Google Ads

Showing posts with label Nick Clegg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Clegg. Show all posts

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Jaundiced voters all over send politicians messages

Keeble McFarlane





The severe economic crunch of the past few years has left millions of people from Athens to Atlanta in deep financial distress and frightened about the dismal prospects they face. The result has been a miasma of frustration, confusion and unfocused anger which is having an unsettling effect in the political sphere. In short, voters are feeling like the central character in the mid-1970s movie, Network: "Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!"

Australians voted in June after the then-governing party, Labor, suffered a palace coup. Its leader, Kevin Rudd, had fallen out of public favour and the party held a convention, dumped him and replaced him with his deputy, Julia Gillard, who then called an election. Disenchanted voters rewarded them with Australia's first hung parliament in 70 years. Both Labor and a coalition of the Liberal and National parties each won 72 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives. That's four seats short of what's required for a majority government. The balance of power now lies with two minority party members and four independents. Labor retained power by gaining the support of four cross-benchers.


The next month, grumpy British voters trekked to the polls and denied the ruling Labour Party a fourth term in office. The party, which had had an extraordinarily successful run under the telegenic Tony Blair, was now run by his very competent but totally underwhelming finance minister, Gordon Brown. He was one of the architects of the efforts by the G8 and G20 to use government stimulus to buffer the worst effects of recession but citizens were not happy about the sluggish response of the economy and the huge debts and deficits piling up. So they gave the traditional Labour and Conservative parties less than enthusiastic support but opened up to the traditional outsiders, the Liberal Democrats.

No party had a majority, so rounds of feverish negotiations began and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats fashioned a workable deal. David Cameron of the Conservatives became prime minister and he appointed Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats as his deputy, while bringing several members of Clegg's party into his Cabinet. They immediately began slimming down the government, social programmes and the armed forces.

Voters are in a cantankerous mood even in well-off Sweden, one of the few countries in the world running a surplus in its national budget. The country is one of the models of the welfare state, paid for, it must be noted, by high taxes. This framework was built by the Social Democratic party, which has formed the government for 65 of the past 78 years and has never before lost two elections in a row. Well, even though they had allied themselves with the relatively new Green Party, they lost the election last month to a centre-right coalition which formed the last government under Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The Social Democrats have lost their magic touch to the Swedes of today, who are more focused on the economy and question their country's generosity to outsiders, like the flood of refugees escaping the misery of war in Iraq. The election brought the spotlight on the Sweden Democrats, a xenophobic, anti-immigrant group some describe as racist, which managed to pick up 20 seats and for the first time gain a foothold in the national Parliament.

Just this week, voters in Canada's largest city, Toronto, displayed their anger. A man who runs a lucrative label-printing business with his two brothers accurately captured the dyspeptic voters' mood and ran with it to a very convincing victory for the mayor's chain of office. Rob Ford, the wealthy man who nevertheless personifies Joe Lunch Pail, ran on the mantra Stop the Gravy Train. Ford had been a city councillor for 10 years and always boasted that he never touched the discretionary allowance every councillor gets to help run their constituencies. He constantly criticised his fellow councillors for their spending as well as attacking such practices as having people on staff to water the plants in the multi-storey City Hall.

Newspapers had a field day digging up his record of bad behaviour, such as calling a fellow councillor "a waste of skin" and another of Italian origin the derogatory "Gino-boy"; verbally abusing fellow spectators at a sports arena and being busted for drunken driving and possessing ganja while on a visit to Miami. But the voters liked his simple message which he stuck to during a very disciplined and focused campaign and forgave him for being himself.

What resonated was his focus on the lack of respect for taxpayers' money and taxpayers themselves displayed by councillors and city staff even as taxes and levies kept going up. In his acceptance speech on Monday night, Ford summed up his approach: "The party with taxpayers' money is over!" Of course, the real task now begins, as this lone wolf former councillor who never made any alliances even with like-minded colleagues will now have to learn to work with others and forge alliances in order to wield his cost-cutting cutlass.

Perhaps the most grumpy voters around are those in the United States, and they vote on Tuesday in what the Americans call the off-year elections. They will choose a new House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate, one-third of the state governors and a host of state, county and city officials as well as numerous referendums.

Much of the frustration and anger is focused on President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats. A movement taking its cue from a protest in formative years of the nation's history has been making noise from one end of the US to the other. It calls itself the Tea Party and masquerades as a grass-roots movement but most of its supporters are well-off older white men. They clamour for a return to the past, but their detractors point out that the past was one in which discrimination was the order of the day against people who were poor or black, or both. There's considerable overlap between members of the Tea Party activists and the Republican Party, but the mainstream party has an uneasy relationship with the Tea Partiers, some of whom come out with the most ludicrous of suggestions.

Underlying all the dyspepsia and frustration, the bleating about socialism and freedom from big government are real problems: the hollowing out of the country's mighty industrial base, the atrocious behaviour of the big financial institutions causing millions of people to lose their houses and way of life and the growing realisation that, as happened to Britain a half-century ago, their country is losing its pre-eminent place in the world.

Tuesday's vote will significantly change the political picture in Washington, with Republicans regaining control of one, and possibly both, houses of Congress. Then the US will be right back where it was halfway through Bill Clinton's first term, when the leader of the House Republicans, Newt Gingrich, brought the business of government to a grinding halt. Then the fun began.

keeble.mack@sympatico.ca

October 30, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Sunday, June 13, 2010

British Petroleum (BP) Oil-spill anger unlikey to hurt US/UK ties

Oil-spill anger unlikey to hurt US/UK ties
BY ALICE RITCHIE:


LONDON, England (AFP) — US anger at oil giant BP is clouding ties with Britain's new Government only weeks after it took office, but poses little long-term threat to the 'special relationship', analysts say.

US President Barack Obama has ramped up the pressure on BP over the disaster, summoning chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to Washington, criticising chief executive Tony Hayward and firing a warning over shareholder payouts.

BP's share price tanked last week under the strain and business leaders and politicians in London expressed concern about the impact on British pension funds that invest in BP as well as any backlash against other British firms.

"There is also growing concern that the president's angry rhetoric is going over the top and risks dividing the United States and the United Kingdom," former Conservative foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind wrote in The Times.

Newspapers here demanded Prime Minister David Cameron stand up to Obama when the two leaders were scheduled to speak yesterday ahead of England's World Cup opener against the USA — which could itself strain ties further.

However, the US State Department and Cameron's Government played down suggestions of a rift, while analysts say the allies' primary concern remains their joint efforts in Afghanistan and over Iran's nuclear programme.

Much hailed in the British press, the historic "special relationship" with the United States has cooled since the close personal ties forged between ex-British premier Tony Blair and former US president George W Bush.

The Obama administration has stressed its close relations with a number of foreign nations, while Cameron's Government promised a close but "frank" relationship with Washington when it took office last month.

"This crisis has heightened that sense of distance, but I don't think in the end it'll have long-term damaging consequences," said Michael Cox, Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics (LSE).

He acknowledged the pressure on BP was taking on a patriotic bent, noting the "peculiar" use of BP's old name, "British Petroleum", by the White House.

BP is far from a British firm any more — it employs 22,000 people in the United States and only 10,000 in Britain, while six of its directors are American and six British.

But Cox noted that Obama was under "a huge amount of domestic pressure" and "it's easier to direct attention to an apparently foreign company".

Amid fears of what BP will have to pay out for the oil-spill, US officials are looking to suspend shareholder dividends until compensation is paid.

But analysts at investment bank UBS say it is Obama's pressure as much as any economic fall-out from the spill that caused the share price to collapse last week.

"While progress on dealing with the spill continues, the share price falls now appear to reflect continued pressure from President Obama's administration, much of which appears to be politically motivated," a briefing note said.

Cameron's announcement Thursday that he would raise the issue with Obama "provides some (limited) support for BP", albeit "quite late in the day".

However, Cox suggested that the British premier would want to keep the issue "pretty down on the agenda" in his call with Obama, saying: "There are more important things" such as the Iranian nuclear crisis and Afghanistan.

Scott Lucas, Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham, agreed and said he believed the whole diplomatic spat was more in the heads of British newspaper editors than policymakers.

"There is animosity against BP's leadership, there's no doubt about that, because they didn't handle the situation well. But that animosity doesn't translate into a wider issue," he said.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also warned that bringing politics into the fray would not help the clean-up.

"I don't frankly think we will reach a solution to stopping the release of oil into the ocean any quicker by allowing this to spiral into a tit-for-tat political diplomatic spat," he said during a trip to Madrid Friday.

June 13, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Saturday, April 10, 2010

If the Conservative Party wins the election in Britain, Belize could be in trouble

By Wellington C Ramos:


Most Belizeans are not aware of the fact that next month there will be a national election held in Great Britain for the 650 seats in the British House of Commons. The main parties that are competing for these seats are the Liberal Democrats, under their leader Nick Clegg; the Conservative Party, with David Cameron; and the Labour Party, which currently controls the reins of government under the leadership of Britain’s current Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Born in Dangriga Town, the cultural capital of Belize, Wellington Ramos has BAs in Political Science and History from Hunter College, NY, and an MA in Urban Studies from Long Island University. He is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science and HistoryThis election could determine what will be the relationship between Great Britain and Belize for the next five years due to the influence of Michael Ashcroft, who financially supported the People’s United Party in Belize and is doing the same for the Conservative Party in Great Britain. He is angry with this current UDP government for taking over BTL from him and may find a way to influence his party to retaliate against the people and government of Belize.

On March 11, 1981, the Conservative Party was in power under the leadership of their then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, known as the “Iron Lady” due to the British war against Argentina over the Falkland Islands. She forced our country of Belize into independence by sending a representative to our country by the name of Nicholas Ridley with a document titled the “Heads of Agreement.” This document was a proposed agreement to settle the dispute with Great Britain and Guatemala over our country.

When Belizeans saw the document they erupted and was ready to burn down the whole country of Belize. The leader of the People’s United Party George Cadle Price was so much in a rush for independence that he allowed Mr Ridley to riddle his way out of the negotiations and our country ended up with independence on September 21, 1981 without any defence treaty with Great Britain.

Not only did the British not grant our country any defence guarantees but they were thinking about abruptly withdrawing all their forces out of our country after exploiting Belize for a total of three hundred and forty-three years since the arrival of one of their explorers Peter Wallace in 1638.

Luckily for Belize, there was a civil war brewing in El Salvador and the President of the United States at the time, Ronald Reagan, was concerned about the impact it would have on the entire region and persuaded the British to stay. It was even said that the Americans paid for the British to remain in Belize.

The Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to make any commitment to our country and said that the British forces will remain in Belize for an indefinite period of time. The word indefinite will end up being a short period of time.

When the Falklands war started, the British were thinking about doing a major withdrawal of their forces but due to Belize’s strategic location in the region they prepared a phased withdrawal plan. After the war, they ended up withdrawing most of their garrison regiment and left a training center now known as BATSUB.

Belize is now left defenceless and without any defence guarantees from Great Britain or any other major military power in the world. Due to this vulnerable situation that Belize now finds itself in, Guatemala continues to claim Belize and their citizens are crossing our border at will, coming in and out of our country whenever they feel like, as if Belize belongs to them.

Current polls in Britain indicate that the Conservative Party is leading with 39%, the Labour Party at 29% and the Liberal Democrats at 20%. This poll was conducted by the Sunday Times newspaper, which is conservative and is owned by one of their financial supporters Rupert Murdoch. He is another billionaire that finances the Republican Party in the United States and own several newspapers, including the Boston Globe and the New York Post. This poll could be biased but it should not be taken lightly.

Great Britain is going through hard economic times and the British people are angry with the current government over their constant support of the United States in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown wanted to become prime minister so badly, that he asked his colleagues to replace a very popular and charismatic leader Tony Blair for him. Since he became the prime minister the party has become very unpopular because most British people see him as a bland person, who is unable to rally his people behind him and his party’s agenda.

The way politics is turning in Great Britain, the United States, Belize and other countries in the world, there is an urgent need for stiffer campaign spending laws to restrict the amount of money candidates can spend in an election and the amount big businesses and billionaires can donate to the political parties in order to control them and work in their best interest against the working class and the poor.

Recently New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent millions of dollars to force himself into office against term limits that was approved in a referendum by the citizens of New York City for a third term. Now that he has been re-elected, New York City residents are sorry because of the amount of problems that have been resurrected after the elections were held. This type of politics is resulting in unintelligent rich people running for office, who do not have the substance to be good leaders and intelligent poor people, who possess the substance but are being controlled by the unintelligent person and his money.

There is a true saying in politics: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” This phrase is true because very few people are going to give you anything in life without expecting something back in return. The recent experience with Michael Ashcroft in Belize getting those tax breaks at the expense of the Belizean people that were given to him by the People’s United Party for their victories over the years, is why we Belizeans should encourage this UDP administration to pass campaign finance spending laws to avoid our government from being bought over and controlled by the rich.

The British elections will be here soon and the best we can hope for is that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party do not gain a majority of seats to form a government. If this happens, then whoever wins will have to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and arrange a power sharing administration.

The conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Falkland Islands is coming back to life, due to oil deposits on the Falkland Islands and Britain is thinking about commencing drilling. There is oil in Belize and Guatemala but most people are afraid to discuss what impact the oil have on the territorial dispute between these two countries when they know that it does have an impact.

April 10, 2010

caribbeannetnews