.” Venables being recalled to prison is the “worst possible outcome” given the years spent trying to rehabilitate him, he added’. That for me sums up; the case for the continued rehabilitation and maintenance of anonymity for Venables and Thompson, as well as the case for rehabilitation of serious offenders – especially child criminals – over punitive punishment.

The James Bulger murder is deeply upsetting and horrific. Murder is of course one of, if not the ultimate, crime one can commit, but the Bulger case is set apart because the perpetrators were ten year old boys (the age of a year 4 or 5 primary school child). To argue that they are fully accountable for their actions and should be treated like adults in a criminal court – or even more absurdly that they should receive lifetime punishment, even execution, for their crimes – disregards their un-developed cognitive abilities to be fully responsible for their actions. Further, if we do not see it as morally correct to permanently take away an individuals liberty then rehabilitative methods of justice and punishment must always prevail over punitive retribution.

The major point of interest here in relation to China is that of the economy. Can China capitalise on the near economic collapse of the Western financial system to become the new centre for global finance? Disregarding the economic recession, the Chinese economy was already trumping Western economies. Indeed, in the final quarter of 2009 Chinese economic growth accelerated to 10.7%. However, how far foreign companies will immerse themselves within an economy where the state still wields a firm grip on regulation is questionable. It is this point that will deter foreign firms listing on the SSE and remain focussed on traditional Western markets.

Another crucial point worth discussing is China’s relations overseas. Owen already touched on these. The sale of military arms by the U.S to Taiwan in January re-ignited Chinese defiance against calls for total Taiwanese secession. As China’s dominance over global politics grows so will its influence and presence increase in far-distant countries away from Asia. One area in question here is that of China’s involvement in Africa. International aid through organisations such as the IMF is given with pre-conditions which often include the imposition of democratic instruments in the host country. In contrast, Chinese aid in Africa – pre-dominantly in the guise of large development construction projects such as motorways – has no pre-conditions whatsoever apart from a guarantee that China will be given first preference over the natural resources that country has to offer. This ‘no-strings’ aid is limiting advances in human rights promotion in countries such as Sudan. Indeed, Sudan – the number one recipient of Chinese aid – has one of the worst human rights situations in the World. Yes, the country is effectively at War but maybe this is indicative of China’s disregard for the internal situation of any country it supports through aid so long as it acquires its desired resource. For a country with little regard for human rights, Chinese investment, and wider involvement, in Africa discharges some governments of their responsibilities on issues such as human rights.

In 1989 Francis Fukuyama first proclaimed that the battle of ideologies had ended following the Cold War and that liberal democracy had triumphed. He went further and predicted that economic and political liberalism would come to dominate global politics as the standard political creed. What China’s growing dominance over global politics has shown is that 1989 was not the end of history. Despite tentative liberalisation of the Chinese economy, its politics is still ardently autocratic. What has come to dominate Chinese political ideology at home and abroad is a form of autocratic-capitalism. And it is this ideology which will shape China’s involvement in global politics this year and for years to come.

The stimulus package of 2008, widely reported to have been in the area of $586 billion dollars, combined with China’s continued thirst for raw materials seems to have ensured the Chinese economy has continued to grow at a pace that fuels the global recovery from recession. However there is a danger of the economy overheating, with inflation rising towards 4% and beyond. Inflation at this level will mean consumer spending decreases, damaging future growth levels. To combat this threat Beijing will look to raise interest rates – but this too will threaten spending. Whether inflation increases or whether interest rates rise, the danger is that the economy will slow down, with a domino effect of slowing down the global economy – and severely damaging any recovery from recession the West may be looking forward to.

Combined with this threat of inflation, China’s export driven economy may struggle to deal with protectionist moves in the West. The USA has already introduced tariffs on Chinese tires, but this may only be the start of a more protectionist America as President Obama looks to kick-start American industry and boost employment rates to save his flagging Presidency. Any lapse towards this closed global economy will not help China continue its rapid growth as it depends so much on manufacturing exports. It has recently been confirmed that China overtook Germany as the world’s biggest exporter.

On an international level, China will see its battles of 2009 continue into 2010. The climate change negotiations of Copenhagen saw the USA and China fight it out over what role the international community should play in national efforts to reduce carbon emissions and 2010 will not be any different. Iran will continue to be a thorn in East-West relations as the EU and US continue to demand the right to oversee Iranian nuclear enrichment. But what may be most difficult is the continuing spats between the USA and China over China’s regional relations. Taiwan and Tibet both represent issues that cause problems within the UN Security Council. The recent Chinese threat concerning the Dalai Lama’s visit to America is but one illustration of the tensions between the countries.

Individually this possible problems for the year of the tiger may not represent major challenges to the world’s emerging superpower but a combination may yet present hiccups to the Chinese  march towards hegemony. Tigers may not have it all their own way yet.

This Valentines’ Day the Chinese year of the tiger begins. 2009, year of the ox, saw China rise to the top of the IPO market. Chinese companies going to market sold $50.4 billion worth of shares in 183 deals, 45 percent of global IPO volume compared to the US’ $24 billion from 54 companies. There is no bear in Chinese astrology.

I wish to make two points. First, the opening up of Chinese capital markets will continue, but continue slowly. Second, even minimal changes to Chinese stock exchanges’ attitudes will impact upon the recovery of capital markets in the UK.

Last September the Shanghai Stock unveiled an English translation of its website. Commentators across the globe have supposed this to mean that the SSE will allow foreign-incorporated companies to list on the mainland. Enthusiasm has helped to reify rumors. HSBC, Bank of East Asia, NYSE Euronext and NASDAQ all claim intent to be the first foreign-incorporated companies to take a listing. Tapping a vast pool of liquidity and pushing a brand into a rapidly expanding market are high priorities for any company, and a listing on the SSE could enable this kind of exposure.

However, this shift in the focus of Chinese capital markets, if it occurs in 2010, will not fling open the doors to foreign companies as is expected.

These rumors about Shanghai require two caveats. One, listing will not be easy in process or practice. Chinese Depository Receipts might make the former easier but a policy like America’s (with American Depository Receipts, which bypass currency transactions) would require the Renminbi to be a convertible currency. And it isn’t. More obviously, migrant companies will have to contend with established red-chips (Chinese state-linked companies incorporated off the mainland) including, for example, the world’s largest mobile network providers, China Mobile, which is incorporated in Hong Kong.

Two, Shanghai will not develop one-to-one links with the West. It will be the third head of a giant with whom any foreign country must deal. Alongside Shanghai, Beijing will surely remain the brains behind any reform. The capital is home to the China Securities Regulation Commission, the Chinese regulator, as well as the seat of government. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange remains the market of choice for Asian investors and knowledge-intensive industries. These financial centres won’t give over to an upstart, but rather the new Chinese tripartite would work in concert.

While global markets speed up, using algorithmic trading methods and SAP Business Management Software Solutions and Services^©, Shanghai’s will be a different kind of market revolution. It will be a slow one. And for that reason it might slip unnoticed past policy-makers in the UK.

The SSE’s opening will increase competition in the East, and across the world. In Hong Kong, Rusal, a Russian aluminum producer, was able to make the stock market despite serious shortcomings detailed by the exchange itself. In the context of China’s rise, this unprecedented warding away of investors from Rusal looks what relationship counsellors call ‘a cry for help’. PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts that 2010 will see the SSE overtake Hong Kong’s exchange in terms of capital raisings from new stocks.

In London, at the London Stock Exchange, changes and their impacts have barely featured in debates over the future of market regulation, despite the nervous flutter of press attention after Rusal decided against Belgravia. Weaknesses are particularly clear in the case of London’s Alternative Investment Market. More than one company delisted from the junior market per day in 2009. AIM has struggled to secure its status as either a regulation-light market, or a safe venue for investment with liquidity and capital enough for expanding companies.

The anticipated reforms in Shanghai may not be confirmed, but they are only one aspect of a major turn to the east that will affect most corporate futures. The proposed link between Shanghai and London is not as revolutionary as that characterized by a butterfly flapping its wings in [China], but financial centres across the globe will do well to begin a dialogue on and in Shanghai.

Ossie Froggatt-Smith

If we believe that Obama is striving for what he claims to be – consensus and a new era of bi-partisan politics – then he has a tough order. Firstly he must overcome a divisive political system firmly built upon a fierce two party, ardently partisan, make-up. Secondly, he must overcome the divisions from within the Democratic Party itself. It is often taken as a given that the Democrats are all Obama fans. Let us not forget how close Obama was to being defeated by Hilary Clinton and how he defied all the odds to narrowly become the Democratic Presidential candidate. Indeed, his appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State proves that Obama is well aware of his own inner party divisions. Thirdly, he must overcome a society that exhumes some of the most blatant divisions in the developed west between rich and poor, black and white, North and South, East and West, rural and urban.

I myself am opposed to Obama’s mantra of ‘change’ and especially his emphasis on ‘hope’. Hope does not mean change. An individual from an impoverished background who has no private healthcare, no job, no family, can always ‘hope’ of a better situation but that does not mean that individual will achieve change. Giving hope to people in bad situations is slightly derogatory and definitely worthless. Action would be better placed in this situation. So where Obama talks of ‘hope’ in regards to the War in Afghanistan but then commits 30,000 more troops to the campaign he is saying one thing but doing the other – and that other is diametrically opposed to the former. My negative interpretation of Obama’s mantra of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ is epitomized – slightly- in his gimmicky commitment to close Guantanamo Bay. The year deadline Obama set from his inauguration to have the base closed has now passed and once more it is clear that although hundreds will be realeased, a small minority will continue to be held at the base without trial. Indeed, the proof that the closure of Guantanamo is a gimmick, and not an indictment against the underlying policy of detention without trial, is the fact that hundreds of detainees are currently being held at the Bagram base in Afghanistan. But, because that base is in an ‘official’ battlefield, the rules are different, and the justification for their detention is apparently there.

If what we are asking is not ‘Has the Obama Presidency failed?’, but rather ‘How has he done so far? Then the answer would have to be; pretty badly. Firstly, Obama has been pathetic when it comes to the Middle East. Any reasoned commentator on the Middle East will tell you that the next step to take in order to bring the Arabs and Israelis closer to peace regarding Palestine is the immediate stop to further settlement expansion, the dismantling of settlements in Palestinian territories and the return to pre-1967 borders. That should be a given. Obama has stopped short at a flimsy, and already abused, agreement with the Israelis to stop FURTHER settlement expansion in the Occupied Territories. Indeed one could argue that consensus isn’t the desired aim in this conflict. Rather, we should be forcing the Israelis to de-escalate their violent oppression, and continued subjugation, of the Palestinian people. Then again, anyone under the impression that the election of Obama would signal a new impartial approach to the Middle East peace process is deluded. Only one day after his selection as the Democratic Presidential candidate, Obama gave a speech to AIPAC in which he re-affirmed his “un-shakeable commitment” to Israeli security and (most provocatively) stated that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and must remain undivided”.

However, despite the major increase of US troops in Afghanistan, the gimmick (and failed gimmick at that) closure of Guantanamo, and the ‘same-old’ US justification and support for Israeli aggression in Palestine, Obama may soon have one major success under his belt; health reform. Health reform, and extending the Medicare and Medicaid options to even more Americans without healthcare insurance, will be a huge achievement for Obama. It is clear the bill will be passed into law once the two versions are amalgamated, albeit maybe not as radical as hoped but certainly still a revolutionary, and positive, piece of legislation that Obama can be proud of.

Obama simply hasn’t had enough time in office for us to pass judgement on whether his Presidency has failed or succeeded. However, a significant success – and one which could define his Presidency – is within sight in regards to health reform. But when it comes to the other major issues such as the War in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestine conflict, people shouldn’t get carried away by delusions of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ for Obama still serves, like George Bush did before him, the interests of America and Americas’ allies alone.

Don’t kick up a fuss yet, give Obama some time and send the jury home.

The argument might go as follows: if Barack Obama couldn’t bring about radical change required to tackle the US’s healthcare, oil addiction and financial crisis, we might as well give up on national politics. A community organiser, who campaigned against vested interests, a idealist with a unique ability to inspire all sections of the electorate thanks to an upbringing that was black and white, privileged and everyday, American and foreign, religious and open-minded, and a politician with a talent for oratory unparelleled in living memory. If Obama couldn’t, who can? But what can even he do in a system held hostile to entrenched lobbying interests and a public unwilling to see round corporate lies. In a much-repeated 2001 poll, a majority of Americans believed that 15 to 20 percent of government expenditure went on foreign aid. When the survey was carried out it was close to 0.3 per cent. The number of Americans who believe that human activity is causing global warming is just 36 per cent. And most recently a poll showed that 55% of Americans believed the false claim that Obama’s healthcare proposals would cover illegal immigrants. 72% of Fox News viewers believed the same falsehood.

However, optimism should be salvaged from the fact that Obama has faced the toughest concoction of problems to face a leader. Lets glance over four; a financial crisis, healthcare provision, a tarnished image of America across the world and an unhealthy addiction to oil. Obama has, albeit not single-handedly, prevented a depression and looks set to realter the financial landscape for the better by committing to serious financial regulation. At least a fragile recovery, much dependent on real estate stabilisation, hasn’t prevented a serious attempt to tackle the root cause of the problem (inadequate regulation of financial sector). Great strides have been taken towards the universal provision of healthcare to all Americans, despite recent setback delivered in Massachusetts. Obama’s greatest assets in foreign policy, (relatively) principled respect for human rights and an ability to reach out to opposing forces and use a conciliatory approach to extract concessions in negotiations where they have previously not been able to take place, have no doubt helped to restore America’s image abroad. Given that human rights aren’t an issue in the field of climate change, and negotiations have been occurring since the early 1990s, Obama’s assets have not much alleviated the problem of an absence of a global carbon agreement – vital for solving America’s unhealthy addiction to dirty fuels.

His achievements so far are great, given the multitude of immensely difficult tasks that have been thrust upon him in his first year. The Obama project is still in play and up for grabs, and cynicism should be banished.