The Balance Between Security And Protest

Security around world leaders has always been a major issue and in the age of global terrorism it is even more important.

America claims the Secret Service who protect the President are the best trained armed guards in the world.

Hardly surprising when you consider there have been assassination attempts, of varying degrees of success and common sense, on every president since Richard Nixon.

So it must have come as a shock to a major European nation when its Prime Minister was hospitalised after being struck by a model of a cathedral.

Silvio Berlusconi is far from popular in Italy and has been the butt of more than the occasional joke abroad.

But when you resort to propelling tourist souvenirs do you not relinquish the high ground?

At both the G20 in London and in Copenhagen there were reports of vandalism by young people dressed in black wearing gas masks.

Anyone who was in London in April this year will tell you of the stark contrast between those there trying to make a genuine point and those clearly there to make trouble.

Of cause these are not the only events this year which have got us thinking about what means we use to attain our ends.

When two British soldiers were killed outside Massareene barracks in Northern Ireland in March it did more to cement anti-nationalist sentiment than the Good Friday Agreement.

The people of Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, united for the first time in nearly a century determined not to go back to the days of road blocks, peace walls and car bombs.

But what about world leaders?

Recently at a state dinner in honour of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House two people gatecrashed, and despite not even being invited met President Obama.

When Obama was running for President there were fears he would become a target for assassination attempts from white supremacists.

In fact a plot to kill him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver was foiled before he even accepted the nomination.

This in turn has let him open to political satirists.
One comedian pointed out one of the reasons people were so behind a black president is because you knew someone would try and kill him.

Then of cause there is the now legendary joke of the problems the Secret Service were having protecting Obama because every time they shouted ‘get down’ he started dancing.

Of cause the gatecrashers, like the man who dressed up as bin Laden for Prince William’s 21st birthday, meant no harm, and it seems in most cases the attacker was mentally unstable.

The man who threw the porcelain model at Berlusconi had apparently suffered from a mental unbalance, and Chester Plummer attempted to kill President Ford by walking across the White House lawn and hitting him with a three foot length of metal piping is clearly lacking some creative cunning.

And now allegedly mentally unbalanced women are jumping the barriers at midnight mass to attack the Holy Father. Admittedly the Pope wields less power than in the days of Machiavelli but several of the substantial security presence looked stunned and casually made their way back to attend to this global religious figurehead.

It is true the public need to be given their chance to voice personal displeasures with our leaders. But surely in this era of global threats and Patriot Actesque laws this should not be happening, and why do we still so often resort to violence.

Maybe this is the time which will produce the next Dr King or Ghandi?

What Can We Expect From Copenhagen?

It is finally here. The most eagerly anticipated week of the year since the G20 in London is finally upon us. Also this week the Copenhagen Climate Conference got underway.

Regardless if you are a tree hugging liberal or cynical conservative the results of this week could have far reaching implications across the world.

But is a deal likely or even desirable?

Obviously if you are a firm believer in global warming you will see a deal as essential in much the same way a sceptic will tell you this week is a waste of time and money.

However to reach a deal a lot of divisions need to be bridged and Berlinesque walls demolished.

Unfortunately for those expecting a deal each country has entirely different expectations.

The third world needs a push in the right direction to avoid basing their entire economic future on oil.

Developing economies such as India and Brazil need to be able to expand further without compromising the future of the planet.

Meanwhile the developed world, most notably America, seems unwilling to give up the lifestyle they have carved out for themselves in the last century, although bizarrely it is they who seem to be pushing most for the global deal.

Some might say it is a bit hypocritical for nations of car drivers to tell nations of bicycle riders they need to reduce their carbon footprint.

Unfortunately some see the developing economies as the most troubling environmentally.

India, Brazil and China are producing higher carbon emissions the more their economies grow for obvious reasons and seem unwilling to relinquish this for even more obvious reasons.

However for the poorer countries to avoid falling into this trap they need foreign investment, which is not forthcoming without them making commitments first.

But should the developing world be the ones to make the first vital move?

America produces far more than its fair share of carbon and is the spiritual home of the most inefficient gas-guzzling vehicles known to mankind.

It was George W Bush who refused to sign up to Kyoto and avoid setting any kind of emissions standards. Can anyone imagine what this world would be like now if Al Gore had been declared the winner in Florida?

It is clear every country is going to have to make sacrifices if a deal is to be reached.

The developing world, most notably the rising economies will have to make assurances they will learn from the mistakes the developed world has made and look for a low carbon way to grow.

The developed world meanwhile must look for ways to make substantial changes to show the rest of the world it can be done.

Of cause none of this is likely to happen without the financial backing of the developed world, none of whom have any money to give out at the moment.

Then we come to the most obvious problem that not all people believe in it.

According to recent poll in the UK nearly 50% of people we dubious about the mankind’s effect on global warming.

The hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia have caused a huge rift in the environmental groups and have galvanised the sceptics.

On top of this some attending the conference flat out oppose a deal being made.

BNP leader Nick Griffin, who is representing the EU at Copenhagen, has called climate change a myth and has called green taxes a money grab.

Despite whatever personal feeling you might have towards his politics he is certainly not the man people want to see representing the EU at a celebrity golf match let alone something important.

However at least he is turning up. President Barack Obama will not attend until the last days of the summit, with many saying an American commitment is the only thing that matters.

To compound all of this there is the problem of the oil producing countries.

Most oil rich countries have their entire wealth tied up in petroleum

Most oil rich countries have huge stakes in the national oil producer.

These countries who would be seen as ‘rogue nations’ if it was not for oil can now see a bleaker future on the horizon.

If it was possible to see beyond the scientific doubts of climate change the barriers still look imposing.

The developing world will not commit until America has set emissions standards and is helping them financially to secure a greener future, and the developed world will not commit or fund until they have the assurances of the developing countries.

And then you still come round to this problem of scepticism over Climate Change itself.

Is a deal desirable? On the face of it yes, although as long as there are sceptics people will find this debatable.

Can a deal be reached? On the face of it no.

The Truth about Spending Cuts

Public spending cuts – a phrase we have heard all too much in recent months. But despite the name recognition nobody really seems to understand what it means, and this is not just restricted to the voters. Even politicians seem to struggle to pin down what form they will take.

The deficit currently stands at over £820bn and anyone who has ever struggled to pay of a mortgage, loan or bank overdraft will tell you it is impossible to continue running with debts of such magnitude.

However, as anyone who has lost their job in the last twelve months will tell you, we cannot afford to risk the economic recovery.

So what is the best way to reduce the deficit without risking the dreaded double-dip recession?

As you are doubt aware the major difference between the parties is not if but when to switch of the life-support. Labour believes the recovery should come first, securing our economic recovery before focusing on the repercussions of massive national debt. The conservatives on the other hand want to rip-off the bandage to show foreign investors how serious Britain is about our economic future.

Despite objections from the other side of the chamber keeping public spending up has helped this country get through the downturn, a tactic used by Franklin Roosevelt after the great depression. However as David Cameron regularly points out Gordon Brown has appeared to be asleep at the switch when it comes to reducing the debt.

Mr Brown has called for a 50% reduction during the next parliament, while Mr Cameron has called for a much larger reduction, although he has refused to be specific.

The Tory leaders view is much more in line with Bank of England chairman Mervyn King, who has regularly called for spending cuts to completely remove the deficit in four years.

Unfortunately for Messer’s Cameron and King anyone with vague socialist tendencies will point out the conservatives objected to the bank bail-outs, 50p tax rate and sustained levels of public spending, all of which played a vital part in Britain’s tentative recovery.

However what political and fiscal conservatives will tell you is an economy needs investors and entrepreneurs to grow, and with such large national debt the UK is far from the most attractive investment market at this time. Government does not create jobs, business does.

Both have so far called for public sector pay-freezes which although making a start on deficit reduction is comparable to sending soldiers to Afghanistan with an air rifle.
Both have pledged not to cut NHS funding in the aftermath of the American health-care debate, while cutting military funding or homeland security would be politically suicidal.

So with nobody willing to commit themselves what are the alternatives?

Tax rises – The human mind is not capable of understanding how incredibly unpopular this notion would be, especially in the run-up to Christmas and stories of bank bonuses (tax-free by the way) already on the return.

Right wingers normally campaign on the opposite in fact, but even Mr Cameron has been forced to admit the 50p rate on incomes over £150,000 cannot be removed instantly by a new conservative government.

A popular notion is to reduce inefficiency rather than actually cutting spending.

London Mayor Boris Johnson has already claimed he can save Transport for London £5bn without effecting services through streamlining the existing framework, although doubts over these claims have subsequently arrived.

The major problem is none of the major parties seems prepared to give any details. Each tied up in a high-stakes game of poker, keeping their card close to their chests.

It is hard to blame them. The stakes are not just high but massive.

Either Gordon Brown or David Cameron will travel to Buckingham Palace next year and be asked to form a government whose almost sole task is to restore economic growth and reduce the deficit while fighting what is seen by many as an unwinnable and expensive war in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for them it appears details are what people want now. Public sector pay freezes as we know barely make a dent in the deficit and businesses want to know what the government is going to do next before risking their futures investing in Britain.

The average person wants to know if a Tory government is elected will we go back to the days of underfunded public transport, hospitals and schools, while at the same time wanting to know if we re-elect Labour will the deficit continue to grow at a rate which predicts a £1.1tn deficit by 2011.

All this while economic recovery is threatened by a collapse in stock prices in Dubai.

Come the New Year all parties will be climbing over each other to announce what will be cut when and where. However fears remain that politicising this issue may be doing more harm than good with a new government looking for the short-term fix rather than the examining the long-term consequences.