Could Britain be heading for Grand Coalition in 2015?

I was watching some debate on a news channel a few weeks ago.  I recall one member of the panel comment along the lines that forecasting the result of Britain's next General Election in 2015 is like opening a box, with no idea of how the contents inside will look.

The Labour Movement's election of Ed Milliband as leader has been considered unwise in many quarters.  With the previous Labour government presiding over unwise borrowing, the Conservative led coalition government of David Cameron was also handed the opportunity to demonstrate financial prudence on a plate.

However, the real cause of Britain's biggest economic crisis since World War II (and indeed a world crisis) was certainly not the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Labour government.  Mr Brown and his government were certainly not responsible for the mismanagement of Lehman Brothers or Royal Bank of Scotland, not to mention the many other Banks worldwide which went bust.

Since taking office, the introduction of single sex marriage is one achievement David Cameron should rightly be proud of.  It is also a change which would have probably been considered most unlikely under a Tory government only a few years previously.  However, this achievement does not disguise the general perception that the make up of Team Cameron simply does not reflect a typical cross section of the British public.

A recent report suggested that four million Britons are not eating properly.  With food banks being used more, a compassionate approach to Social Security is required.  I am not saying for one minute that the Country can afford a blank cheque to authorise every single benefit claim.  But when I saw Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith/IDS punch the air in delight as Cameron announced a two year freeze in benefits at the Conservative Party Conference in October, well let's just say it confirmed something I have known for a while.

I suspect that footage of IDS (whom I consider to be a ridiculous specimen of a man) punching the air, will be featured in Party Election Broadcasts as non-conservative forces do their very best to highlight the common slogan that the Tories are the Nasty Party.  I personally believe these pictures confirm that if the Tories do win, once again a majority will be elusive.

With both large parties unlikely to secure a majority, and with the Liberal Democrats likely to make significant losses, the inevitable question concerns what kind of coalition will emerge this time?  The Northern Irish Unionists will probably be collectively in a stronger position, if both the Democratic Unionists and Ulster Unionists do agree on a single unionist candidate for each Northern Irish constituency.  Meanwhile in Scotland, the SNP is riding on a high with Scottish Labour seemingly in complete disarray!

What about Grand Coalition?  This a term used to describe a coalition government between two parties with opposing ideologies, who are the two largest parties in a democratic system.  The last time there was such a coalition in Britain was during World War II.  Such coalition arrangements have though been more common recently in other European countries such as Austria, where there has been a motive to keep the far-right out of power.  In fact two of the three governments formed by current German Chancellor Angela Merkel have been grand coalitions.

Britain may well so far have avoided a triple dip recession.  The economic uncertainty will though continue after the general election.  Ongoing difficulties in the Euro Zone, along with the increased foodbank use in the UK do confirm this.

Britain's very relationship with Europe has now been a divisive issue in the Conservative Party since the closing stages of the Thatcher Government.  That is the principal reason why Mr Cameron is promising that a Conservative majority government will hold a referendum on Britain's EU membership.

Although the issue of Europe has not been as divisive an issue within the Labour Party during the same period, it would be completely naive to suggest that a Labour government would have no problems on this isssue.  A few Labour MPs made disapproving noises earlier this year.  That was when Ed Milliband suggested that it would be most unlikely for Labour to match the Tories' referendum pledge.

Both the Tories and Labour will of course be aiming to secure a majority victory.  However, with some recent polling suggesting that both parties are at 30% or less of the electoral vote, it would be a surprise if private conversations have not been held within each party concerning possible coalition partners.

If an election result is indeed delivered with both main parties firstly very close in terms of share of the vote, and secondly on a low combined share of the vote, then I suggest a grand coalition is certainly not impossible.  An election result like this would send a clear message that there is no clear mandate from the British people for either main party to address the UK's current problems.

And then there is the potential that an EU referendum could finally solve the thorny issue of Europe, which has potential to cause problems for both Labour and Conservative governments alike, unless the issue is once again put into the hands of the British people to resolve once and for all.  The benefit of Grand Coalition for Labour is obvious, in the sense that agreeing to the in/out referendum enables Labour to solve a potentially big problem for themselves, without the need to publically admit their European splits are possibly comparable with those of the Tories to begin with.

Could Sepp Blatter be the man who splits Football?

A report has been published by FIFA, clearing both Russia and Qatar of any wrongdoing over their successful bids to host the World Cups of 2018 and 2022 respectively.  However, Michael Garcia (the American Lawyer hired by FIFA to investigate the bidding process) suggested the report is incomplete and misrepresentative, in relation to his own investigations.

From the moment Qatar were awarded the 2022 World Cup, I think it is fair to say that millions of people around the world were gobsmacked.  I am not going to offer my analysis of Qatari Politics.  The simple mystery is why a country who has never before qualified for a  World Cup, should be given the privilege of hosting one of the world's greatest sporting events?

Being blunt about it, Qatar is not the footballing minnow which many people have labelled.  Closer examination of their footballing history does show that they have come close to World Cup Qualification on a few occasions, most notably the qualifying tournament for France 98 when a point against Saudi Arabia in a final group match would have taken the Qataris to the World Cup for the first time.

The near miss of France 98 Qualification does not though give the Qataris the platform to suggest they will ever be a world footballing powerhouse.  I have previously written about my own belief that the right to host a World Cup should be based on performance at a World Cup Finals, with a provision that a nation can only host a tournament once every twenty years, and not some silly bid process.

I BELIEVE THAT QATAR 2022 IS A WORLD CUP WHICH THE VAST MAJORITY OF FOOTBALL FANS FROM AROUND THE WORLD DO NOT WANT.  There are a number of reasons for this, and FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a figure in which many people simply do not have confidence in.  The simple facts are that here is a man who was presided over a process to give the honour of hosting a World Cup to a country many people don't want, and subsequently an investigation into that process which has now been questioned by the very man who was carrying out the investigation.

Of course Associaton Football is not the only sport that was invented in England.  Rugby's great split in 1895 saw the emergence of Rugby League, as the Northern Rugby Football Union broke away from the established Rugby Football Union.  The cause was a divide between working class rugby players and more affluent rugby players.  A Football Split is now a possibility at some stage.

The tensions in the football family are more global compared to the English Rugby Split of the late nineteenth century.  Just maybe it could be argued that the more Association Football becomes more global, then the requirement of accomodating different cultures will indeed become more challenging.  For me, all the indications convince me that the longer Sepp Blatter remains at the FIFA helm, then the more likely it is for a split to become reality.

A simple devolution formula for Britain

The aftermath of the Scottish Referendum has confirmed one thing, that Britain is going to change forever.  It has also highlighted more than a few complications such as English votes for English laws.  Of course the creation of two classes of MP, which would be a direct consequence of English votes for English laws, is for myself a non-starter.  Plus it can occasionally be ambiguous as to what constitutes an English only law.

As a supporter of Regional Assemblies for English Regions, I do acknowledge that the appetite for Regional Assemblies at present is not particularly brilliant.  What is particularly frustrating is that the best case for Regional Assemblies has not been made.  Furthermore, Regional Assemblies do not necessarilly mean a further unnecessary layer of Government; a drastic reduction in the number of Westminster MPs could address this.

The transfer of further powers to Scotland's Holyrood Parliament will result in what is known as the Devo Max scenario.  Meanwhile, Northern Ireland's power sharing executive at Stormont has little appetite for taking on further powers.  The Welsh Assembly in Cardiff also has a level of power at present which is not as great as those currently in Holyrood.

What is needed is for any English Region or UK Nation with a devolved Parliament or Assembly to have less MPs.  As Scotland is heading for Devo Max, the Scots could have their present number of Westminster MPs cut in half.  The Welsh and Northern Irish could have their numbers cut by a quarter.

This would then leave the English Regions in a fairer position, and with a fair choice.  That choice would be for an English Region to either reject a Regional Assembly and retain their current number of MPs, or embrace an appropriate level of devolution for their region which would accordingly cut that region's number of MPs.

So let's say that at some point in the future the South East has no devolution whatsoever, the North West votes for a level of devolution comparable to Wales, and the North East votes for Devo Max.  In that scenario the South East would retain it's existing level of Westminster MPs, whilst the number of MPs in the North West would be cut by a quarter, and the number of North East MPs would be cut by a half.

So whilst the Conservative and Labour Politicians squabble and fight for their own party interest, here is a very simple and non-partisan way of meeting the UK's devolution challenge.

Spit Forshaw to stand for Parliament in Sprotchester!

Sprotchester needs representing by a champion of the people, not some career politician claiming to represent Tory or Labour values!  At least those were the words of Spit Forshaw, a 43 year old local Sprotchester historian and railway enthusiast, who has announced his candidacy as an independent in the town for the general election.

Forshaw goes on to explain that he is representative of a new style of politics.  As an advocate of a fair and competitive taxation system, Forshaw speaks of a vision in which a lower income tax rate for the highest earners may one day be desirable.  However, that any moves by a Conservative led Government post 2015 to once again benefit the richest 10% at a time of austerity would be immoral, in the view of the historian.

Forshaw is a great believer that the ills of the NHS go way beyond a need for the service to hire more medical staff, and cut the number of administrators.  He will strongly oppose any policies by any government of whatever colour, which he believes will affect the ability of doctors and nurses to deliver first class care.  His belief is that the biggest challenge facing the NHS is to stem the flow of the more experienced nurses leaving the service.

On the thorny issue of Europe, Forshaw describes himself as "positively European."  Although he accepts that immigration from within the European Union is a challenge, he also believes that people should focus on the bigger picture.  For example the social legislation which now protects many employees in the workplace, whilst also not forgetting the various big companies who are making noises about relocating away from the UK should we decide to leave the EU.

With Sprotchester being a town heavily dependent on two local manufacturing plants which are owned by multi-national companies, Forshaw believes he can reach out to people in a way he believes the main parties have failed to do for some time.

Of course Spit Forshaw is a fictitious character, and Sprotchester is a fictitious town.  But what the Spit Forshaw/Sprotchester scenario does of course illustrate is that there are millions of UK voters who can't connect with any of the main political parties.  

Furthermore, there is a section of disillusioned voters who will also not want to vote for UKIP.  A fact borne out by an opinion poll just over a week ago which put support for EU membership at a 23 year high.

Nearly 16 million people did not vote in the 2010 UK General Election.  That is a large section of the electorate who could potentially turn UK Politics on it's head, if they could be persuaded to engage in the political process.

My father once said to me, "Andrew, new political parties and independent MPs have generally not done well in this country!"  That was before the emergence of social media, which has enabled some people to relate to people in a way they were not able to previously.  Watch this space.  After all, we now live in different times.

Ched Evans case has no easy answers!

Ched Evans' release from Prison after serving half of a 5 year sentence for a rape conviction has polarised opinion.  The Welsh international footballer had been reported to have been on the verge of rejoining Sheffield United, the club who employed him prior to his conviction.  For their part, United have suggested they have not yet come to a final decision on the matter.

Ultimately Ched Evans not returning to football could mean he is at some point a burden to the UK benefits system.  That is not to say that I would welcome Evans playing for my team, had he been good enough.  Any football club who decides to employ this man or any other man convicted of a most heinous crime, is taking a massive risk with their very brand!  These points highlight a big dilemma for football.

One side issue in the Ched Evans case is that the man still intends to appeal against his conviction, despite his release from prison.  It is important to remember that the right for anyone to appeal a criminal conviction is sacrosanct.  Sometimes convictions do get quashed on appeal.  But we must also deal with the here and now.  As it stands, Evans has been convicted by a jury.

When I think back to other footballers in recent times who have fallen foul of the law, the cases of Luke McCormick and Lee Hughes both saw remorse expressed by the offender (to the best of my knowledge).  McCormick had been sentenced to over 7 years imprisonment for causing death by drink driving, whilst Hughes caused death by dangerous driving and got sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.  In the case of Evans, no expression of remorse has been made, I assume due to his plans to appeal his conviction.

Wigan Athletic Chairman Dave Whelan has made noises about the importance of the great game not employing criminals.  Although Mr Whelan and his club did indeed sack Marlon King in 2009 following a conviction for sexual assault, what I find a little bizarre is that King already had criminal convictions against his name when he joined Wigan in 2008.  Indeed, King had already in fact served a previous jail sentence!

I would personally favour the introduction of a system whereby a convicted footballer cannot in theory play football professionally again until their prison sentence term has expired, irrespective of whether or not the person is released early.  This is similar to the line taken by the International Paralympic Committee over Oscar Pistorius, following his recent culpible homicide conviction.

I would permit any professional footballer convicted of a crime the opportunity to engage with the FA upon release, with a view towards being allowed back into the professional game before the end of their original jail term in certain circumstances.  But I would only consider this to be desirable if the FA are satisfied that rehabilitation has been achieved.  Factors which I believe should be taken into consideration include a demonstration of commitment to the community and/or grassroots football, and remorse for their actions.

I believe that a system of this nature would send a message to any professsional footballer that if you break the law and go to prison, then you cannot just walk back to where you left off upon release.  Of course in this case "where you left off" is being in a very privileged position, in which you should be considered a role model to younger people.

With the professional ban upon release not applying to amateur football, the offender can still play organised football.  This subsequently gives offenders the opportunity to give something to grassroots football and the community, which in turn can help them build a case to the FA that their lives have been turned around, and that they can once again be a positive influence on the professsional game.

TV Leadership Debates need firm Party Representation Rules

It appears that Mr "I agree with Nick" Clegg is not happy.  The Green Party, and their Leader Natalie Bennett are not happy either.  Meanwhile, Nigel Farage and UKIP are fairly ok with things.  Basically, the latest broadcast proposals do not give Nick the automatic seat to all three debates, yet allows the presence of Nigel in one session, and still freeze out the Greens.

Ultimately, Britons do not directly elect their Prime Minister in the same way the French and Americans elect a President.  However, you do have to live in the present day.  Considering many Brits have a disillusionment with Politicians and Politics itself, the debates will hardly do democracy any harm.  The viewing figures were fairly impressive last time round, weren't they?

For anyone who has read any of my previous posts, it would come as no surprise to realise that if I don't spoil my ballot paper next May, then I certainly won't be voting for Mr Farage's Party.  That said, there can be little doubt that Farage makes entertaining television.  However, once we continue to favour one Party with one Westminster MP over another Party with that solitary MP,  it becomes hard to credibly state that these debates are to aid the democratic process.

As for Mr Clegg, what can we say?  Times sure have changed, and his Party can have few complaints that they are not automatically participating in every debate.  Even during more favourable times in the cycle of Liberal Democratic fortunes, the democratic interest has always had a need which would be served better by at least one debate solely between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.

We need to develop a new formula which will serve all General Elections in the future.   I say no more than four Parties (seeking to form a UK Government) can participate, with the third Party guaranteed to sit out one debate between the sitting Premier and Leader of the second largest Party.  If there is a tie between the fourth and fifth largest Parties in terms of number of MPs, simply favour the Party with the best performance at the last General Election to appear in one debate.  THEREFORE NATALIE BENNETT IN, NIGEL FARAGE OUT!

Time for an SNP rebrand- Party of Scotland?

There can be little debate that the Scottish Independence Referendum has been healthy in terms of shaping the future of the Union.  As much as I am pleased with the outcome, I also pay respect to some of the perfectly solid arguments made by Alex Salmond throughout the campaign.  One argument in particular is the economic dominance London has over the whole UK.

Had the Scots voted the other way, I have no doubt that the inevitable debate on English Regions acquiring more powers at the expense of  Central Government, would have accelerated.  As it is the Scottish Referendum still appears to be acting as a wake up call to the dominance of the isolated Westminster elite.

Had the Scots been asked a rather different question instead- should Scotland become part of a Great Britain Sporting Team across all sports, then I am convinced the Scots would have said a bigger NO than the 55% delivered by this Independence Referendum.  The ability to accomodate different distinct national identities is a massive strength of the Union that should not be underestimated.

The challenges of maintaining the Union now go beyond addressing English devolution imbalances and ensuring that Scotland gets that craved Devo-Max option, which appears to have cross-party support across pro-unionist parties.  Potentially, not all of the nations of the UK have the same recognition that Scotland does, along with Wales and Northern Ireland.  Having gained National Minority status earlier this year, steps must now be taken to ensure that Cornwall gets it's own National Assembly along with their own sporting independence, if that is what the Cornish people want.

I believe that the imbalance currently being felt by some Cornish people, offers the Scottish Nationalist Party the opportunity to reinvent itself against the backdrop of last night's crushing referendum result.  Scottish Politics will always need a force to counterweight Scottish Labour.  The Scottish Conservatives and Scottish Liberal Democrats simply can't provide it.  The referendum result does not alter the SNP's electoral success ever since Scottish Devolution was set up.

With the Union of the United Kingdom still to face some challenges ahead, the interests of the Scottish electorate may now be better served by a strong party that will stand up for Scottish interests within the Union.  Mebyon Kernow, Cornwall's equivalent of the Scottish Nationalist Party has an English language name that simply reads Party of Cornwall.  Mebyon Kernow's current aims are for Cornwall to acquire a National Assembly, as opposed to separation from the Union.  The SNP rebranding to PARTY OF SCOTLAND may well strike the right chord with Scottish voters whose disillusionment with the Westminster Village shows little sign of going away.

Had Scotland said YES..........

SO SCOTLAND HAS SAID NO.  BUT HAD THEY SAID YES, HERE IS A POST WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED "Scotland saying YES must now shake up the remaining UK!"

Recent Scottish turnout in elections to the the Scottish Parliament and the UK General Election has ranged from little above 50% to little above 60%.  Considering there is a section of society across the whole of Britain who see little point in voting, a one off question with such constitutional significance, always had the potential to awaken silent voters.

Like many English people, I would have preferred Scotland to have voted to remain in the UK.  But I have always respected this to be a matter of self-determination for the Scottish people.  Any suggestion that English people should also have had a say, is quite frankly preposterous.  Furthermore, retaining the Union when one significant partner is unhappy would ultimately benefit nobody.

The argument from the No Campaign about the uncertainty of a Currency Union Post-Independence was always a difficulty for Alex Salmond and his inner circle.  Former English talkshow host Clive Anderson queried what sort of independence it would actually be.  This is correct.

On the other side of the coin though, having Better Together politicians promising greater powers for the Scottish Parliament raises the question of what kind of staying in the Union arrangement that is also.  Despite my preference for the 300 year plus Union to remain intact, it did dawn on me that the longer the campaign progressed, that I may well have fallen into the undecided category had I been Scottish.

The narrow margin of victory may leave concerns of a divided nation.  But that is not the main point.  Any democratic exercise which has succeeded in engaging a significant proportion of the population who don't normally vote, must be celebrated.

Now that Scotland has said Yes, ALL THE VERY BEST TO THEM IN GOING IT ALONE.  Despite what has been said by Better Together politicians on the subject of a Currency Union, we must now have an open mind on this subject.  For UK Plc to remain a successful trading nation, we must not allow an impression of sour grapes to be viewed from around the world.

I am not saying we must now embrace Currency Union.  But I certainly do feel it would be folly to rule it out completely.  On the other hand, Scotland joining the Euro may have a place in the currency debate that now lies ahead.  I do agree with Alex Salmond that Scotland's economy is more in sink with England's than with continental Europe.  But it is also true that Scotland's economy is probably more of a fit for Currency Union with Germany than Greece ever was!

Scotland has ultimately said Yes because the Westminster Village is too detached from the daily realities of ordinary Scots.  That same detachment also applies to the English Regions.  I know this is totally random by bringing in the Shale Gas Fracking debate, but I have said this before and will say it again- FRACKING IS A CLASSIC REASON WHY ENGLAND NEEDS REGIONAL DEVOLUTION!

The Fracking of Shale Gas is a classic issue in which the balancing of potential benefits against the risks require a legislative voice much closer to home.  On that note, an English Parliament as a second London based Parliament was never the great remedy to the West Lothian question which some Conservative MPs like John Redwood have claimed.

Some English voters with left wing leaning tendencies will now fear almost permanent Tory Government.  It is important to remember some wise sentiments by the former Conservative Scottish Secretary Lord Michael Forsyth.  He has mentioned that the Scottish Labour Party probably thought they would have almost total domination in the Holyrood Parliament following the start of Scottish Devolution.  Considering the direction Scottish Politics has now gone, you never can tell.

The Fracking debate is not only an issue in the northern and largely Labour  dominated regions of England.  It has also been a big issue in the West Sussex Village of Balcombe, where the local MP is Conservative Minister Francis Maude.  It is now pretty clear that people across the remaining UK feel they are too detached from the Westminster Village!

And on the note of recognising such detachment, I DO FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT ALEX SALMOND'S ACHIEVEMENTS CAN BE SEEN AS AN INSPIRATION TO MANY ENGLISH PEOPLE.

John Major right, David Cameron wrong!

I fully accept it would be naive to think that there are no people from the poorer EU countries who have a motivation to come over to the UK and claim benefits, rather than find work.  But the full extent of such concerns have been deliberately over-played by the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who is more concerned about playing to the tune of Conservative Eurosceptics, rather than the British national interest.

Sir John Major is a former British Conservative Prime Minister with a rather different perspective than Cameron when it comes to the subject of immigration into the UK.  Sir John speaks of the entrepreneurial values and attitudes many immigrants possess, referring to it as a Conservative instinct.

Sir John has more of a real life experience of actually integrating with people who have come from abroad to live in Britain, as demonstrated by his upbringing in Brixton.  By contrast David Cameron and much of his inner circle grew up with privileges, and are detached from the realities many ordinary Brits live with on a number of levels.

Some people will look at Sir John Major's comments and dismiss out of hand the very suggestion that people from ethnic minority backgrounds can be at one with "the nasty party."  It is important to remember though that there are political cycles.  Whatever people (who remember) may think of Sir John's administration of the 1990s, his vision was certainly "a one-nation Tory" vision.  That certainly is not the Cameron way!

Yes- Drunkens should pay for NHS treatment!

Many people love a drink, and that includes me.  But increased financial pressures on Britain's National Health Service do mean something has to give somewhere along the line.  For those individuals who drink to excess, then I feel that healthcare costs as a result such as the use of Accident & Emergency, should in theory be reimbursed from those individuals.

I don't support US-style healthcare insurance; I do support what I consider to be desirable ideas which will keep the NHS alive, and protect the principle of healthcare which is free at the point of delivery.  If someone is choosing to drink to excess, with a full knowledge of the potential damage they are doing to their body, then I consider it to be questionable as to whether that someone automatically deserves free healthcare treatment.  Excessive drinking also very often leads to undesirable anti-social behaviour.

Of course there will be some instances whereby recouping charges may be impractical.  For instance, there may be some instances in which it may be difficult to either prove identity, or if the drunken individual is actually culpable themselves for the level of alcohol consumed.  I do concede that in some such cases, any legal challenge could incur costs which would make a cost recuperation exercise unworkable.  But that said, I would not have thought we are talking about a high percentage here.

When it comes to drinking, I have to admit that I am no saint!  But that said I do now normally only drink one night a week, with maybe a couple of extra nights in the winter in which I will have a small whisky sample and/or an extra pint or two if I am at a football match.  What I do know is that I have never participated in some of the disgraceful anti-social scenes fuelled by alcohol, which have scarred many British weekends during recent times.

I believe any measure to recoup healthcare costs from individuals who drink to excess, will ultimately only send a positive messsage about how alcohol-fuelled anti-social behaviour must be corrected!

Would rather see Gove leave Westminster, not Hague!

To some onlookers including myself, Prime Minister Cameron's reshuffle was surprisingly newsworthy!  William Hague sensationally stepped down as Foreign Secretary, whilst controversial Education Secretary Michael Gove got moved to Chief Whip.  Mr Hague is staying in the Cabinet in a lower profile role ahead of stepping down as an MP at next year's British General Election.

On the one hand, there can be no doubt that Hague almost cut a ridiculous figure as Tory Leader at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s.  Hague's Conservative campaign at the 2001 General Election was built on a platform of saving the pound for another five years, even though Tony Blair's Labour Government was not even making a firm commitment to hold a referendum on Single Currency membership.

On the other hand, Tory divisions on Europe which had undermined John Major's Government, probably meant the party Hague inherited was ungovernable.  There can be no doubt that since becoming a member of David Cameron's front bench team in Opposition, Hague has rarely looked ridiculous.  In fact as Foreign Secretary, it would be hard to say that he is not respected internationally.

I would go further by saying that along with Ken Clarke (who has left Cameron's Cabinet in the reshuffle), Hague is one of the few people in Team Cameron I have any time for.  Meanwhile, what can we say about the Right Honourable Michael Gove MP?  The words "ridiculous specimen of a man" spring to mind.  It is a great shame he is not stepping down as an MP next year, instead of Hague!

We are talking about a man who has got the backs up of too many in the teaching profession, with an imposition of culture change many teachers have found to be alien.  I would not for one minute suggest that this sideways move will mark the beginning of the end of Gove's career; it is merely a clever move by Cameron to put a controversial operator into the background ahead of a general election.

In the event that Cameron finds himself able to form a majority Government after next year's election, I would expect Gove to return to a more high profile job.  I would not be surprised if Gove became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.  I can picture Gove attacking benefits for the needy, under the banner of benefits reform.  In the event of another hung parliament, I sincerely hope that for any party looking to jump into bed with the Tories, the price must be NO GOVE IN CABINET!

Is the Argentine post-Kirchner Malvinas debate now underway?

As stated by the Argentine constitution, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's tenure as Argentine President will be over in a little over a year.  Many people in my home country of the United Kingdom will remember Kirchner as a President who stoked up Falklands/Malvinas tensions.

The past week or so has seen two prominant Argentines maķe their own noises on the British Overseas Territory, which is situated approximately 300 miles from the Argentine coast.  Former Argentine Vice President and Presidential hopeful Julio Cobos made a trip to the disputed territory, having gone on record stating that the Malvinas is a foreign policy challenge facing any Argentine President.  Whereas Alicia Castro (Argentina's current ambassador to the UK) made claims that the Falklanders would be better off under Argentine sovereignty.

The noises which have been made by Castro are consistent to other statements she has made during her time as Ambassador to the UK.  So nothing new there.  Ultimately Castro's own interest will remain to strike a balance between supporting the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands, and make a statement of respect towards the inhabitants of the islands.  After all, the one initial certainty of the Casa Rosada's next incumbent will of course be the continued claim over Las Malvinas.

What may change though is the tone of that claim, as hinted by the recent actions of Mr Cobos.  It is true that for Cobos we are talking about a trip that was made for personal reasons.  Indeed, it is particularly unknown on how far Cobos' Presidential ambitions will bear fruit.   But it is also the case that an Argentine journalist recently suggested that all Presidential hopefuls should visit those two pieces of land loved by Argentina, but missed.

It is on the point of referring to the Falklands/Malvinas as two pieces of land that I believe a future Argentine administration can change approach, whilst also retaining integrity.  There are two main islands- West Falkland/Gran Malvina and East Falkland.  The British case for maintaining sovereignty is based on the Falklanders' right to self-determination.  The vast majority of Falklanders reside in East Falkland.  Could Argentina ever change it's constitutional claim to claim Sovereignty of the largely uninhabited Western side only?

If Argentina claimed Gran Malvina and the surrounding islands to lead to a land split, they would need to sell the ideas to the British Falklanders in order to smooth over any future negotiation with the UK Government.  But here is the point- even if that community want to remain British and retain a British Overseas Territory status over East Falkland, a transfer of sovereignty over West Falkland/Gran Malvina can offer benefits to that community.

Opening West Falkland/Gran Malvina up to immigration from Argentina offers the British Falklanders the launchpad to not only trade with a neighbouring Argentine territory, but could also open up access to better trading links with mainland Argentina as well as other Latin American markets.

Should a future Argentine administration turn it's back on the harrassment Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner subjected the Falklanders, but instead use positive and warm language to make the case for a land split, then one day the Falklanders may smell the coffee and accept the benefits of a land split go way beyond just a political settlement.

I know that some sceptics in the UK will be quick to question whether Argentina could ever be satisfied with just half of what it wants.  It is important to recognise though that Argentine critics of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's Malvinas policy, argue for a different approach- an approach whereby Argentina instead offers benefits to the Falklanders in terms of trade, travel links, free healthcare, and education.

Argentina gaining sovereignty over the west of the archipelago not only saves face in terms of the long standing claim on Las Malvinas, it also puts them in a stronger position to democratically and peacefully persuade the British Falklanders that one day their future could indeed lie with Argentina.  But even if the Falklanders choose to reject Argentine sovereignty over the east in the ultra long-term, a friendly English speaking territory on Argentina's doorstep could still be very appealing indeed to the nation as described by Ambassador Castro as Latin America's most Anglophile nation.

Will Cameron smell the coffee and dump Gove and May?

British Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly asked for a full account of what has been said in an apparent row over allegations of extremism in schools, between Education Secretary Michael Gove and Home Secretary Theresa May.

Many people will of course comment that the current Conservative Party is out of sink with the struggles of ordinary people in making ends meet.  Two individuals on the Conservative side of the Con-Dem coalition who represent so many things distasteful are indeed Michael Gove and Theresa May.

From personal experience it is very difficult to find any teacher who has a good  word to say about the one time actor Mr Gove.  So many teachers in the state sector have been rubbed up the wrong way as Gove continues to be perceived to be imposing private sector values at the expense of public sector values.

Theresa May has been very much the face of Britain refusing to amend a controversial extradition treaty with the US.  The Conservative Party in Opposition were vehemently critical of the 2003 Extradition Act, which had been signed by Tony Blair's Labour Government.  This legislation has been perceived to be very one sided, with more British citizens being extradited to the US than vice versa.

The legislation had come into force with the intention of making it easier to deal with terrorists.  However this legislation has also seen British citizens extradited for alleged white collar crimes as well, and to a justice system in which around 98% of such cases are settled by plea bargains which see defendants plead guilty in return for lighter sentences.  Despite the noises made by the Conservatives (and Liberal Democrats) in Opposition, the latest white collar extradition to the US took place only a few weeks ago.

So is it possible Cameron could decide the best way forward is to simply rid his Government of these two undesirables?

Hopefully the last lenient sentence for DOG RELATED DEATH!

Two women from Liverpool have been jailed for a year each for leaving their dog to get out of control and kill a retired neighbour, whilst they were away from the house at a barbecue.  The judge at Liverpool Crown Court did make reference to recent law changes which have now come into effect, which could now see owners of dogs who kill jailed for 14 years!

I commend the judge for effectively acknowledging that he was working within sentencing guidelines which most right minded people will now acknowledge to be unfit for purpose.  As the two women pleaded guilty before the changes came into force, this judge's hands were clearly tied.

This change in the law does quite rightly bring the maximum penalties for death by dangerous dogs in line with death by drink driving.  People who are stupid to drink and drive, of course deserve the full force of the law.  But the same now also needs to be true of those who cause death by dangerous dogs!

Leaving any dog alone without food for a sustained period of time, as happened in this particular case, is quite frankly asking for trouble.  On the evidence of this case, I would also state that some dog owners may lack a basic understanding of what is required to provide basic care for their dog.  HOPEFULLY TOUGHER SENTENCES WILL SEND THE CORRECT MESSAGE!

Is the US judicial system becoming an increasingly British issue?

The last decade has seen the US seek the extradition of British citizens on quite a few occasions.  Some of the high profile extradition cases which have hit the headlines in the UK have been for alleged white-collar crime.

The cases of both the Nat West Three Bankers (who were extradited to the US in 2006) and of the retired businessman Christopher Tappin (who was extradited in 2012) not only highlighted imbalances in UK-US extradition arrangements, they also illustrated how even fairly wealthy British citizens can be disadvantaged in fighting criminal cases thousands of miles away from their homes and families.

In respect to both of these cases I mention, there was a suggestion that each case could have been tried in a British Court.  However the choice of the British authorities not to prosecute, enabled the US authorities to launch extradition proceedings, which were ultimately successful.

Following extradition to the States, both the Nat West Three and Mr Tappin agreed to plea bargains with US prosecutors, which saw the defendants accept guilty pleas in return for light prison terms.  The main conclusion I came to from following developments in both of the cases was that I could not be sure either way on the defendants' guilt or otherwise.

This week a Northampton couple, Paul and Sandra Dunham, had been due to surrender to a London Police Station, ahead of being flown out to America.  Mr and Mrs Dunham had been indicted on fraud and money laundering charges.  The alleged offences took place between 1999 and 2009, when Mr Dunham had been Chief Executive of an American company.

Whilst it is true that there is no ambiguity that the alleged crimes have taken place on American soil in this instance, the US Justice System doesn't do itself any favours.  Mr and Mrs Dunham are not in a position whereby they are likely to secure bail, in part due to the costs of supporting their living costs pre-trial, not to mention legal costs.  This would leave them both facing months in separate harsh prisons, WHICH IS SO UNFAIR!

I don't deny that the British-US relationship is very important.  There will probably always be more common ground between us, than what will divide us.  But let's remember it is not the UK's most important external relationship; the UK's most important relationship is with Europe.  The debate over whether Britain leaves the European Union will not change this.

When it comes to addressing extradition arrangements concerning alleged cases of white-collar crime, it is in both parties' interests to find a solution to protect the rights of people who are innocent until proven guilty.  Why not allow British defendants to remain in the UK on electronic tag during pre-trial proceedures, until the case is ready for trial?

I know some people reading this will respond by making noises along the lines that nothing will change, and that the UK-US relationship is hardly one of equals.  The point is though that everytime a British citizen is put on a plane to the US to face proceedings for white-collar crime, many observers expect the defendant to ultimately accept some kind of plea bargain to get out of the system sooner rather than later!

If the US really does wish to present their nation as one that upholds values of freedom and fairness, there will need to come a time when their politicians engage with British politicians on amending some extradition proceedures.  Now that Paul and Sandra Dunham have attempted to take their own lives, it does show that this issue is not just some little niggle.

As for the British political establishment, this matter does now need to be a much more presssing matter for Prime Ministers of different colours in future dealings with US Presidents!

Swiss Restaurant charging for leftover food! WHAT A JOLLY GOOD IDEA!

Can you imagine going to a Carvery, and seeing some overweight fella piling his plate up high?  Oh, and then the bloke returns to the vegetables a few times to fill his plate all over again!  My parents once told me about going for a meal near where my Dad grew up in South Liverpool, and witnessing that very same scene.

On the other end of the scale though, the consequences of some restaurants having offers to eat as much as you like do also include instances in which customers will waste food.  This is concerning as much from a moral point of view, as it is from an environmental viewpoint.

Just a fraction of all wasted food in the world would satisfy the needs of those who are malnourished.  If trees were planted on the land currently used to grow food surpluses, then this could go some way to offset greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

An "all that you can eat buffet" restaurant in Switzerland has now implemented a charge of $5.65 for a customer leaving food on a plate.  Straightaway, I do identify one common sense example in which a customer has clearly been trying to experiment a new taste, and tried a very modest portion.  In that scenario, such a charge should not apply.  Otherwise I say WHAT A JOLLY GOOD IDEA!

Going back to the chap in the same restaurant as my Mum and Dad, I do realise he would be most unlikely to face a leftover food charge.  But that said eating disorders can sometimes develop over time.  If leftover food charges do become more of a norm in restaurants, then they may also become a useful tool in sending the right messages to people on a variety of points regarding food consumption.

Open Prisons must not be undervalued in Rehabilitation Process!

A very dangerous man absconded from an open prison in Kent last weekend, causing severe concern for the safety of the public in South East England.  The escaped prisoner in question, who has thankfully now been recaptured, was serving 13 life sentences for armed robberies.

Whilst this episode is more than a bit embarrassing to HM Prison Service, the relevant questions need to be directed at why such a prisoner was in an open prison in the first place, rather than why we actually have open jails.  A more pertinent question could be why this man was given a minimum tariff of just 8 years for 13 life sentences, taking on board that we are not talking about a man with no previous convictions!

Open Prisons often provide an invaluable link for low risk offenders, in terms of rehabilitation back into the community.  One ill judged decision to place an unsuitable offender must not undervalue the important work in which open prisons undertake.

If Farage had stood in Newark...

Nigel Farage has today decided that he will not stand for his United Kingdom Independence Party in the forthcoming by-election in Newark, Nottinghamshire.  As I ponder going to a local beer festival this coming Friday in Warrington, it really does hit home that a love for Real Ale is probably just about the only thing I have in common with the UKIP Leader.

Farage believes that most English people consider themselves to be English first rather than a particular affiliation to an English region, and that an English Parliament would be desirable to address constitutional imbalances as a result of Scottish Devolution.  My own devolution perspective could not be more different.  I believe that the economic dominance of London and the South East is one reason why England needs Regional Assemblies to counter balance this dominance.

Nigel Farage has gone on record about his belief that British Overseas Territories should have representation in the House of Commons.  Any regular readers of my blog posts will know very well what I think of this viewpoint.  On the main issue of UKIP's existence, I am a believer on balance that there are more reasons for the UK to stay within the European Union than depart.  Although, I do also support a national referendum at some point in the future to resolve the EU issue.

As much as I hope UKIP does not do as well as they hope in May's European elections, Mr Farage has made the right calculation in not standing in the Nottinghamshire by-election.  It would have distracted his message nationally in relation to the forthcoming European elections.  I would not go as far as saying that to stand would earn him unwanted comparisons with the Monster Raving Loony Party.  But the size of the Conservative majority along with his lack of connections to the East Midlands, would have made him look just a little silly.

So credit has to go where credit is due.  WELL DONE NIG!  IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL.  GIVE YOURSELF A PAT ON THE BACK!

Cornwall to join UEFA?

I have previously stated in various blog posts that Quebec and Catalonia (should the Catalans not secede from Spain) could be considered to become full national members of the world football family, irrespective of being non-sovereign jurisdictions.  Now it could also be time to make a case for Cornwall.

Cornish people have long campaigned for their homeland to be recognised as more than just another English County.  Unlike Lancashire or Norfolk for instance, Cornwall has it's own language, which is of course a classic sign of a distinct identity.  This week Cornwall was granted minority status by Europe.  The decision does in some respects put the Cornish people on a par with the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish.

Cornish problems such as high unemployment will not disappear overnight.  One mechanism which could be strategically positioned to address this unfortunate state of affairs is a Cornish Assembly, which is seen as the main aim of Mebyon Kernow (The Party for Cornwall).  Whilst a Cornish Assembly could still be some way off, perhaps the time is right though for the Cornish to explore ways and means to express their distinct identity through sport.

Football is of course the world's most popular sport, and there are countless precedents of non-sovereign jurisdictions being welcomed into the World Football Family, most notably the other Nations of the UK.  European Football's governing body UEFA gave the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar full membership just under a year ago.  With Gibraltar having a population of just a fraction to that of Cornwall, the case for UEFA welcoming the land of the Cornish Pasty and Clotted Cream is very compelling indeed.

If Australians are so Pro-Monarchy, then why not an Aussie Monarchy?

As two future Kings of England (William and his baby son George) arrived in Australia this week, it appears support for ditching the British Monarchy and replacing it with a Republic, is at a 15 year low.  I know some people may well call me cynical, but surely this pro-monarchy trend can't last can it?

It was in the 1990s when the then Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating set the wheels in motion for a referendum to be held on Australia becoming a republic.  Keating famously said it was time that Australia's next Head of State would be "one of us!"  When that referendum was held in 1999, nearly 55% of the Australian people voted against.

If Australia is still so much against becoming a republic, maybe the time has come to consider a new approach.  Maybe the time has come for Australia to look into creating it's own monarchy?  Perhaps the Aussies could create some once in a lifetime reality tv programme, which would determine who would earn the right to start this new hereditary monarchy.

As much as some people would label monarchies to be anachronisms or unmeritocratic, monarchies do offer a point of political neutrality in which prime ministers of different political persuasions can build trust.  This arguably contributes towards political stability.

What a monarch cannot do is follow the example of Spain's King Juan Carlos, by taking an elephant hunting holiday at a time of economic austerity.  In the 21st Century, the monarch needs to become more of a figure head.

So who could become the first monarch in a new Australian monarchy?  Perhaps Australia could import some hanger-on from the House of Windsor to keep the connection?  Or if they want one of "their own," perhaps none other than Paul Keating himself?

NO to cameras in British Courts!

By just taking a passing interest in the news of the last few weeks, it would be impossible not to notice a high profile trial which has been taking place in South Africa.  The case involves a high profile athlete accused of murdering his girlfriend, who was a model.

I am not going to offer my view as to whether I believe the defendent to be guilty or otherwise.  What I will state is how difficult these reports are to watch.  I really do feel for the dead girl's parents, whom have had to endure the indignity of being viewed by the cameras, as evidence has been played out.  I also believe that the evidence being played out for public consumption is not helpful towards the ultimate judicial aim of a fair trial.

Prior to this high profile trial getting underway, I was moving towards an acceptance that some kind of limited use of cameras in the British Courtroom would now be inevitable.  One example cited was to show the judge's summing up of the case.  With the coverage I have seen of this high profile South African case, I have now moved the other way.

I don't particularly see the point of a courtroom camera purely showing a judge summing up, when a reporter can adequately highlight the important points of the summing up outside the court building as he or she would do now?  What I definitely don't want is to see such limited televised coverage becoming a stepping stone towards televised trials.  SO NO TO TV CAMERAS IN UK COURTROOMS FOR ME!

No turning back for US Falklands/Malvinas Neutrality!

An inquiry by British MPs into the health of the so-called special relationship has declared it's disappointment that the United States will not back Britain's stance of self-determination for the remote Falklands/Malvinas archipeleago in the South Atlantic Ocean.  Argentina's firebrand President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner may well have been more than a little annoying to many in the international community, not just for the British.  But that said, she will no longer Argentine President in 18 months time.

Whilst America may have reluctantly backed Britain during the brief war of 1982, any change in their consistent neutrality on this issue would only serve a short term purpose. I believe the reality is that the US considers the long term positions of both Governments involved in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute to be unsustainable in the long term.

Noises have been made throughout the presidencies of both Kirchner presidents (Nestor and Cristina) suggesting the wishes of those who inhabit the islands are irrelevant.  Although we may be talking about a tiny population, many amongst that tiny population have had descendents on the islands that can be traced back to an earlier time before some descendents of the current Argentine population first arrived in Argentina!

Surely if Argentina is serious about trying to resolve this issue in the long term, the penny will drop that it's attitude to the Falklanders will need to moderate.  After all, in a world in which regional trading blocks are becoming the norm, Argentina can offer obvious trading advantages which Britain cannot due to geographical proximity.

It is on the point though of just how tiny that population is that the British case is also unsustainable.  The tiny population is often explained in a lazy way by suggestions the weather is so unbearable that not many people would wish to live there.

How do you define "not many people?"  The Falklands/Malvinas has a population of around the 3,000 mark.  Pick any British village of a similar population size, and then ask if we are talking about an archipelago of a similar area size to that small British village?  No, we are in fact talking about an area of land comparable in size to Northern Ireland!

On the point of how you define "not many people," lets examine the population of an archipelago in the North Atlantic with what is acknowledged to have a similar climate to the Falklands/Malvinas.  The Faroe Islands have a population of about 50,000 on a land area size which is a fraction to that of the Falklands/Malvinas land area size.  If the Falklands/Malvinas had a similar population density to the Faroes, the South Atlantic archipelago would have a population closer to the 400,000 mark!

The Falklands/Malvinas being underpopulated as opposed to sparsely populated is not the sole reason which undermines Britain's argument of self-determination.  How many Brits have even heard of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?  Well I have asked a few intelligent people regarding the territory which is situated about 900 miles east of the Falklands/Malvinas, and can confirm there are indeed few Brits aware of this territory's existence.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is also claimed by Argentina as a part of it's national territory.  Unlike the Falklands/Malvinas, this territory has no native population at all.  In fact it has a rotational population of 30, who are based in a scientific research centre.  Whilst the geographical proximity of this territory is not that close to Argentina, one fact which cannot be ignored is that Argentina is the closest sovereign state.

The Falkland Islands Government held a referendum just over a year ago in an attempt to demonstrate their self-determination to the world.  Just how successful that message has been with a 99.8% yes vote, time will no doubt tell.  What the referendum did no doubt achieve was to highlight other issues such as potential mineral wealth which may well become more significant in the years that lie ahead.

If the Falklands/Malvinas does indeed become a magnet for wealth, immigration trends will no doubt follow to possibly start to reverse the archipelago's under-population.  One reality Britain will need to accept is that if there is a significant influx of further immigration from the British mainland, it will only further play into an argument used by Argentina from time to time.

Argentina has argued that the Falklands/Malvinas is an implanted population.  I don't believe a potential future scenario with only a minority of the Falklands/Malvinas population as non-immigrants, would win support for the Self-Determination argument in the wider world at all.

The current British Prime Minister David Cameron has consistently taken an uncompromising line with Argentina in terms of suggesting there can never be any negotiations with Argentina, unless it is the wishes of the Falklanders.  If Cameron wins next year's general election and then goes on to serve a full second term as PM, I would believe the current British policy to be sustainable probably for as long as Cameron remains in office.

After Cameron though, nothing is impossible.  Many UK political observers would say any talk of a Falklands compromise would be electoral suicide for any governing party.  But that said, an opinion poll taken two years ago for the Guardian newspaper predictably showing most Brits in support of defending British Sovereignty, also detected a potential shift in opinion amongst younger generations.  Any impetus towards compromise will of course also require a more concilatory tone from future Argentine governments towards the Falklanders.

Taking on board all the factors that are relevant to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, it seems more logical to me that the US will indeed be sensible to remain on the fence.

Is Nick Clegg now living on borrowed time?

The British Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg was riding the crest of a wave approximately 4 years ago, as Britons were preparing to go to the polls for a general election.  The election campaign comprised of a series of televised debates involving the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Clegg himself.  In fact Clegg was seen by many to be the stronger performer.

The 2010 General Election ended 13 years of Labour rule, and the coalition negotiations which followed between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats saw Clegg become the Deputy Prime Minister in what has been commonly referred to as the Con-Dem Government.  For some political commentators, the scene of PM Dave and Deputy PM Nick in the Downing Street Rose Garden was very touching indeed.

Four years later and Nick Clegg's fortunes could very well be on the wane.  It was the pro-EU Clegg who decided to challenge United Kingdom Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage to a series of debates on Britain's membership of the European Union.  This was after alienating some Liberal Democrat voters by jumping into bed with the Tories in the first place, breaking his electoral promise on free tuition fees, and insisting on what some people would consider an inappropriate referendum on changing the UK's electoral system.

On the point of electoral reform, I do make no apologies for stating that I am a supporter of changing the UK's discredited First Past the Post Electoral System.  But I don't think it is purely the lack of hindsight, that would suggest having the Alternative Vote Referendum just a year into the life of the Con-Dem Government, which would explain bad timing.  At the time, Britain was in need of addressing probably the worst recession in generations!

Most Britons will only take an active interest in Politics at the time of the General Election.  Other important events such as the Local Government Elections and European Elections are notorious for low turnout.  It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, but that is the way it is.  The AV referendum only produced a turnout of 42%.

Whilst I believe it would be desirable to see the UK electoral system reformed one day, I do also know it is not an issue that features prominently among many voters' priorities.  Even if it had meant the Liberal Democrats fighting possibly one more election under the First Past the Post System, I believe there would have been significantly more interest had the referendum been held close to the same date as the 2015 General Election instead.

In this week's televised EU debate with Farage, Clegg did make some very good points concerning the co-operation of European nations on crime and terrorism, in addition to the point that Norway and Switzerland are not having any say in the regulations for the trading region in which most of their goods and services are sold.  But he then let himself down on the final question from the audience, by declaring his view that the EU would be quite similar in 10 years time.  It was hardly the smartest thing to say in attempting to woo people to his way of thinking.

The various polls of the British public in the aftermath of the Clegg v Farage debate have indeed suggested a clear victory to Farage.  But these polls are hardly a Presidential Election.  It is also reasonable to conclude that had Farage been in the Government instead of Clegg, then it may have been different.  But that is not the point.  It was Clegg who challenged Farage to these debates, not the other way round.

It should also be noted that in Farage, the man in which Clegg has come off second best against, we are hardly talking about some political heavyweight.  We are in fact talking about a man who described himself in the televised debate as not being a career politician.  Yet Farage favours giving British Overseas Territories representation in the House of Commons.  With British subjects in other parts of the world being detached somewhat from the mainland British national interest, could it be possible that Farage sees these people as his best hope of winning a House of Commons seat?  Even if this was not the case, it is hardly progressive 21st Century politics is it?

Clegg's current position is not to offer the British people a referendum on EU membership.  With opinion polls on membership suggesting that British public opinion is split, the momentum towards a referendum may well be gathering.  Although I am on balance on the same side of the fence as Clegg when it comes to arguing for Britain's membership of the EU, I believe Clegg is misjudging the mood of the Country in his refusal to endorse an in-out referendum.

My own personal support for an in-out referendum is not on the basis of believing the British people will ultimately vote to stay in Europe at all.  The truth is I don't know how the British people will ultimately vote.  I believe irrespective of what Britain would ultimately decide on it's EU future, that Europe is and will continue to be Britain's most important external relationship.  Europe is after all the market in which most British products and services are sold.  But with the British public divided, the UK needs clarity of where that most important relationship is to be managed from in the future.  Should it be from within the EU's institutions or outside those institutions?

I have already voted the same way as the Liberal Democrats in one referendum, and voted on the losing side.  It is now possible I may at some point be voting in a second referendum in the same direction as this largely pro-European party.  I don't so much fear backing the losing horse in a second referendum.  Ultimately there is nothing to fear in democracy.  However if Nick Clegg is still Liberal Democrat Leader whenever an EU in-out referendum does finally arrive, the best possible case for Britain staying in the EU may not be made.  That would be a tragedy for British democracy.

Clegg's judgement in firstly challenging Farage to the EU debates, and his subsequent performance in those debates, does not breed confidence.  If the Liberal Democrats do perform very badly in May's European Elections,  I would not be surprised if it is Clegg's very own leadership of the Liberal Democrats that becomes his next serious debate!

Alex Salmond is so misunderstood by the English!

I will make the point that I would prefer Scotland to reject the Scottish First Minister's vision of an independent Scotland.  

The main reason I take this position is to echo the views expressed by the former British Conservative Premier Sir John Major.  Sir John has spoken of the prospect of a much diminished UK losing global influence, and maybe even losing it's permanent seat on the UN Security Council!  I would like to think that Scotland as a whole would recognise that a weaker UK with less global influence would not be spiffing for them also.  Plus Scottish Devolution has delivered more decision making closer to the Scottish citizen, and that distinct Scottish identity continues to thrive on the international stage through Scotland's various sporting teams.

Despite my preference for the Scots to say No, I would warn against jumping on an anti-Salmond bandwagon.  Just because someone feels Scotland is better outside the framework of the Union, it does not necessarily mean they are intrinsically anti-English!  In fact I personally don't think that either the man himself nor Nicola Sturgeon (his Scottish Nationalist Party Deputy) are anti-English at all.  In the event of a Yes vote it would almost certainly be in the rest of the UK's interest to have cordial relations with whoever forms the first Government of an independent Scotland.

As much as some English Politicians like UKIP's Nigel Farage are quick to make the point of how Salmond is good at goading the English, Salmond is correct when he speaks of how Britain is imbalanced economically due to London dominance.  One point in support of this imbalance is the transport spending per head for London residents being far superior to the spending per head in the north of England.  Whether an independent Scotland is the answer to this imbalance is debatable.

I personally favour Regional Devolution in the English Regions as a means to correct this imbalance.  The people of the North East had the opportunity to bring more powers closer to the people in the 2004 devolution referendum.  I am not saying the rejected North East Assembly could have assumed powers to give the people in that region free prescriptions, as Salmond has been able to.  But it is important to realise that the decision of the North East electorate (had it been to embrace devolution) could have gone some way to challenge the dominance of London and the South-East.

In getting to the unbalanced point some people try to make about Salmond being anti-English, it is important to remember that this particular referendum in the North-East was not one in which Mr Salmond had any influence over.  Salmond is also correct when he refers to an independent Scotland being no more a foreign country to the remainder of the UK than the Republic of Ireland is.  Is anybody seriously saying that the current Irish Premier Enda Kenny and his Government are anti-British?  But perhaps more crucially, do the majority of Brits see the Irish as foreigners?  Of course not!

When arguments were made recently made along the lines of how absurd it would be for an independent Scotland to share the pound, Salmond looked on the back foot.  His fightback in terms of suggesting how high the currency exchange costs would be on English Business, has perhaps turned this fascinating debate on it's head.  That is not to say Salmond may be exaggerating the extent to which English industry would be at a loss.  But let's face it- exaggeration of the facts is something all politicians of all colours engage in, for better or for worse!

Fracking, Cameron, and the Crimea!

British Prime Minister David Cameron has gone on record this week to state that the Crimea crisis should serve as wake up call to those nations heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, and hopes that fracking of shale gas moves to the top of the European political agenda.  The PM also believes the Crimean situation should remind Britons that it is their duty to support fracking.

Some of the regions of England which are believed to contain the biggest reserves of shale gas are northern regions, which in an economic sense are not achieving their full potential in a country dominated by London and the South-East.  Fracking is an example as to why more legislative power is needed in northern regions.  There are of course other reasons why English regions need greater powers to correct a democratic deficit.

The Ukrainian crisis has no easy answers.  The United Nations General Assembly has this week proclaimed the recent Crimean Referendum to be illegal.  Indeed the referendum ballot paper not giving Crimeans the option of remaining a part of the Ukraine, is more than concerning.  But that said, I believe it is still so obvious looking in from the outside that there is still a clear majority of Crimeans who do wish to rejoin Russia, their natural homeland.

I believe the Ukrainian crisis is in it's early days.  For me, it looks at present that it is not in the EU's interest to absorb Ukraine in it's current form, especially eastern Ukraine.  Any solution will need to find a formula that will not only embrace the self-determination of Crimea and maybe other regions in the east of Ukraine, but which also enables minority peoples such as the Crimean Tatars to be given resettlement options in Western Ukraine.  A solution will also need to enable the US and the EU to be able to save face.

There could well be some good arguments for fracking that prove to offer on balance more benefits than negatives.  However in a South-East dominated England, it needs to be highlighted that it is those regions potentially rich in shale gas reserves (such as Northern English regions) that will most feel the benefits and negatives of fracking.  Ultimately, these regions need the devolution of more legislative powers to not only correct a democratic and economic deficit, but also give citizens the confidence that fracking regulations are being tailored to their interests.  DAVID CAMERON MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH USING THE SITUATION IN THE  CRIMEAN PENINSULA AND THE UKRAINE TO WIDEN THAT DEMOCRATIC AND ECONOMIC DEFICIT FURTHER!

Is the tide turning against Capital Punishment?

Glenn Ford was released from prison in Louisiana last week after three decades on death row.  This man has lost three decades of his life.  That said, had the fight on his behalf not been ongoing throughout this period, he may well have been sent to the electric chair.

In a casual debate on the subject of the Death Penalty with a friend (who has an opposing point of view to mine) some time ago, the point was made that advances in DNA will make miscarriages of justice less likely going forward.  My reply to that viewpoint is that forensic techniques can always be questioned at a later stage in time.

Whilst the case of Glenn Ford highlights how easily the wrong man can be convicted of murder in any advanced criminal justice system, there are other reasons why I personally object to the Death Penalty being re-instated in the UK.  Dr Allen Ault, a former Corrections Commissioner for the US State of Georgia has recently likened administration of the death penalty to the state committing murder.

During an emotional BBC interview last month, Dr Ault explained why he is now an opponent of the Death Penalty.  The interview confirmed to me that my own instincts on the subject of the Death Penalty are correct.  Some supporters of the Death Penalty will speak of the deterrent effect.  Dr Ault explained that from his experiences of having spoken to Prison inmates, that a murderer will rarely think through the consequences of their actions when carrying out a terrible act.

I have always personally been opposed to the death penalty.  The risk of a miscarriage of justice as in the case of Glenn Ford, is too high.  Also as Dr Ault indicates, it effectively lowers the state to the level of an individual who commits a most heinous crime.  Lowering the state to such a low level has always been a very important argument in my own mind.  But another important reason could concern the red herring that is the deterrent effect?

Most American citizens are still in support of the death penalty, believing in it's deterrent effect.  With polling figures suggesting the support for the Death Penalty not to be as strong as in previous eras, MAYBE IT IS NOW TIME FOR SOME AMERICAN POLITICIANS WITH COURAGE TO STAND UP AND INFORM PEOPLE CORRECTLY!

Could Ed Milliband live to regret EU Referendum fudge?

Ed Milliband has now indicated that he would only support an in-out referendum on Britain's membership of the EU,  if there was a treaty proposing a further transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels, should Labour win next year's British general election.  Mr Milliband also indicates that he considers this to be an unlikely scenario.

The issue of Europe has not been a particularly divisive issue within the Labour Party over the last twenty five years.  However, it has been a very big problem in the Conservative Party throughout this period.  Therefore, is Milliband putting party interest ahead of national interest?

It could well be that by not putting the question to the people, the issue of Europe could continue to see a divided Conservative Party in opposition.  Europe is arguably the issue which has divided the Tories the most since the Corn Laws!

What Ed Milliband's new position does not do is support the interest of the country at large, including many Labour voters.  Also, history does show that Labour were previously divided on Europe in the 1970s, prompting the then Labour Premier Harold Wilson to hold an in-out referendum in 1975, after securing renegotiated membership terms of what was then known as the Common Market.

Graham Stringer and John Mann are two Labour MPs who have come out against their leader's stance.  Both men are clearly in touch with British public opinion, which is telling them that a referendum is what the people want!  Should Labour win next year's election, it is far from certain that they would secure a healthy parliamentary majority, if indeed they are a majority government at all!

If Messrs Stringer and Mann continue to be ignored, could that pave the way for Labour to endure similar divisions as the Tories?  I will predict one thing- there will be other MPs in addition to Stringer and Mann, who will be at odds with Milliband over this!