So I sing a song of hate, Julius Malema

African political leaders have always had a difficult ride from the foreign press during their time in office. Whether it is their links to corruption, war or ineptitude then many leaders are tarred with the same brush. Last month candidate Michael Sata defeated incumbent Rupiah Banda to become Zambia’s new President, yet much of the foreign attention focussed on the fact that there had been no ethnic violence, electoral fraud or a reluctance to stand down, like we saw in Cote d’Ivoire last November. The beacon for African democracy to flourish through Western eyes is seen through the South African lens. After the years of Apartheid and South Africa’s isolation internationally to the freedom of Nelson Mandela, the rainbow nation, is the litmus paper to whether democracy is working on the continent. Yet, the man who steals all the headlines is not the current President Jacob Zuma, it is the firebrand leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) Julius Malema.

Malema a pugnacious and part of South Africa’s black ‘nouveau riche’ has gained attention for his virulent views and standpoints on politics and economics. When Malema first hit the scene, what was noticeable was his poor use of the English language, yet his ability to court controversy has made him infamous. Malema has demanded that private enterprise particularly the mining sector be confiscated and nationalised. He believes that the sizeable white minority of South Africans still control far too much of the land and this should be handed back to the poor black population, by force if necessary. At ANC rallies, he famously sang the Apartheid song ‘Shoot the Boer’, Boer being a reference to the non-indigenous white settlers, something that has seen him reprimanded for by the police and the legal system.

Approaching 100,000 followers on Twitter, he has been able to maximise his exposure to the international press, and again for the wrong reasons. In 2010, he criticised a BBC journalist Jonah Fisher after he had questioned Malema’s wealthy background and was subsequently expelled from the press conference. He has criticised the role of Chinese entrepreneurs in South Africa, and last month has said that the Botswana government should be overthrown (though no one is quite sure why). In 2010 he met Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe and backed the land reforms that Mr Mugabe’s ZANU PF implemented in 2000, which crippled the Zimbabwean economy, he also called the opposition MDC party and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai imperialists.

For a long time, Jacob Zuma did not criticise the activities of Malema and the youth wing of the ANC. In fact, Malema told Zuma that he would ‘kill’ to ensure that he was elected as President, yet since then relations have become frostier. Zuma reprimanded Malema for many of his public comments and in return, Malema has become critical of Zuma in public, for example he did not like him backing the NATO campaign in Libya. Today, it will be decided whether Malema faces expulsion from the ANC as a whole. Many point out that Malema is insignificant and that the biggest issue for South Africa is its flagging economy and chronic corruption. Yet, for South Africa, after decades of struggle, the possibility of race becoming an issue does not bode well. The murder of the far-right leader Eugene Terreblanche in 2010 reopened some wounds that the country hoped had closed in the early 1990s. What is more concerning is that Genocide Watch, a Washington based organisation, has highlighted the dangers of Malema’s speeches and the fact the ANC has failed to remove him as leader of the ANCYL. It says that the country is at Stage 6 – preparation, stage 7 is genocide. It says, ‘Xenophobic riots and murders of foreign refugees as well as continuing hate crimes against Boer farmers and other whites have caused dark clouds to form over the rainbow nation’. Malema has been quoted as ‘Africa’s biggest racist’ and we shall see whether he can be stopped.

Backbench rebellion - another headache for Cameron.

Awkward George is often how its peers on the continent refer to Britain. For centuries, Britain did not interfere with the administrations or the wars taking place on the continent. Britain was a seafaring nation and although it dabbled in several continental wars, most notably against the French, it preferred to look further afield with its international policy. It was not until the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 (part of the War of Spanish Succession) where the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill (relation to Sir Winston), helped defeat Louis XIV and the French forces, that Britain became a force to be reckoned with on mainland Europe. Fast forward three centuries of warfare at Waterloo, the Crimea, Flanders and World Wars One and Two, Britain still appears to be uncertain of its relationship with Europe. For Prime Minister David Cameron, it will continue to give him and the Conservative Party a headache.

Last night, MPs voted on a motion (that had no legal binding) on whether there should be referenda to decide whether Britain should remain in the EU. For many, during a time when the 17 countries that are within the Eurozone and debating the currency’s future, it was an opportunity for Britain to redress the power balance and restore powers back to Westminster. They see the EU as an undignified institution, full of overpaid bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, who lack any accountability, squandering taxpayers’ money and dictating laws to European Parliaments that supersede the national sovereignty. Many Eurosceptics believe that EU legislation and red tape is placing barriers on UK businesses and stifling growth, something that could send the UK back into another recession. Last night’s vote saw 81 Conservative MPs back the motion, and despite the vote being unanimously put down, it could certainly be the beginning of trouble.

For backbench Conservatives, many who voted for and against the motion were displeased by the apparent aggressive nature used by the party whips. The vote was not binding and yet the Government sought to kill the bill as soon as possible. In doing so, it managed to generate more press coverage and appeared to reopen old wounds within the party that destroyed it from within back in 1993 up until 1997. The issue for Conservatives was highlighted by many of the speeches they gave to the House during the debate, some said they have promised to their constituents and associations that a referendum was something they believed in and to back down would appear to renege on their promises. The other points highlighted the fact that it has been over 35 years since Britain’s previous referenda on EU withdrawal, and within that time far from the economic market that the EU was, it has become a giant political project. Finally, if the debate wasn’t raised now, then when would be a good time to address these questions.

These displeased members are part of the first Coalition government in 70 years and for them climbing their way up the Ministerial ladder will be much more difficult than in previous administrations. They not only have to contend with Liberal Democrat appointments but with a party that is keen on promoting women into Government, this may be the best way of making their voices heard. In the vote on Maastricht in 1993, 41 MPs rebelled compared to last night’s 81. It took almost six years of the Blair Government to reach that mark and as political scientists pointed out; people enjoy the taste of rebellion and are only more likely to continue.

For David Cameron, the vote became a disruption as a leader and for his reputation in Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy apparently told him that he was fed up of Britain trying to meddle with Eurozone politics and many of his own MPs have deemed his leadership as weak. Cameron is part of a generation of politicians that are generally Eurosceptic and many of the comments he put forward to the house highlighted his displeasure with the organisation exactly. Yet, for Britain, one of the big players in European politics, to be outside of any discussions would be stupid. As Chancellor George Osborne and Foreign Secretary William Hague have pointed out, a fiscal union within Europe would make sense, yet with Britain on the outside, it would not take long before France and Germany would take control. Who is not to say this could affect the revenues of the City of London and all the while Britain is powerless to do anything. Britain has an important trading relationship within the EU and is too a big country to simply do what Norway and Switzerland do. For most Europeans the debates raised by Britain and the nation state is something they would associate with 19th and early 20th century politics, not early 21st. Cameron, Osborne and Hague are all aware of this but will be wary of the displeasure it brings among their own party and electorate.

When Britain joined the Common Market in the early seventies, Western Europe contributed almost 50 per cent of global trade and today it stands around 16%. Britain is right to question its relationship within the EU and what economic benefits it provides but we must have a sensible conversation and one that takes in all factors. Most British businesses have highlighted their issues with the EU but still remain reliant on its relationship. As long as the Euro crisis continues and Britain continues to contribute towards bailouts the debate isn’t going to go away.

Jobs for the boys - Ministers/Advisors/Hacks/Lobbyists - apply here!

Every Government is subject to criticism, whether it is policy, sleaze or accountability, every Government will be scrutinised for its failures by the press and voters alike. Much of the criticism directed towards the Coalition Government is the aura of privilege and patronage. Many voters do not believe the mutterings of Messieurs Cameron, Osborne or Clegg when they say ‘we’re all in this together’ in recognition of a faltering economy and increasing burdens on everyday families. All three men and much of the current Cabinet are millionaires and come from what most Britons would describe as exceptionally comfortable backgrounds; Eton, Oxford and a job in the City are far from most people’s realities. Perhaps we are now being exposed to an American trait that we expect all our politicians to show compassion and feel our every creak and groan on a day-to-day basis. I suspect that many suspicions of politicians do not stem from envy or contempt, most likely it is from mistrust. For a politician to hear the phrase ‘you’re all the same’ or ‘you’re just like the last lot’ is nothing new nor revealing, yet the resignation of Defence Secretary Liam Fox does highlight something tawdry and something that will continue to blight how politics works in this country.

Most people would not usually be interested in following the blogs or commentary of Whitehall watchers and probably did not read a great deal into the resignation of Dr Fox last week. Yet, most journalists within the Westminster village live within a scramble of politicians, lobbyists, PR advisors and other hacks, in what has truly become a blur. It is increasingly becoming more prevalent and the agents within the game are becoming ever transient, one commentator said that it is like ‘the pavement retiring to become the lamppost’ i.e. the advisors are becoming the politicians and the journalists are becoming the PR men, Westminster is a corridor of ‘suit and tie’ men.

Prime Minister David Cameron spent time before joining Parliament as a PR man and an advisor in the Home Office and Treasury. Chancellor George Osborne joined Conservative Head Office soon after leaving Oxford. Labour leader Ed Miliband was a policy advisor to Gordon Brown and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was a financial journalist before also joining Brown as an advisor. The London Mayor, Boris Johnson, was the editor of The Spectator and still writes a column in The Daily Telegraph. Not forgetting Tony Blair who took up various consultancy roles with companies such as JP Morgan Chase. It is all too common for Ministers who leave office too simply find a job with an international firm and continue their work with more subtlety and better pay. The nature of Westminster is that everyone knows each other and the lobbyists will pay big money to scoop any of that influence.

The issue that ultimately arises is how you tackle such a sport, if it is possible. Government is unlikely to kowtow to the Civil Service anytime soon and Ministers will continue to surround themselves with special advisors and spin-doctors. One thing that was interesting to read regarding the Liam Fox affair was that one commentator said ‘he was acting like an American politician’ and maybe it is true that we have reached that stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that his father used his contacts to help him obtain an internship in the City when he left University, but it is this culture that we need to curtail. I’m not quite sure how soon it’s going to happen.

You take the high road! - Scottish independence

Wales will be making final preparations for their Rugby World Cup semi-final tomorrow against France in New Zealand. Yet, as the only home nation remaining in the competition, many countries, including England, will be lending their support towards the French and beyond that New Zealand, to win the tournament outright. Sporting rivalries transcend traditional barriers and we are used to reading about hostilities descending across households when city rivals compete against each other in the local derby; but much of the national sporting rivalries have been antagonised from political factions and recently, the greater debate for Scottish independence and an English Parliament. Sport aside, would this really be a desirable outcome and would it really change the way the Union is governed?

For the past 10 years, a lone voice has become louder and louder in his desire to see a Scotland, independent of Westminster and England, his name is Alex Salmond. Salmond began his career as an economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) before joining the ranks of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to where he has become the most prominent actor. Salmond, who spent time as a SNP MP at Westminster before standing to become the First Minister at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, is best known for his quick and cerebral wit and expanding waistline. This aside, Salmond has continuously argued for greater determination for Scotland and one that can look after its own financial and strategic affairs.

Why would Scotland or Wales want to leave the Union? What has distinctly changed? In all fairness, calls for Welsh independence have been much quieter and the devolution acts at the turn of the last century were important in identifying the Welsh language and culture. Whereas in Scotland the calls have steadily grown, 50 years ago less than one per cent of the population voted for the SNP, yet now in 2011 we have a SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament. Why after over 300 years since the Act of Union in 1707 does Scotland see itself as more separate? For 300 years, Britain and the notion of ‘Britishness’ was distinct through Empire and the wars in which the Army and Royal Navy, drawn from all areas of the British Isles (including Ireland), fought. The wars in the Americas are notorious for the role of the Welsh Fusiliers and the Battle of Waterloo was lead by the cavalrymen of the Royal Scots Greys. It was also said that all across the Empire that for every Englishman there were ten Scotsman – building the railways or manning the garrisons in every isolated outpost. Yet, despite the link of the army and the Royal Family, links between ordinary families have declined with the dissipation of British industry. No longer, do Glasgow shipbuilders have the same links to the ports of Liverpool or Hull, nor the identity of Scottish miners with the collieries in Nottinghamshire or South Wales. Industrial decay has beset a British decline.

To the English, they have been irked by the so-called ‘West Lothian Question’ that has allowed Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, yet Westminster MPs could not hold sway over affairs north of the border. Party politically it is changing as well, the dominance of the SNP has saw the decline of traditional Labour safe seats and recently the Scottish Conservatives put forward an idea to move the party away from the its southern cousin. The English see the Scottish or ‘Jocks’ as lazy and subsidised by the revenues of the City of London. In fact, Aberdeen is the UK’s second richest city and Scotland’s budget deficit, if you include North Sea oil revenues, is well within the 3% limit of the European Union’s regulations, meaning it can compete without the handouts from England. Much of the scorn exists through the perceived inequalities that English taxpayers must pay for prescriptions, tuition fees and elderly care, something the Welsh and Scottish Governments provide free.

Alex Salmond has a vision of Scotland becoming a prosperous state, a mixture between Norway and Switzerland, an economy based on financial services and energy wealth. Scotland, as Europe’s windiest country, hopes to use the power of wind energy to become carbon neutral by 2020 and no longer rely on carbon fuel. However, the ‘arc of prosperity’ of countries like Iceland and Ireland that Salmond saw Scotland amongst, were engulfed in their own financial crises. Scotland’s two financial leviathans, the Bank of Scotland and RBS being saved by the UK Government and massively recapitalised by taxpayers’ money. Prominent Scots in England like the former Chancellor Alastair Darling said that an independent Scotland would have collapsed something Salmond remained muted about.

A Scotland with greater financial powers, control of its own waters (fisheries and oil) is the ideal that Salmond puts forward. Yet, the indecision within the Eurozone highlights the vulnerability of Scotland’s vision within the EU. After decolonisation we saw scores of new countries come into existence under the premise that life under your own flag is much better, yet despite globalisation, life for smaller countries relies on heavily on remittances from Diaspora and factors outside of their borders. The dream that Scotland will become a country similar to Scandinavian nations also seems uncertain, who is not to say that if Scotland obtains independence then the Shetland and Orkney Islands won’t follow the same path, taking the hydrocarbon revenues away with them.

The relationship that will continue to evolve for Scotland will probably be a semi-independent or ‘devolution max’, whatever you want to call it. One that retains the Royal Family, the currency, diplomatic corps and armed forces (minus Trident). Until then the English will continue to talk about Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars and the Scots will continue to back the opposition every time the England take to the sporting field.

Ed Miliband makes a move.

A quick word on Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet reshuffle, if you want the full list then click here. What was distinct about the General Election in 2010 was the huge turnover in MPs out of the House of Commons. Many had been caught up in the expenses scandal and many were, like New Labour, shown the door. Commentators have rightly said that the new 232 MPs have brought in new ideas and freshness to what had become a toxic chamber since the Daily Telegraph’s excellent reportage in 2009.

Ed Miliband has decided to promote some of these new MPs within the Labour ranks with the hope that they may bring new fortunes to what has been a difficult start as leader of the Labour party. It is a good move because it does clear out some dead wood and shows to the public that Labour is trying to move on from the difficulties of the past few years, but the issue for Miliband is that he has visibly moved the party to the left. Many Tory delegates, particularly on the right, have not liked some of the decisions Prime Minister Cameron has made this year, but it is visible to see that the Cameron government now occupies the centre of British politics, something they haven’t managed to do in over a decade.

The major problem for Miliband is that he needs to remain left of centre because otherwise people will ask why didn’t we just elect his brother. The next few years will show whether Ed is a leader or the a dud that many have already proclaimed. We shall watch intently.

There's more than one Carlos Tevez!

It is quite interesting to see that the Carlos Tevez affair is still ongoing and will continue to boil over until the Argentinean’s exit from Manchester City is finalised. Tevez, who allegedly refused to come on as a substitute in last week’s Champions League tie against Bayern Munich received much criticism for his actions from journalists, managers and ex-professionals. Anyone who has followed the career of the striker will be aware of his peripatetic drifting across the English Premier League from West Ham, where his goals saved them from relegation; to Manchester United , where he won trophies at home and abroad and finally Man City, where he earns an estimated £250,000 a week.

Many commentators have pointed to the analysis of former Scotland and Liverpool player Graeme Souness and now Sky pundit for his remarks. Souness said: (You can see them here)

“Why would a player not want to go on and help his teammates? How selfish can you get? Because you didn't start: how petulant can you be?


“You chase him as far as you can from Manchester tomorrow, because he is one bad apple and that can spread. He's a disgrace to football. Your man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with modern footballers. He epitomises what that man thinks."

I think the most interesting turn of phrase that Souness uses is ‘man on the street’. The ‘man on the street’ is what we perceive as the same social and economic background where most players came from, what we may deem as working class – the same grouping as the majority of fans. Yet football has moved on in so many different ways. The abolition of the wage cap in 1961 allowed footballers to earn much more money than previously, the revenue generated by television and consequentially global marketing made clubs and ultimately players wealthier. Perhaps most significantly, the landmark Bosman ruling allowed players to leave clubs at the end of their contracts giving them greater power over pay and contracts.

Modern day footballers are perceived as mercenaries that are inherently disloyal to fans. Yet, who’s not to say that players such as Bobby Moore or Stanley Matthews wouldn’t have done the same in their time, it’s just the framework was different back then. In the real world, people leave jobs all the time for better pay (granted not on the same scale) but no one calls them disloyal.

I can’t condone what Tevez did but nevertheless I don’t think we should have been as surprised by it all.

Party politics - wooing the delegates

As we reach the final week of the party conference season with the Tories in Manchester. It has given us an opportunity to assess the speeches from the leaders of the three main political parties and listen to their thoughts on important issues such as the economy, jobs and education. Yet as David Cameron takes the main stage to address Tory delegates, questions will be asked on how important the speech really is and whether the party conference season adds any policy ammunition to the Government of the day or whether it is just plain and simply a talking shop for leading figures to allay members’ fears.

Party politics in Britain no longer holds ideological differences that embattled a generation of politicians. Throughout the 1950s and up until the mid 1980s, it was easy to determine where each party lay and where their votes came from. The Americanisation of democracy and the revolution in electoral communications has meant that politicians are now under scrutiny for every move they make on 24-hour news. They also have to contend with an all-encompassing comment vanguard, who have a brigade of Twitter and Facebook followers. No longer are the views of Benedict Brogan or Nigel Lawson restricted to the inside sheets of the broadsheets, they are blogged, retweeted and then cited by other commentators. Politics is truly a pervasive sport.

So how powerful are the party members and how influential are they in dictating policy for their leaders? I would suggest not very. Politicians have always had political/policy advisors surrounding them and the constituent base was always the barometer to assess what the grassroots were feeling. Mrs Thatcher’s neo liberal ideas came through the Centre of Policy Studies founded by her policy guru Keith Joseph. New Labour formed under the stewardship of Alastair Campbell – a former tabloid political editor, Peter Mandelson – a television producer and Philip Gould – a pollster who had worked in American politics. David Cameron had a background in public relations, Gordon Brown did not. It is necessary for a modern day leader to be surrounded by a coterie of special advisors (spads), spin-doctors, pollsters and all other sorts of political professionals. Policies develop through focus groups, intellects and advisors, not the hoi polloi. Even the atmosphere surrounding the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a party notorious for its grass roots, was distinctly corporate rather than village hall.

The main reason is the growth of the swing vote. People no longer are associated with the local Conservative or Labour club, for reasons of time, family and changing habits. The local association’s main role is the fundraising for elections and the selection of candidates. Besides support, perhaps the most important thing they provide is information. They identify for whom an individual or family is likely to vote and trends within a community, age group or gender. Democracy is a set of ideas and values, but electoral politics is about getting more people to vote for you on polling day. Looking and sounding respectable and trusting is the best way to get their vote.

So the Conservative conference, according to figures from Conservative Home (the digital home of Tories), shows that 10 per cent of members dislike the Coalition and two-thirds believe that David Cameron has given too many powers away to the Lib Dems. Unsurprising results, you would expect. As it goes, much of the substance from the conference yesterday involved traditional Tory thinking, tackling illegal immigration and repatriating powers from Brussels. Yet for the Tories, particularly David Cameron and George Osborne, the real issues do not lie regarding the Lib Dems asserting themselves or showing the Government to be more compassionate to female voters (they do matter), it ultimately comes down to the economy.

Most Conservatives are concerned about the jobs and taxes and believe the rate of cuts needs to hasten before the burden is placed on businesses. They also believe that any future amendments of EU treaties should provide the UK with an opportunity to repatriate powers from Brussels, but let’s be fair, if slightly trite, you could put a blue brick on stage and most Conservatives would vote for it. David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues are aware of the ramblings on Europe, the Human Rights Act and the difficulty in winning the female vote but he and his advisors will be more aware that if he doesn’t get the economy right then come 2015 they could all be out of a job.