The Last Of The Opportunists - Tory voters get what they deserve but the Lib Dems have failed the electorate

It can get rather confusing when the PM and his deputy sound so alike that on radio you can't tell which one it is (or even on a TV if you're an old person and "all those young people look the same" to you). For all the political differences between the two parties in the coalition, the respective leaders appear as brothers separated at birth. But this is not the real issue. The issue for many people is that this coalition has turned out as it has done. It is a result that has left many Lib Dem voters feeling betrayed and many Labour voters feeling contempt for a party which has sold it's soul. Although we knew it was a party of opportunists, misfits, students and people with no particular political talent one could never have expected them to so leisurely open their arms to the Conservatives. Of course it was hoped that the Conservatives' scheme to slash and burn the public sector would have been toned down or at least diluted by a Lib Dem party in whose manifesto they claimed to be against swingeing cuts to public services.

Now we are nearly three months into this government's reign and no word from senior Lib Dems about the severe cuts imposed in Osborne's budget that their manifesto criticised. Billions of pounds promised by Labour to 700 schools for important renovation work have been wiped out, and huge cuts to University spending, with University minister David Willets encouraging students to attend lectures at their local university, thus penalising those poorer students who cannot afford to go further afield to study without Government help. The Daily Telegraph even admits that Willett's plan will 'damage the prospects of Britain's poorest'. So where are the Lib Dems, the champions of the student community? Who is speaking out against these cuts which will take away the life experience of leaving home for University from those who can't afford it? Well the Labour Party of course, while the student 'champions' sit silent more interested in actually being in government for once rather than standing up to the Tories to protect those who actually voted for them.

In fact, according to the Telegraph, a BBC documentary aired on Thursday 29th July 2010 discloses how 'Mr Clegg decided two weeks before the election that spending cuts were needed immediately, despite telling voters it would jeopardise economic recovery'. So Mr. Clegg in fact lied to his voters. No wonder he was so ready to join up with the Tories. I wonder how Mr. Cable was forced to swallow the Conservative economic plan, having argued so vehemently against it in debates. It appears that the nations most trusted politician is not so entrenched in his principles as he'd like the electorate to believe. Power corrupts eh Vince?

One thing is certain; I would be surprised if the Lib Dem leadership were not dreading the eventual general election. That is unless the Conservatives decide democracy is an example of wasteful government spending and take the axe to it. Then maybe that would teach people a vital lesson; that things can always be worse and if they vote Conservative they most definitely will be...

No more blind eyes: Is full time approaching for Israel's belligerent foreign policy?

For most people who have any knowledge of the Jewish state of Israel's rather short, but nevertheless eventful history, this week's revelations in the Guardian newspaper that there is now documentary evidence to prove that Israel had been providing nuclear weapons to the South African apartheid regime during the seventies and eighties may not have come as the greatest shock. The records of discussions, where both sides talked of their shared love of freedom (unless you're black or Arab that is), are ironic as they are disturbing. I particularly enjoyed the South African government's expression of brotherly feelings with Israel, saying that they were both "situated in a predominantly hostile world inhabited by dark peoples." Typical fascists to bring skin colour into everything.

The question, however, is how much longer can Israel hope to defy the UN, and now even the United States over their handling, of not only affairs in Gaza and the West Bank but also their actions elsewhere across the globe? Barack Obama has set himself the task of bringing some form of peace settlement and a step on the road to reconciliation between Israel what is left of the Palestinian state. But Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its siege on Gaza is not a problem which only effects these two nations. It has worldwide significance, especially for the US, which is right now struggling to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it feels it needs to compete with Israel's power in the Middle East. The hostility between these nations makes it obvious that arming both with nuclear weapons would bode ill for the region and for global security.

So when President Obama seeks to prevent Iran arming itself with weapons of mass destruction, he must surely see that it is tied in with the issue of Israeli belligerence. Snubbed by the Israeli prime minister and now greeted with evidence that Israel was happy to arm a white supremacist regime with atomic bombs, Mr. Obama's patience may be wearing thin. Despite the massive lobbyist influence in the US, which prevents America from exerting any real pressure on the Jewish state, Israel has done too much to think that it can continue to defy the world's greatest superpower. Israel's crimes are great and many, and they are well known as well. They do not measure up to the crimes committed by others over the last hundred years, but as a liberal democracy it is disturbing to observe how seemingly unrepentantly they bomb and shoot children and civilians.

Mossad's use of fake British passports in its latest killing is another good example of how the state has tried Western patience in recent years. If America hopes to disarm Iran, it must first look to controlling Israel, which too often threatens and attacks its neighbours. Also, American support of the Jewish state even when it is being accused of war crimes by the United Nations is an important fuelling element in the growth of terrorism by militant Muslims against the West. To bring about lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, Mr. Obama must appear not to take sides, and his recent agreements for nuclear disarmament with Russia should be used as an example to show that the US does not condone the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Israel must pledge itself to a peaceful resolution of their conflict with the Palestinians and put an end to their growing enmity against Iran, else risk being isolated by an international community which is starting to frown ever more deeply upon its actions. It should take note of the apartheid regime's fall if it does not wish to share its fate in one way or another. Marginalising the extremists is the key to ending the conflict in the Middle East. Israel must marginalise its own extremists and we must all act to end the killing and oppression of Palestinians if we are to stem the hate against the West.

Bringing freedom to Palestine will dampen the fires of extremism more than invading Iraq and Afghanistan ever did, in fact those actions perhaps only helped to exacerbate the problem. The Middle Eastern conflict is the greatest test that western civilisation has faced since the Second World War, if we do not find a peaceful and lasting solution, the world's newly emerging superpowers may spell the end to the west's dominance and pose a threat to the survival of liberal democracy. It falls to America to bring its promise of freedom where it's needed, else it risks becoming like the imperialists it so proudly overthrew. Perhaps this apartheid revelation might spur Obama on to sort this out once an for all. One things for sure, if Israel carries on like it has done, the consequences may be as devastating for Britain as for anyone else. We must, in the end, put our trust in the United States to find the solution, and thus perhaps we should all be worried.

"Go Hang!" - What the electorate's indecision means for Britain, and why handing the country to the Tories might be a price too heavy to pay.

Well if this goes on much longer the world might actually come to an end. On the other hand if you don't read the Daily Mail, it might just be one of the most exciting moments in British politics for many years. The incumbent Labour Government has lost its majority and the Eton Boys will tell you this means the country has 'rejected Gordon Brown', or simply perhaps those voters which didn't make up the 8 million which did vote for his party. The Tories have more seats than any other party now, but twenty short of an overall majority needed to get their noses back in the tro... sorry I meant get into power. It seems there are two options open to Dave (The airbrushed one, not the television channel). He can either attempt to set up a minority government, or try to form a coalition with other parties. A minority government is a possibility but because there is such a vast difference between the policies of the Tories and those of Labour and Lib Dems, getting any legislation through that reflects their policies on key issues like the economy would be nigh on impossible, due to almost inevitable opposition from the other two main parties. A Tory minority government would last perhaps a year before the country would require another election, and a year of ineffective Conservative government and a possible double dip that the Bank of England warned could be caused by the Tory economic policies or simply by lack of strong, majority government action could spell game over for Cameron and his startled rabbit 'Ozzer'.

Right now it appears the Tories are prepared to enter talks over a possible deal between themselves and the Lib Dems, but the huge rift between each party's policies may scupper this move. Labour and the Lib Dem policies have far more in common, and the only thing stopping a deal going ahead right now between Labour and the Lib Dems is the fact that both parties joined together would still not form a majority in the Commons. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have offered to join a Lib/Lab coalition, but Labour has been careful not to approve this move, as everyone knows nationalist politicians are by nature absolutely mental and self destructive to have on your side when you're trying to form a coalition government.

But if the Lib Dems want to make a deal with the Conservatives they will have to be very careful in the compromises they get. Nick Clegg should not be afraid to squeeze whatever he can from David Cameron, including much needed electoral reform and protection for public services threatened by promised swingeing cuts from a Tory government. Cameron wants to reduce the number of seats in the Commons, in an act of criminal and undemocratic gerrymandering, to favour the Conservatives and reduce possible Labour and Lib Dem seats. Clegg must not let him do this without providing electoral reform, other wise the proposed constituency changes will gift an unfair advantage to the Tories. Cameron wants to fulfil his ambitions 'dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton' (to unashamedly plagiarise one of my favourite quotes of Labour's campaign, and one I felt rang most painfully true), and he wants to reform the commons to undemocratically keep Labour out for years.

These next few days will be vital. What is clear from the last two years of economic crisis is that the men and women whose 'talent' was tempted into this country with disgusting amounts of money have let their greed, corruption and risk taking get the better of them, with disastrous results for the working men and women of Britain. I am reminded of the famous phrase "O tempora! O mores! Senatus haec intelligit, Consul videt; hic tamen vivit!" These words spoken in the Roman Senate two thousand years ago were spoken by a man who saw the evil of his time thrust society into crisis. Speaking against Catiline, a man vilified by his critic as a personification of all that was rotten in the republic, Cicero describes his frustration. "Oh what times! What morals! The Senate knows it, the Consul sees; yet this man still lives!" New Labour made the mistake of taking Thatcherite economics as something that could not be fought, but had to be embraced for the good of the country. Gordon Brown made this mistake as chancellor, and it cost him his career and big chance as Prime Minister. For all his abilities as an economist, it was his reliance on the bankers to do what was right and act responsibly that was his undoing. The greed of the City almost brought this country to its knees. For the Romans, the greed of its elite in Cicero's lifetime saw the collapse of the republic.

Gordon Brown's fight to save the banks and protect the livelihoods of those millions of people who had been put at risk, where probably his finest days. He fought tooth and nail not for votes but for people. He saved thousands, perhaps millions from unemployment and protected the savings of every British saver. He was, and is a Labour Prime Minister, and I believe these past two years have revealed the conscientious and passionate man that he is. He has fought for what he believes in and for what Labour should stand for. He trusted the capitalists and they destroyed him. Labour has learnt it's lesson in this election. It has learnt to stick to its guns and fight for the people, not lay it's arms at Murdoch's feet. For its own sake let us hope it never forgets this lesson. The Tories talk of giving power back to the people to run their own lives. But the ordinary person does not have the time to help run their child's school, run their local health trust. The Conservatives are so out of touch with ordinary people that they don't realise that they rely on the government to provide and run schools for the children and hospitals and buses and trains to get them to work. They're too busy working nine to five earning enough to support themselves. This means only the rich, with time on their hands on to run schools and local services, have a say in their running, and social equality will suffer inevitably as a result.

The Tories argue against big government, but then why did we go to vote at all if all they're going to do is to sit in Westminster and tell us to get on with it. We might as well go back to the bloody feudal system if the Tories want to render representative democracy useless. And they can't escape the fact that Gordon Brown was right. The strong arm of 'big government' stepped in to save ordinary people's money and their jobs when the bottom of capitalism fell out. The Conservative's school friends and their business partners brought us to the edge of the abyss, and rest assured they'll just pretend it was Labour's economic folly. Labour didn't run the banks and they collapsed. Now the government owns them and the economy is recovering. How life is full of such wonderful coincidences. One thing is for sure, Nick Clegg could prove to be the most influential man in politics for a generation. Let's hope he remembers the eighties well enough to keep the Etonians sufficiently frustrated. For there is nothing more amusing than a public school boy who's been force fed his own pride.

"Change": The Power of Public Opinion - Why apparent 'policy' is shaped by the mood of the people, while the party politics stay very much the same.

Politicians aren't terribly good at interpreting public opinion and using it to their advantage, one might think. We all have this conception of politicians as the people most out of touch with normal people and their needs. We are wrong of course, that category is reserved for Scientologists, who are about as out of touch with reality as one could hope to get. Politicians can most definitley smell the general mood of the public, or at least their advisors can. This can be seen most obviously recently in the form of "change".

If one takes a glance at the Conservative Party website (don't do this in your own home obviously, it can seriously damage your views) one can see in massive letters in the top right hand corner the words "Vote for Change". One might assume this is only hint in the terms of "change of government, nudgenudge winkwink say no more", but you'd only be partially right. The thing is that the whole world, at least the West, is enthralled by the prospect of change. Well the poor, the downtrodden, the unemployed and their sympathisers are at least, the richer members of society obviously are less supportive. Capitalism has served them all rather well for the last few decades and they are unlikely to be in favour of altering it to make it more "fair". But Barrack Obama definitley has brought about a "wind of change" if you like. Everyone likes the idea, especially the Tories. "Change" is brilliant if it only entails ousting the beleagured Labour government, not so much if it involves closing the wealth gap, taxing the highest earners, finding jobs for the so called "unskilled" workforce or, in summarising terms, making society more equal.

The word change is ambiguous in itself. "Vote for change" is all very well, and if you vote for the Tories that is what you are voting for, a change in government. But it doesn't indicate that the change will be for the better or for the worse. It doesn't say "Vote for change because we can help you!" or more accurately "because we can help you! But not you, you earn less than 30,000 a year and don't claim residence of the Cayman Islands for tax purposes." The tories assume that change will automatically be interpreted as a good thing, and they're right in general. People are pretty pissed off right now and are keen for change, so anyone promising change is clearly offering us a better deal, right? Well you make up you're own mind, I finished imposing my political leanings a while ago, but I would advise you never to vote for anyone (even the Green Party =P) on the basis of slogans.

So we know why the Conservatives love the idea of change right now, but isn't that quite a contradiction in terms. Let's pull out the dictionary for this one. *Spends five minutes looking for the dictionary, fails then proceeds to swear to himself. Eventually ends up borrowing his mother's* The definition as it stands of a "conservative" is a person averse to rapid change and cautious towards reform. So why are the Conservative Party so keen on something that is so contradictory to their core views? It is because "Change" and change are two different things. The Tories don't want to change the financial regulation system, or change all those things which cause such social injustice and wealth gaps, they want to "change" to Britain in terms of a change of Government. So when you vote for a 'change', you vote for a preservation of the old injustices and inequalities of our society. Is that really change? It's definitley short-change if you're unemployed or below the average wage.

But enough picking apart the Conservatives empty slogans. All political slogans are pretty much empty, especially with the prospect of winning an election or the fear of losing one. One should note that Gordon Brown never talks much about change. He's got a lot to say about reform though. Reform indicates an alteration of political systems, rather than a change in the seats of power. Change on the other hand has a more revolutionary tone to it (note that this is the first and possibly last time I will accuse the tories of promoting "revolution"). When one is afear for their power, it is never wise to mention change. When one spends more than ten years in power, change becomes an ever more irritating word for a government. And of course, with Barrack Obama blowing the trumpet of change across the globe as fervently as he can, you can't really blame the Tories for striking up the same tune. After all, one is not in politics to keep losing elections, unless of course you're the Liberal Democrats.

"Change" is a big word. It can inspire a nation to rise up, but more often than not it proves to be a fickle friend. Whether Labour wins or loses the next election is irrelevant. Change is slowly coming, the "change we need". However cliché it sounds we do need change in the fight for equality in our brave new world. And it will sweep us forward, as it has done throughout history. And the Tories' dreams of "change" will doubtless do little to hinder it.

We set the trend - NOS ROMANI SVMVS FORTISSIMI. Why so many have tried to be like the Romans.

It is the year 509 BC. The last king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus, has been ousted by an aristocratic revolt, led by a certain Lucius Junius Brutus, which then placed a senate of noblemen patricians in charge of the city. For over five-hundred years this senate, and the later plebeian assemblies, ruled the growing power that was the city of Rome. By c. 240 BC she had already annexed all of central and southern Italy, and her conquest had led her into conflict with a great power, Carthage. But Rome overcame its overweening adversary and carved up Carthage's empire, then pushing east, into Greece and Anatolia. Wracked by civil war during the first century BC, when general Gaius Marius and Sulla Felix clashed. Far from damaging Rome's power, this conflict led to the subduing of Rome's latest adversary, the Pontic king Mithridates and set the stage for greater conquests.

For the civil war had brought men like Pompey and Crassus experience in warfare and politics. They were to go on to join Julius Caesar in the first triumvirate and begin to tear the political fabric apart. Because Sulla had taken that fateful step back in the eighties and nineties BC, to take his armies and march on Rome. He had been the first to prove that men could hold the empire through force of arms, not through election. The empire, by the time of the Battle of Pharsalus in which Pompey, the last real threat to Caesar's conquest, was neutered (not literally) was so large that legislation from the senate was too inefficient and would lead to the empire's destruction, through the greed and vanity of ambitious men.

Octavian's final wresting of power from the senate and the setting up of the principate, following the end of the civil war with Mark Anthony triggered by Caesar's murder in 44 BC, was possibly the most important political moment in Europe's history. It was an event that great leaders of the last 2000 years have tried to emulate. So it was that Napoleon Bonaparte and his grande armé carved up the French government following la grande terreur, a period in which a struggling Republic was wrought with conflict and inefficiency that threatened to drown the country, and using his force of arms, he set up branches of the government in Roman style to act simply as his advisers and nothing more. A senate and tribunate, such obvious duplications, and poor ones at that, of the ancient Roman governance. But it was the point that Augustus [Octavian] had united the country and made his government far more efficient to govern his great empire, that Napoleon wanted to drive home.

His famous march over the Alps against the Austrians and his crowning by the pope as King of Italy and Emperor of France show how far he was prepared to go to make the link that would send the message not only to his own people, but also to his rivals, of France's aspirations. No-one had united Europe under one banner since a 'descendant' of Augustus had sat in the Senate house. This was a clear message to the British, the Russians and the Ottomans of France's intentions.

Of course he failed, Europe was far easier to conquer for the Romans than for Bonaparte, but that didn't stop someone else trying. Adolf Hitler was mad, let that not be in doubt, but his subtle references to history should not be ignored. The golden eagle and red standards were simply another sign of ambition. The Reich would unite Europe with an iron fist, as the Romans had done. He would finish what Otto II, the Holy Roman Emperor had failed to do, make good his claim to that heritage. For no-one could do what they did, march from one end of this great continent to the other and never leave their empire.

NOS ROMANI SVMVS FORTISSIMI
We Romans are the Greatest

A bold claim, but yet somehow hard to dispute.

In keeping with the comic theme,

here's some I made earlier (alright, two)

You have to click on the ridiculously tiny one to make it big so you can actually see it, because this photo upload thing is crap. Lots of bonus points if you actually get the reference in the first one xD

Can't be asked tbh...