Midterm blues: Can Cameron step up?

All governments suffer from mid-term blues, but for the current administration, it appears to be getting worse and worse. Since Chancellor George Osborne’s spring budget, the Conservative party’s poll ratings have fallen to their lowest in eight years.

Beyond the double-dip recession, the government has encountered negative press coverage regarding granny taxes, pasty taxes, charity taxes, caravan taxes and IMF loans. Furthermore, serious questions have been raised over the Home Secretary Teresa May’s inability to deport the hate preacher Abu Qatada and the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s dealings with News International over the BSkyB takeover. It was finally capped off after one Tory backbencher labelled both the Chancellor and Prime Minister David Cameron as ‘two arrogant posh boys who don’t know the price of milk’.

Osborne was recently asked when he last ate a pasty

By all precedents, the government of the day should not be too concerned about ratings half way through a Parliament. In 1981, Margaret Thatcher suffered terrible poll ratings, only 18 months into her tenure. Likewise, Tony Blair and New Labour faced an internal meltdown after the 2000 autumn fuel protests. Both went onto to win comfortably in the ensuing general elections.

As ridiculous as it sounds, the government of the day must also be prepared to take a battering in local and other elections. In 2008, during a recession and the unfolding days of Gordon Brown, New Labour lost the mayoralty election in London, nine councils and 334 councillors. When voters go to the ballot box this week, Labour will expect a host of victories across the country, whereas the Tories and Liberal Democrats should expect a decline in the polls. It is an ongoing exercise of electoral swings and roundabouts.

Strategically, the government’s main concern will be focussed on the next general election, probably in 2015. It is a time when voters truly voice their views on the current administration and whether they deserve another term in office. For the Tories, at this midterm point, the possibility of a majority government looks rather bleak. Despite a raft of radical policies including education and welfare reform, the payback is by no means guaranteed. Not only are they shackled to the electorally unpopular Lib Dems and face a slumping economy, but fundamentally, the Tories are still failing to shake off their image as a party of the rich.

Despite the government’s mission to reduce the size of the state and tackle the burden of a welfare culture, the Labour party constantly harangues the government’s ‘all in this together’ message and the current Cabinet’s composition of millionaires. Introducing reform to the NHS is portrayed as privatisation. Reducing the higher rate of tax from 50p to 45p, though economically sensible, is viewed as a tax break for millionaires, not so wise at a time of wage freezes, high unemployment and high inflation. It should be noted that Labour, still burdened as economically incompetent by the electorate, has yet to announce any of their own policies.

These problems link to the government’s ineffective communication strategy. Not only is the message weak, but it lacks the hard hitters to consistently reaffirm it. Mrs Thatcher’s attack dog was Norman Tebbit, whilst New Labour wasn’t afraid to throw John Prescott or John Reid to fend off the media. Despite the obvious constraints of dealing with a coalition government, even Conservative-only issues such as the current involving Jeremy Hunt lack any high-fliers to defend him. Apparently BBC Newsnight could only find backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg willing to appear on air. In a world of Twitter and 24-hour news, where opponents have a platform to criticise you immediately, it is important to have lieutenants in place to control the message.

Health Secretary's heckling.

It is twenty years since John Major was elected as Prime Minister in the 1992 election. Amazingly, Major polled over 14 million votes; the highest by any British party leader, even Blair and Thatcher. Perhaps it is more extraordinary when one contends the discontent regarding the poll tax and the effects of the ‘Lawson boom’. Certainly, no leader could expect such a result with the growth in regional parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP, but how ascertainable is winning a majority?

A recent poll by the Conservative Home website states that only 23% of party members believe that David Cameron can win a majority in the next election. Cameron is an extremely talented politician and continuously has better poll ratings than his party, not to mention other party leaders. Since his leadership victory in 2005, he has helped the Tories rebrand themselves as greener and more caring. However, no inquiry has taken place as yet to see why the Conservatives did not win an outright majority in the 2010 election. Why was it that a tired and economically-imprudent Labour party managed to hang on to as many seats as they did? According to some sources it is something you dare not speak about when in Number 10.

As the story in today’s Sunday Times suggests, ethnic minority voters are still wary to vote Tory. In fact, only 16% voted Conservative in the last election. This should be concerning because beyond the fact that this population is set to make of a fifth of the electorate by 2050, many of the party’s traditional pro-business and pro-family policies should attract these voters, not deter them. It highlights not what the party represents but what it says and looks like. There are few Tory MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and we certainly don’t hear from them. It is the same in regards to the north. Maybe besides Eric Pickles, we rarely hear any northern accents. The party’s policy agenda has been impressive, yet it tends to be the same old faces that we hear from.

More talented politicians from different backgrounds like Paul Uppal MP

Maybe it is possible to over analyse these things, particularly halfway through an election cycle and when things look slightly unfavourable. As Norman Tebbit says, “if suspected terrorists were being kicked out, taxes and unemployment were going down and pay going up, it wouldn’t matter if it was being reported that the Prime Minister liked to lay in the baths full of champagne drinking Chateau Laffite, after a hard day’s hunting on one of Rebekah Brooks’s horses, the public wouldn’t give a damn.” Probably true as well.

If Cameron fails to win the next election, no matter how popular and reforming he may be, he will always be held in a lower regard. Certainly lower than Thatcher, most likely Major and perpetually compared to Heath.  It will not be Osborne stepping up, but one Boris Johnson.

UK Economy: Where to next?

What a fine mess we have got ourselves into. Today, Britain became the latest country to return to recession after figures revealed that the British economy shrunk by 0.2% between January and March this year. After months of commentary asking whether Britain would face a double-dip recession, the Chancellor George Osborne will now face a brutal bombardment to whether his plans are working.

The belief in the Treasury was that growth would not be easy to come by, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast growth at 0.8 per cent in 2012 and 2.1 per cent in 2013. The original figures were far more hopeful.

The admission that the target to wipe out the budget deficit within this Parliament would not be fulfilled only made the Chancellor and his Treasury team more resolute. Whilst America has seen a healthy return to growth, Britain has been undermined by the uncertainty caused by the debt crisis within the Euro zone. The bite of austerity would continue for at least another two years into the next Parliament.

Ironically, as these harsher conditions have ensued, the government debt is actually increasing. The loss in tax revenues has meant the Coalition will increase national debt to around £1.4 trillion by the end of this Parliament. So whilst the budget deficit may eventually be eradicated, there will still be a long term national debt burden for future generations to deal with. Economists are still uncertain of the long term effects of low interest rates combined with tranches of quantitative easing.

So was the Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls correct? Was the coalition government cutting ‘too far and too fast’? It appears now that the coalition’s strategy is running at the same timescale as former Labour chancellor Alastair Darling expected it to before the last general election. According to Mr Balls the coalition has made the cuts but created no growth.

However, despite the poor headlines for the Chancellor in recent weeks, it is unlikely to shake him and his Liberal Democrat partners. Mr Balls has been vociferous, yet despite his so-called ‘five point plan’ he is yet to suggest anything of substance. The double-dip may actually force pressure on the Labour treasury team to announce some of their ideas, a stage which may get them caught out.

The previous set of employment figures showed that for the first times there were more jobs created in the private sector than lost in the public sector, a trend that Mr Osborne can only hope to continue. Today’s figures if anything are more likely to make the Chancellor ignore calls from the opposite benches and look towards greater market reforms from the right. As chief strategist of the Conservative party, be certain it will not be something he is willing to get wrong.

2012: Arab Spring or Fall Back?

During 2011, the Arab political world was transformed as hard-line dictatorships were removed by a movement fronted by a new generation of well-educated, communicative and assertive citizens. Tired of inherent corruption, police brutality and economic mismanagement, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets with a will for change and democracy. In a matter of weeks, decades-old autocracies fell in both Egypt and Tunisia. Whilst across the border, a popular armed rebel movement, backed by NATO, dethroned a former Arab revolutionist turned tyrant, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi.

Yet a year after the start of these successful rebellions there is an increasing amount of uncertainty across the region, and worryingly beyond. New fault lines are developing within these new democracies and the avenues of new media are being stifled by the traditional realms of international diplomacy. In Bahrain, little support has been given to the oppressed Shia majority, whilst in Yemen, the West was reluctant to see President Ali Abdullah Saleh replaced. All the while in Syria, the death toll continues to rise as the international community struggles to deal with the brutal excesses of the Assad regime.

Assad: Belligerent

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, a youthful generation looked forward to a new set of ideals at home and abroad. Yet that generation, now part of the political elite, find themselves coupled with an economic crisis and an ever-mutating world.  The tide of the past two decades has made them increasingly fraught and reluctant to react. They have come to learn, with great expense and millions of deaths, that the succession of democracy and elections does not necessarily lead to economic growth or security. A decade of war in Afghanistan has caused no ends of trouble and still no long-term solution lies in place. Iraq, Pakistan and Syria are all issues that could easily explode beyond borders. Sclerotic institutions such as the UN hold legitimacy, but lack authority. Whereas regional bodies like the African Union (AU) and the Arab League remain divided by stasis and affliction.

The Arab Spring appeared different because the uprisings were led by an internal opposition. International voices highlighted their commitment to human rights, political reform and democracy, but nothing beyond. The memories of Algeria and Iraq meant that the West was reluctant to commit to anything other than rhetoric. Yet here were revolutions that were relatively bloodless and demanded change with so called ‘Western values’. The Libyan revolution required NATO help and incurred losses, but with an ultimate desire for freedom.

However, the flourishing hope appears to be diluting. Syria is fast turning into a cauldron. The UN ceasefire appears to exist purely as a memorandum. Russia and China indignantly reject any action towards President Assad, whereas other Western powers remain divided on whether to arm his opponents. Meanwhile; Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar are concerned at the subversive role played by Iran and Hezbollah. In the past year alone, over 9,000 people have died due to the violence, if this turns into a regional war then who knows how big the death toll will become.

In Africa, unrest is dispersing across several countries. Guinea-Bissau suffered a coup d’état, Nigeria is dealing with a violent insurgency in the north. Tuareg mercenaries, armed by Colonel Gadaffi, have captured the northern half of Mali, including the town of Timbuktu, and have declared independence from Bamako. Whilst in the east, the bloodless secession of South Sudan from Sudan is fast turning ugly. Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir recently called his former countrymen ‘the enemy’. Already factional fighting and bombing has occurred across this fragmented, yet, oil-rich region. The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended over 50 years of civil war, a legacy that left over two million dead. Former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki has been unable to get the leaders of Khartoum and Juba to sit down for talks. As Mbeki says, both countries are trapped in the ‘logic of war’.

A year after independence are the Sudanese heading for war again?

As combat operations in Afghanistan wind down and the bite of defence cuts hits NATO nations, the prospect of future interventions remains doubtful. Unless organisations like the UN are willing to reform then who is to stop anything? The lessons after the Cold War have made industrial nations wary of change. If these countries lack the foundations and institutions of a democracy, then who’s not to say that it won’t fall apart in years to come?

2011 was a year that brought change for the Arab world, bringing hope and prospects for a new generation. We will see whether 2012 will continue to bring those fortunes or just the hangover from hell.

Venuste Niyongabo: How one man gave Burundi hope.

Burundi is a country that does not stir the popular imagination for most people in the world. Situated in Central Africa, with a population of just over ten million, the small landlocked country seldom gathers the news headlines.

In April 1994, a flight returning from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, was approaching the airport in Kigali, Rwanda. On board were the Rwandan President, Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian President, Cyprien Ntaryamira, returning from UN peace negotiations in Arusha. As the plane approached to land, it was hit by two surface-to-air missiles, exploding immediately. All twelve passengers on board were killed instantly. Few could have foreseen what would happen next. In the following 100 days, around 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and Hutus were butchered as Rwanda imploded into a cauldron of murder. Thousands were hacked to death by machetes and millions more were displaced, all the while the world stood still.

The neglect and the shame have meant that the world eternally remembers Rwanda, yet no one remembers Burundi.

Even before 1994, Burundi had suffered its own internal conflict. For decades, ethnic Hutus had suffered economically and politically under the existing regimes. Yet in 1991, a non-ethnic Parliament and new constitution was agreed, and in 1993 the country elected its first Hutu President, Melchior Ndadaye. Hope quickly dissipated. Within three months Ndadaye was assassinated by Tutsi extremists. The death of Ntaryamira and violence in Rwanda only made the situation worse.

Yet one Burundian held different aspirations. Venuste Niyongabo, a Tutsi from the south of the country, was preparing for the Summer Olympics to be held in Atlanta, Georgia. As one of the world’s poorest countries, Burundi did not have a proud sporting reputation. It sent its first athlete to the 1988 games in Seoul and only formed the country’s Olympic committee in 1993. With few televisions in Burundi, Niyongabo had no idea what to expect of the games. Not only was he was to compete in the 5000m, against the feared Kenyans but in a race that he had only ran twice before!

For athletes nowadays, the biggest fear before entering into a big competition is injury. For Niyongabo, a week before the 5000m finals, he learnt that Burundi had suffered yet another military coup d’état. With few details and poor communications with the world, the Burundian delegation in Atlanta had no idea what was going on back home. Niyongabo had no idea what was happening with his family.

Yet on 3 August the as the athletes prepared to run, at the height of a civil war, the Burundian nation stopped to listen to their radios. According to some reports, rebels refused orders as they listened to Niyongabo compete. It was to become a special day for the whole nation as their man beat all the favourites to stroll home and take gold, the country’s first Olympic medal. It caused great celebration within the Olympic village as everyone partied. According to one report, the Burundian Minister danced despite the fact he was no longer a Minister.

The world, now fully aware of African conflicts and obsessed by tribal enmities, asked Niyongabo whether his win was for the Hutus or the Tutsis? Niyongabo replied that his win was for the whole country.

Burundi did not suddenly drop arms and stop the conflict. The ugly civil war continued for almost another decade, killing around 300,000 people and displacing many thousands more. Yet reports unravelled, similar to the Christmas Day truce in World War One, that on that day soldiers were told not to fire their weapons and celebrate Niyongabo’s success.

Niyongabo never went onto gain the same success as he did in Atlanta that night. His career was blighted by injuries. Yet he spurred on a legacy for which he can be proud. Burundi has sent athletes to every Olympic Games since 1996 and continues to emulate the victory of its only Olympic medal. Niyongabo now lives in Italy where he helps promote friendship and fraternity through sport. We can only hope that in London we see the same.

South Ossetia: An election for?

One would not think that a country with a population of around 70,000 people would cause much of an international fuss. Yet, South Ossetia, a Russian-occupied Georgian enclave held its third Presidential election within five months yesterday, with ex-KGB chief Leonid Tibilov declared as the winner after taking 54 per cent of the poll in a run-off.

Situated in the historically troubled Northern Caucasus, South Ossetia has long declared a battle of independence to unify itself with its northern neighbour, North Ossetia. Yet the events of history have seen the Ossetian people stranded in one of the regions ‘frozen conflicts’.

It is worth knowing that Ossetians speak their own language and were one of the many different ethnic groups that made up the former Soviet Union. Despite the great cultural and political links between Georgia and South Ossetia, the calls for reunification have always been strong. The South Ossetian Popular Front declared independence in 1990 resulting in a minor conflict lasting until 1992. More recently, the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, which overshadowed the Beijing Olympics, saw the futures of Abkhazia and South Ossetia again come into question.

The political deadlock since 2008 has caused difficulties both regionally and globally. Georgia, an ally of the West and a ‘promised’ future member of NATO believes that the elections will lead to puppet regimes of Russia, as well as denying suffrage to Georgians expelled from the region. Whereas Russia, particularly President-elect Vladimir Putin, believes it is in his country’s interest to look after its so-called ‘near abroad’.

The first poll in November was annulled after Russia’s preferred candidate lost unexpectedly to an anti-corruption campaigner. Since 2008, Russia has kept troops in the region, whilst pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. It is one of only five nations to have recognised South Ossetia as independent along with: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru and Tuvalu.

The election does raise many questions; most profoundly about how do countries get independence and the goals of Russian foreign policy. These countries were all formerly members of the USSR and since the break up, many have become independent and more worryingly to Moscow, have looked to the EU and NATO for support. Chechnya and Dagestan have both fought bitter insurgencies against Russian troops since the early 1990s; it is only through the Kremlin’s recognition of strongmen in charge, normally in return for aid and weapons, plus a blind eye to the abuse of democracy that it has been able to retain its sphere of influence. Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych and Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov all curry favour and influence with Putin and Medvedev. It is a question of whether Russia acts as neutral peacemakers or conniving troublemakers in the region.

For South Ossetians, how much will their lives change? As liberating as it was for the likes of Poland or Lithuania? Or marginalised like Kosovo or Moldova? Independence is not only a struggle for democracy, but also recognition. South Ossetia may become independent and then unified or possibly rejoin Russia, but what then does that mean for its people?