What do you think is the most important issue facing York outer at the moment?

Well, there are lots of issues that you find on the doorstep when you go round. There’s the threat to the local greenbelt of York, with local housing possibilities there. A lot of people are worried that their green space is going to be taken away.

There’s also a lot of concern about the lack of local infrastructure such as bus services, and bad traffic and things like that.

The economy also comes up regularly. People are finding a real insecurity over jobs and their future employment prospects. It’s an issue that we need to tackle.

Has David Cameron sealed the deal with the voters yet?

In a 24 hour media world, no one will ever seal the deal again. Blair was the last person I think ever to do that. What Cameron has done is offered something new. I remember when I first saw him speak, I was really impressed by David Cameron.

As the Conservative Party was, we couldn’t go on, we had to make changes. I think they have been made, and we have moved in the right direction. We now have a real opportunity to win. Cameron will bring the strong leadership that this country desperately needs.

Do you support Labour’s push for a referendum on a change to the voting system?

I can’t believe that Brown will put a vote through 90 days before an election and expects us to believe him that it’s genuine. They talked about it in 1997, and Gordon Brown was against it then.

He’s been against it all the way through, and now he’s putting it through. It’s nothing more than an olive branch to the Liberal Democrats.

We desperately need to rebuild trust in the political system, and electoral reform is not the way to go about it.

James Alexander – Labour Party

What do you think is the most important issue facing York outer at the moment?

The most important issue has to be the economy. It’s the same for the whole country, we need to make sure that we secure the recovery.

Labour has been doing that so far, and the country has now come out of recession, and the stimulus is working.

The most important thing is to secure the recovery. We can’t afford to turn off the tap now.

Do you think Gordon Brown damaged his chances by saying that he’ll serve a full second term?

Gordon Brown has been honest and straight with the public, and I think that’s right.

It would be wrong for him to say that he would serve a full term and then stop.

Do you support Labour’s push for a referendum on a change to the voting system?

I think it’s absolutely right that we have a referendum on this issue, as it’s something that the country needs to have a say on.

If the Alternative Vote system (AV) restores confidence in the political system, then it’s a good thing to do.

I remain to be convinced about AV, personally.

I am one of the few Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) who is not toeing the line on this one.

A group of us wrote a letter to Gordon Brown expressing our concerns over the issue.
I just don’t think it makes sense.

What do you think about the Tory’s proposals to decrease the number of MPs?

I think there are reason why they want to change the number.

It entirely depends on how it would affect the country.

Madelaine Kirk – Liberal Democrats

What do you think is the most important issue facing York outer at the moment?

They are the same issues as the country. We need a fair tax system to help bring people out of poverty. We would do that by raising the tax threshold. We also need a good education system, with fair access for all, which is something that we currently don’t have.

We would introduce the abolition of university tuition fees. We also need total access to the NHS across the country. It is not right that people are living for ten years fewer in some parts of the country than others. And of course, there’s the economy.

Did you not drop the tuition fees policy?

No, we didn’t. It is our policy to remove in the first year the fees for final year students, and to phase in the rest over a period of six years. We have had to make adjustments to it because of the economic climate.

Do you support Labour’s push for a referendum on a change to the voting system?

Wes support the Single Transferable Vote system (STV), and the Jenkins Commission recommends the STV+, which I think we would also support. The present system is still grossly unfair.

At the last General Election, Labour got less votes than the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems got 22% of the vote and only 10% of the seats. What it means is that some voters were basically disenfranchised, which is wrong.

What would you personally do in the event of a hung Parliament?

The Liberal Democrats will not enter into discussions with any party until after the people have cast their votes. The party with the largest number of seats must have the first option to create the government.

Only at that point would we enter into discussions with anyone.

Gordon Brown has done everything in his power to cloud over the welcome transparency of the inquiry.

Last Thursday, it was revealed by The Independent that Brown has refused to change a previous agreement that allows Whitehall to veto which information it can give up to the inquiry for publication. Writing to Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat Leader, who raised concerns about the arrangement, Brown proclaimed that he wanted to grant the inquiry “full and unrestricted access to all Government information,” but would not back down on the issue.

Brown had previously wanted the hearings to take place behind closed doors, not in the sphere of the public and media gaze.

Clegg accused the Prime Minister of breaking his “promises of full independence and openness” before the inquiry had even gotten off the ground. Add to this, the fact that Brown had previously wanted the hearings to take place behind closed doors, not in the sphere of the public and media gaze, and you start to get a worrying picture.

In this instance, I completely agree with Clegg. No-one should be fooled by the PM’s talk of openness for the hearings when all of his actions so vividly display his objection to such transparency.

In the light of negative public opinion, with regards to the closed-door political system, he should not be pushing quite so hard for a policy of concealment.

Not wanting to sound like the infamous Guido Fawkes blogger, but what exactly is Gordon Brown hiding? He was one of those who was very close to the action during the build up to the war. Does he know something that he wants to keep hidden?

It is difficult to see how a mere politically embarrassing document could evoke such protectiveness. Perhaps he is hiding something he knows to be illegal. Rest assured, sooner or later the truth will emerge.

“People who would unthinkingly support the police are being turned off by the methods that the police say will help to protect us all.”

The only response to this was, he suggested, that “everyone in Britain needs to become a freedom fighter.”

In an interview following the talk, he said that living in Britain is like “living in a policing-led state. It is like a frog in boiling water. We’re not in a police state yet, but the water is getting hotter. I believe that that all the things that Orwell wrote about can now happen in modern Britain.”

Green himself was arrested last year in conjunction with Home Office leaks, and had his offices and both homes searched by police, his DNA was also taken. He was however released without charge and eventually managed to get his records removed from the system.

“Idiotic,” was the term used to describe the DNA records system claiming that the number of people incorrectly stands at “850,000”. Green has been contacted by many people who were also released without charge following arrest and whose data was taken. “I have literally dozens of examples of cases where this has happened. And believe you me, DNA is not infallible.”

He said that the precautions were taken in the name of security, which made them “impossible to argue against. But in an attempt to stop terrorism, every piece of private information about you will be put on a database, and every arm of government will be able to access them.”

“People,” he added, “may have nothing to hide, but they definitely have something to fear.”

He expressed concern about the creation of the child database ‘Contact Point’, designed to identify children who are more likely to commit crimes than others. “It seems ridiculous” said Green, “but the Minority Report-style concept of a ‘pre-crime’ is alive and well.”

Green also outlined conservative policy on ID cards and taxes. He referred to the recent launch of ID cards in Manchester as “hilarious” saying “the Conservatives will scrap these immediately of we win the election, so you will have purchased nothing more than a souvenir of this government.”

On taxes he pledged that a Conservative government would reduce taxes in the long run; “over time, it will be the clear thrust of a Conservative government to reduce taxation.”

But for those who would see British blood at the top of the European greasy-pole, there is hope yet. David Miliband is considered by many to be the frontrunner for the job of High Commissioner, a £275,000 a year role that would see him need to resign his seats in Parliament before the General Election. Some sources even claim that he has already been offered, and accepted, the job.

If he gets the job, expect cartoonists to have fun with the image of a rat jumping from a sinking ship. Miliband’s resignation would mean that a by-election would need to be held in his constituency, and would occur before the general election itself. Even if Labour won, Brown would be in a very weak state, with one of his closest allies, previously seen as Prime Ministerial material, having effectively abandoned him at his hour of need.

With polls in the last month predicting the Conservatives anything up to a 100-seat majority at the next election, the last thing that Brown wants now is one of his key political players taken out of the game. Sadly, he may not have this choice, and could suffer the added humiliation of having to nominate Miliband for the job for the sake of procedure.

Brown’s frustration certainly showed last week during his outburst to the Spanish Prime Minister and Austrian Chancellor, in which he said that they face “permanent irrelevance” for not backing Blair for President. He was wrong. It is Brown who now faces becoming permanently irrelevant.

Money paid to the Liberal Democrats to subsidise their membership costs could lead to an unprecedented increase in their national standing at a student group. Elaine Bagshaw, Chair of Liberal Youth, said that the group could “get anything they wanted to vote for” at the twice-annual Liberal Youth conference if they all attended.

Offering free membership at Freshers’ Fayre radically increased the number of people who joined the society by a factor of ten. Madeleine Kirk is the Lib Dem candidate for the new constituency of York Outer, which contains the University and almost all of the students at York. A press release from her office boasted that “the York University branch is now the biggest Lib Dem student in the country after 115 new party members were recruited in just one day.”

Previous years have seen roughly 10 members overall. “It was not done with the intention of giving a [national] boost [to York]”, said Kirk, “but it was totally a local initiative. It certainly wasn’t bribery.”

Councillor Tom Holvey, who was on the Lib Dem stall at Freshers’ Fayre, said however that it would help boost York’s profile nationally with the Lib Dems. “It will definitely give York more kudos”, he said.

The money used came from individual donations from the local party, including councillors and local members. The total amount pledged would have covered the cost of 150 members of the party. Even though Kirk herself did not pledge money, she was aware of the deal and fully supported the donations. All the money pledged has been paid, with the excess “going into the kitty in case we wanted to do something like this again.”

Julian Sturdy, Conservative candidate for York Outer, said that the motives for local party involvement involvement were clear. “We have a general election round the corner and, being realistic, they were probably doing it for election purposes. If they’re not breaking any rules, then it’s up to them.”

“Essentially the groups are campus political organisations, and I believe that they should not be influenced by Parliamentary candidates or other outside organisations. I’m really a side role to the campus Conservatives: As a Parliamentary candidate, I shouldn’t be seeking to take over. But”, he added, “if she [Kirk] did give money, then it’s entirely up to her what she wants to do.”

The agreement to donate the money was reached between Craig Martin, Lib Dem chair at the university, and a number of local councillors last summer over an end-of-term BBQ.

Martin calls the money ‘sponsorship’, saying “we have never had enough members. I was always having to treble numbers when telling people how many we had, just to make us look like a worthwhile party. We decided to try this.”

“It is the best thing in the world for me to come into a society that was about to die and completely turn it around.”

There are two broad schools that the style of Presidency could fall into. They could play a similar role to the current temporary president; a low-limelight administrative task, allowing much to be achieved outside of the media glare. On the other hand, they could be a high-profile, statesman-like figure to represent the EU across the world. It is not difficult to guess which of these two Blair would embody. He has already said that he would not be interested in the job if it involved merely chairing meetings, but wants serious power to intervene over trade and defence policy. Ultimately, it is his role as an extrovert and statesman, rather than his European credentials, that are most likely to get him elected. It is in the EU’s best interests to have a President who will carry high levels of political currency with them when dealing with overseas governments and negotiating treaties and settlements.

For an organisation looking at an increasingly powerful Asia and growing international respect for NATO and the UN diminishing, the EU needs to be strong to keep its desired place at the top of the world stage. Blair not only has the record of successful peace talks in Northern Ireland under his belt, but a further five years as Middle-East envoy. Indeed, one of the reasons that the Americans partnered with the British over Iraq was the strong Middle-Eastern contact book that Blair could wield. Such a contact book will serve him well when acting on behalf of Europe as its self-appointed spokesman and representative abroad. His relationship with America should, conversely, work in his favour as well. Many people in Britain don’t realise is that, in the States, Blair was never seen as Bush’s poodle. He was well respected and taken seriously. True, he alienated much of Europe by allying with Bush. The links that he still maintains with the US will actually leave him well-equipped for a continuing relationship, unmarred by the British connection and Gordon Brown’s recent transatlantic humiliations over Afghanistan and Lockerbie.

Such a role would see Blair placed in previously totally inaccessible circles, such as expanding the G2, currently consisting of America and China, to include the EU.
Add to this the fact that he would be well placed for talks and negotiations with Russia’s premier Vladimir Putin. The resulting requirements for this job therefore need the international gravitas that Blair can muster, like few else. In this important first term of office, anyone with insufficient international standing will lead to the instant ridicule of the EU Presidency, and general weakening of the global influence of the body. One restriction on the position is that candidates must be the head or former head of government of an EU state. This cuts Blair’s list of opponents down to few who could seriously compete. Whether or not you agree with the proposals, the fact remains that the EU will have a President at the start of next year, and that the President is likely to be Tony Blair. Love him or hate him, this can surely only be good for the position of Britain’s within Europe as a whole.

Brilliance doesn’t have to be inaccessible. The 16th Leeds International Pianoforte Competition in September brings together 68 of the world’s best young pianists for three weeks, culminating in a televised final across two nights. The music is brilliantly executed, and there is enough variety within the programmes various to cater for even the most stubborn of classical music cynics.

The standard for entry and performance is fearsomely high. Of those 68 who entered, 14 had previously won prestigious international piano competitions, and a further 26 had won prizes in similar competitions.

A place amongst the top six in the final of the competition is often enough to launch a career. In 1981 Peter Donohoe came sixth and went on to launch an extensive career, including numerous concerts here at York. Previous winners are amongst household names of famous pianists, such as Murray Perahia.

Yet, with the bar set so high, and the expectation so lofty, the music is not inaccessible. Amongst the most popular composers played throughout the competition there feature some enduringly popular and enjoyable names. Chopin, Beethoven, Bach, Debussy, Brahms, and at the piano concerto stage of course, Rachmaninov, all feature on most pianists’ repertoires.

It is no surprise that these composers, along with many others, crop up so regularly. Their music is not only enjoyable to listen to, but allows the pianists to demonstrate both their flawless ability and their immense scope to interpret a piece and fill it with emotion and personality.

During the competition the periods for which the competitors have to play ever increases, with 12 semi-finalists playing for 65-70 minutes, all from memory. Each player must publish their full programme at the start of the competition, regardless of the stage they reach, and no piece can be repeated. All stages are open to the public, with student price tickets available.

The final, during which the competitors will play a full piano concerto with the world-renowned Hallé Orchestra, is an event that attracts high publicity and tickets are hard to come by. Three finalists play on each night, and all converge the second night for the announcement of the winner.

The final takes place in Leeds Town Hall, a venue that is more like the Albert Hall than your average town meeting place. There is very much an atmosphere of dignified excitement. Sitting waiting for the evening to start, it is impossible to know what to expect. Professional recordings of pieces can only go so far to bring all the various complexities and emotions out of a world renowned piano concerto.

The young Ukrainian pianist who was on first played Beethoven’s 5th piano concerto. The first note that was struck was spellbinding, and the performance only went uphill from there. There were moments when the layers of emotion within the playing surpassed anything I had heard before. Even for a professional classical concert, this was exceptional. It was almost impossible to believe that the pianist not more than a few metres away was only 21. Alexei Gorlatch was giving the performance of his life.

The other concertos that followed were Chopin’s 1st played by Alessandro Taverna, an epic voyage of musical wizardry and tenderness which showcased the young Italian’s sheer ability, and Brahms’ 1st, a technical labyrinth that the Russian Sofya Gulyak mastered to perfection and emerged to win the competition.

With the finals and the top six recognised for their outstanding achievements in reaching the world’s most prestigious piano final, there remains one final event in the entire competition. On the Sunday of the closing weekend, there is a Gala concert. The finalists once again return to the piano to play a short selection of their favourite pieces from their competition repertoire. This event is as easily accessible as each section of the competition previous to the final, and tickets are priced at only £10.

With a range of pieces that varied from Bach through Chopin and Debussy to Shostakovich and Prokofiev, there was an appearance by almost every era of classical piano. The selections are clearly the finalists’ favourites, which shows in their performances.

The attention and energy put into the concert is certainly no less than the exceptional standard that had been displayed prior to the event. There were, once again, some musical moments of breathtaking emotion and beauty.

The competition was, and remains, truly unforgettable.

As total blackness falls, the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation reaches boiling point. The stage is obscured by a giant hanging black cloth. Suddenly a thunder clap and the lightening of strobe lights send the venue into something approaching a frenzy. A single silhouetted figure stands behind the screen, and as the first chord strikes, the curtain drops to almost deafening noise from the crowd. Dream Theater have arrived in the UK.

The American progressive metal band, comprising of five members of virtuosic ability, have had an epic history. Almost 25 years ago, they were formed in the wake of bands such as Pink Floyd and Rush. They have since developed their own distinctive blend of innovative time signatures, pounding metal riffs, soaring vocals, and mind-blowing guitar and keyboard solos.

The set comprised of much of their new album’s material, which ranges from a nineteen minute account of a near-death experience, to a five and a half minute ballad. In a real treat, they also played three consecutive tracks from Scenes from a Memory, their 1999 concept album reckoned by many fans to be their best. Closing their set with the powerful In the name of God, they then returned to play The Count of Tuscany, a from their new album, as their encore.

It’s not just that the lighting is perfectly timed to the music. It’s not just the chemistry between the band or the fact that the crowd knows every beat of every song. Nor is it the twenty minute epic tracks or the blistering solos.

It can only be described as sheer magic.

The case of Tim Ngwena reportedly commenting that York is too geek-ridden, when he in fact said ‘geese’, is amusing. But it raises a serious question; are there really too many geeks at York? The answer to this depends on several things. Firstly, whom you define as a ‘geek’, and secondly, how many geeks would constitute as too many.

Firstly, we must find an definition of the term ‘geek’. The dictionary provides us with three options. A) A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy. B) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept. C) A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.

Let us consider these. There is a notable absence of those who might fit into category C roaming around campus, which is a sad oversight in my opinion. Perhaps York could introduce courses that would attract more of these types, such as an Animal Mutilation for Purposes of Amusement BA. Those who fit into category A can be written off, as neither clumsiness nor foolishness fit into a single stereotype that can be identified as too numerous amongst students. Definition B, on the other hand, conjures up images of nerdy-looking, glasses-wearing obsessives. While demonstrating impressive abilities in the scientific field, they will probably be uncomfortable around large groups of people, and are most likely introverts at heart. Put simply, the ‘genius loner’.

The burning question now remains – are there too many of these people at York?

Looking at the facts, some of the best inventions in the world wer from these socially inept genii. Frank Whittle spent his spare time reading in the library, before going on to invent the jet engine. Konrad Zuse resigned from a perfectly interesting job building aircraft to work in his parents’ apartment to create the first computer, and George de Mestral spent his childhood designing planes rather than playing football. Oh, and he later invented Velcro.
Too many of these people? Why would we ever want less of them?

YUSU, despite receiving a larger block grant this year than in 2008/09, has reduced the amount allocated to York Sport from £124,000 to £94,000, of which £67,000 goes directly to clubs in grants. The remainder is used for committees, facility hire from the Sports Centre, members’ insurance, and BUCS affiliation.

Following severe cuts to sports club’s grants last year, many were forced to ask York Sport for financial assistance. Increased transport costs, and the mandatory change in kit colours following a re-branding of York Sport, led to unexpected expenditure. This year, however, emergency help will not be available.

Rosamund Wood, York Sport Treasurer, has described the situation as “critical”, and voiced concerns regarding the financial stability of the Union’s sports’ wing.

“We bailed out a lot of clubs last year. If they are forced to turn to us again, we don’t have the financial support to keep them running,” she explained.

Emily Scott, York Sport President, defended the cuts, saying “the YUSU budget only went up slightly, but costs have increased by a larger proportion.”

Despite Wood’s predictions, Scott maintained that if necessary, “YUSU will of course offer support [to York Sport] should the need for it arise.”

Many clubs have expressed worry that a shortfall will have to be passed onto members, who already have to pay for kit and York Sport membership in addition.

Scott, however, argued that the clubs did not have to pass the cost directly onto members. “Evidently sponsorship is hard to come by at the moment, but that does not mean that people should not try. Some clubs may indeed need to raise their membership prices, but they have also been encouraged to raise money through other means rather than just having an up-front cost that may well deter people from playing their sport,” she said.

One of the clubs in deepest financial trouble is the Boat Club, whose grant of £2,187.80 is less than half of what it received two years ago. President Ashley Haycock says that the money doesn’t even cover basic insurance for the equipment. “We simply have to charge members more. It also means that we can’t develop the club,” she said.

The members pay for their own personal river insurance which, when coupled with essential membership expenses, brings the cost of joining the rowing team to £211 for the year, with additional charges for race entries.

Haycock lays the blame firmly with York Sport. “Even on £5,000 we were never in a position to be able to buy new boats. The problem was Alex Lacy [last year’s York Sport President]. York Sport just doesn’t understand rowing as a sport. We have one of the best rivers in the country to row on, and for people who are serious about rowing, that will affect their choice of university,” she said.

The University Volleyball Club has also faced severe cuts. “Last year we got £600 at the start of the year, which was insufficient. We were then given an extra £700 for travel costs. We ran through £1,300 last year,” explained President Josh Chipman.

The club’s grant for this coming year is just £394.81, an amount that Chipman says could lead to serious problems for the club.

“The option of going cap-in-hand to York Sport is not an option. I have spoken to York Sport and was told that there is next to no chance of getting more money. It was made very clear to us that we would have to charge more,” Chipman added.

Even clubs with similar sized grants to last year are feeling the squeeze. Mens Football Club President Greg Gardner, said that while he was not disappointed with the grant of £2,675.34, it still might not be enough. “Last year we had to get an emergency grant from YUSU due to increased fuel costs. We’re having to watch everything we spend,” he said.

If you were able to hand-pick credentials for a human rights experts in, say, Iran, then it is more than likely that you would unknowingly create Shirin Ebadi.

Born in 1948, Ebadi became the first woman to preside over a legislative court in Iran in 1975, but was demoted four years’ later following the Iranian revolution. Using her newly found free time to write books and journal articles, she became a lecturer at her Alta Mata, the University of Tehran, where she campaigned heavily for the rights of women and children.

In 2003, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in which she was described as having “never heeded the threat of her own safety.”

Since then, she has been even busier with campaigning and awareness raising of Iran’s ever decreasing human rights performance.

She also established the Centre for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran, an organisation that has defended the legal cases of many Iranian free speech advocates and academics.

As far as well-informed and professional comment on human rights goes, she is probably among the most highly qualified.

Which is why, when she accuses Britain of ignoring the human rights’ situation in Iran, she should have note taken of her.

In an interview with The Times, she said that “the West cares more about its own security than human rights. I think they’re wrong…Undemocratic countries are more dangerous than a nuclear bomb.”

The reception to her interview by British officials is appalling. This is an extract from the article:

British officials dismissed her appeals as misguided. “The only other people who act like they want to close our embassy are the Iranian Government,” a Foreign Office source said.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that Britain had signalled its displeasure at the regime’s conduct by withholding its customary letter of congratulation. It said that “communication channels had to be kept open”.

She has risked so much to make these petitions to Western leaders. The response she has received is disgraceful.

The letter opens warning that “diplomatic promises are insufficient to prevent torture” before going on to outline the fact that torture is widely used both “in the course of interrogations”, and “as a form of punishment”.

Here is an extract from the latter section:

“Methods of torture include forcing people to strip and subjecting them to repeated and severe kicking and beatings with sticks, electric cables, rifle butts, iron bars, and other instruments, sometimes at gunpoint; tying the individual’s hands and feet and suspending the person upside down and beating them; tying bottles of water to men’s testicles; and forcing detainees to run or crawl barefoot over sharp gravel for several hours at a time. Human Rights Watch has also documented cases of rape of women and girls detained in military barracks in Somali region.

Other patterns of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by Ethiopian military (Ethiopian National Defence Force) and police forces include summary or extrajudicial executions, arbitrary and incommunicado detention, indiscriminate attacks, and rape and sexual violence against civilians. Detainees in police and military custody often lack access to legal counsel, medical care, and family members and are routinely subjected to lengthy pre-charge and pre-trial detention in violation of Ethiopian and international law.”

The letter then makes reference to the role of Ethiopia in the North African Rendition Process, an ongoing barbarity that HRW documented in this 2007 report.

The open letter closes with these words:

“In conclusion, Human Rights Watch is extremely concerned that the UK-Ethiopia MoU will trigger an attempt by the UK to return individuals to a country known to have a serious record of torture and mistreatment of detainees by security forces, in violation of the UK’s legal obligations under UK and international law. We strongly urge you to refrain from implementing the agreement and deporting individuals to Ethiopia, where they will face a serious risk of torture and other abuse.”

They also posted online a report to accompany the letter, which you can read here.

It took the foreign office just under three weeks to respond to my letter regarding Burma. If they have that turnaround time for me, a lowly human rights hack, then they will surely respond quicker to HRW.

We wait and watch with interest…

You can see the full response here.

Three days later (today), the Independent carries this report on the gains that Burma make from an oil deal with Total, the French-owned petrol giant. This revelation has made me realise several things:

1. The Burmese ‘government’ (military, brutal, undemocratic Junta) will never change as a result of local international pressure. While Britain may continue to “urge Burma’s neighbours, including India, China and those countries in the ASEAN, to use their influence to press for change in Burma”, these countries are unlikely to use their full weight to press for change. Even if they did, the military have been in power since 1962, and the current ruling junta in power since the late 1980s. They will not bow to the pressures of these more recent rulers (Hu Juitao became President of The People’s Republic of China in 2003, and Pratibha Patil became President of India in 2007), whether economic or political. Furthermore, they have no interest in pressing Burma. Neither India nor China, the only bordering countries to conceivably carry any weight (Come on – could Laos, Thailand, or Bangladesh achieve anything?), have any motivation for dealing with Burma. China is unlikely to pick a human rights fight, even with Burma, and India should probably be focussing on the state of Pakistan, which is politically in far more trouble than Burma.

2. The West has greater worries in the East beside the Burmese. I only need to mention Afghanistan, but recent examples of human rights progress, such as [Bill] Clinton’s success at freeing American journalists from North Korea was significant because it was North Korea. As harmful as they are, Burma is not a direct nuclear threat to Western governments, which puts it further down the list of priorities than other countries in Asia-Pacific.

3. This is probably the most important factor to consider, as it guarantees an immovable obstacle to all progress in the country: The Burmese will not be moved while they are able to make vast sums of money from their resources by selling them to international companies. I need cite no more evidence than today’s report (see above).

There it is. If you want to change Burma, the way to do so is not through its neighbours. It is not through international pressure, or sanctions, or even through our own government. Hitting them ‘where it hurts’ is out of control of politically elected officials and representatives. It is, however, within the power of the corporations and oil businesses. If they can give so much to the Burmese government, then they can take it away just as easily.

Is it possible to bring these companies into an agreement to aid the 2,000 political prisoners currently in the dungeons of the junta by seeking to change the government?

One thing is certain: Gone are the days when mere condemnation is enough to topple powers. Trying to do so now would be laughable.

The power is with the oil barons, and it is towards them that lobbying and reasoning must be directed.

The report categorises not just accidental deaths, stray bombs, and the use of white phosphorous, but also the direct instructions and briefings given to the soldiers before they entered the Gaza strip; instructions that told them to raze Palestinian buildings simply in order to de-clutter the filed of vision for future bombardments, and to open fire on anything suspicious.

The group is also well regarded by other humanitarian groups. Amnesty regard them as highly credible, saying “one of our key campaigners met with their founder for talks earlier this year and our international section deal with them on a regular basis.”

The response to the document has been little short of lukewarm. From a BBC report:

Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich dismissed the testimonies as anonymous hearsay, designed to embarrass the army rather than lead to serious investigations…”We are investigating many of the requests from NGOs and other groups,” she said. “But when you have a report that is based on hearsay, with no facts whatsoever, we can’t do anything with it.”

Read the document and decide for yourself. The link to the full document is at the bottom, but here is the opening from the front cover:

“In training you learn that white phosphorus is not used, and you’re taught that it’s not humane. You watch films and see what it does to people who are hit, and you say, “There, we’re doing it too.” That’s not what I expected to see. Until that moment I had thought I belonged to the most humane army in the world, I knew that even in the West Bank, when we go into a neighborhood, we do it quietly so that people won’t see us, but also in order not to disturb them, no less. Even when Molotov cocktails were thrown at us in the West Bank, we wouldn’t shoot, the rules are very explicit. If your own life is at risk, you shoot. But under no other circumstances. Practically speaking, how often are you really in a life-threatening situation in the West Bank? Until that moment I had never fired a shot except at cardboard targets, just at the shooting range and maneuvers, and I also understood why. An IDF soldier does not shoot for the sake of shooting nor does he apply excessive force beyond the call of the mission he is to perform. We saw the planes flying out and you see from which building the rocket is launched against Israel and you see the four houses surrounding that building collapsing as soon as the airforce bombs. I don’t know if it was white phosphorus or not, and I don’t really care that much, but whole neighborhoods were simply razed because four houses in the area served to launch Qassam rockets.”

Full report here

Given that Breaking the Silence is funded by the British, Dutch, and Spanish governments, should they not be calling for more action over these accusations? Will the Israeli government not take this group seriously? Denial and rejection of evidence will not clear the name of the Israeli military.

They, too, now have a silence to break.

Ko Aung was a leader of the protests. He was arrested and tortured. Two years later he received a jail sentence for his role in the protests at a trial that many believe to have been unfair, and that he claims used evidence that was given after undergoing severe torture. While in prison, he received hundreds of cards from Amnesty International members. When finally released in 1994, he fled to the UK, but has never forsaken those whom he sees as his brothers in the dungeons of the Junta.

This is his account.

“I had a key role to mobilise and organise the uprising in 1988. I never regretted what I did, because it was for what I believed was right.

I served three and a half years in solitary confinement on and off. The only way I survived was to hold my belief and fight for it. If you hold true to your belief, then you can bear the iron bar or the torture. I lost so many friends and comrades, and I was kept alive by keeping fighting for what they wanted and gave their lives for. I was brutally tortured in several military detention centres.

At the time, I had an iron bar on across my legs, with a chain for my hands from it. It was a dark room, really hard to sleep, hard to walk because it was so small. At night, I had nothing to wear; they had taken all my clothes, and I had this iron bar around my legs. It was cold – about as cold as Autumn in Britain.

There were mosquitoes trying to bite every inch of my body, so I was going crazy trying to get them off. It was the only time I had talked to God, and I said “help me!” When I talked I could feel the release, I needed somebody to talk to.

But I will tell you about the worst time. During the night they would come and knock on my door. It had happened before, and I was so scared. After every time they came in they handcuffed me and took me into this dark room. It was completely dark, I couldn’t see anything.

They asked me to climb down big steps. I climbed down the first, and the second. When I got to the third, I smelt it. It was maggots. They forced me into it, to climb into it.

I was in maggots up to my waist, and crying out “you can’t do this to me”. They forced me in up to my neck. I shouted and cried, but they made me stay there. I don’t know how long I stayed there, I was just crying. I could feel maggots crawling up onto my face.

My mind went blank…and then I wake up in hospital.

They take the information from me, and use that to sentence me.

It is a troubled time in solitary confinement, but friends managed to send the letters through. You have no-one to talk to, and suddenly you receive a card from far far away, it is such a gift of strength.

There is only one thing that the regime can take away from me, and that is hope. You need to keep hope alive, and this card helped do that in solitary confinement.

There were many others with me during the protests. 100s gave their lives for the cause of freedom. 1000s were arrested, others fled. The leader of my students union is still in prison. Some people give their lives for the cause of freedom. You can be beaten and tortured, but if your mind is strong, you won’t lose.

I never thought of escaping. It is not a solution to the problem, you can only free yourself. You will still leave a lot of comrades behind, and living together is a huge encouragement.

Around the world, the UK is the best one for knowing the profile of the situation in Burma. Change within the Burmese government is possible. Revolution is an option, but so is non-revolution. We need to empower society, we need education, and trying to get the information to our people. We now have more advanced technology, and they [the Junta] can’t stop that.

I can’t find the words to show my appreciation to the UK.

Please use your liberties to promote ours.”

A 2004 Amnesty report details the known political prisoners still taken in Burma. It can be seen here. The situation today is no better than the one that Ko endured. Much still remains to be done.

The genius of totally immersive theatre is unlike anything else. It creates a childlike sense of exploring a dream world, and is utterly compelling. It Felt Like a Kiss combines the work of BBC document-maker Adam Curtis, the theatre group Punchdrunk, and an eerie soundtrack by Damon Albarn, and is the most talked about show at the Manchester International Festival.

The story of 1950s and 60s America is one that is beset with the pop culture, easy money, and covert CIA operations worldwide. The dream that looks so promising distorts and degenerates into a nightmare, and the production places you, the audience member, at the helm of the journey. Without doubt, it is the most terrifying thing I have ever done.

Stepping out of a lift on the sixth floor of a dilapidated office block into complete darkness, there is only ever one direction of travel, although you are free to explore anything that you pass. Screens in the rooms portray startling images, including a child burning of napalm crawling through the jungle. Disturbing manikins stand in corners or slump across desks, but since you do not know which ones are real and which will come alive, a menacing uncertainty lurks behind every corner. Paranoia and anxiety begin to take hold.

You pass through a series of rooms demonstrating the way of life and work, although even the tamest ones hold discreet twists (a rape note on the sideboard, a blood soaked tissue on the desk). The experiences range from abandoned CIA offices to TV studios to family homes, and a strobe-filled LSD-replicating series of rooms including a corridor with a corpse and a tiled windowless torture chamber.

A 35 minute film in the middle breaks the tension for a period, with a brilliantly constructed (if somewhat agenda-laden) message taken from snippets of old news footage, films, and the soundtrack of popular songs of the time. While it is a chance to sit down, it is never quite relaxing. You suddenly realise that you have been walking through the film set of what you are now watching.

The second ‘half’ builds on the tension and apprehension from the first and moulds it into sheer terror. After reading of nine people who died in a fire in a house of horrors, whose screams were mistaken for enjoyment, you are separated out into groups of eight and told to follow the instructions given. Walking through metal caging you are beckoned by lights along a labyrinth which holds horrible surprises. The culmination is this: Fleeing for your lives from a chainsaw-wielding maniac until you at last reach the entrance to the basement and are confronted by two cage-like entrance booths. Pressing the button to enter sparks strobe and sirens that lead to total disorientation.

As you pass through the metal gatehouse and through the cages, it suddenly strikes you that the group, who have thus far acted as a collective lifeline, are being separated and singled out. Raw terror sinks in as you find yourself completely alone, running through a tight black corridor with the sound of someone closing in behind you. You pass a screen (“Now you’re all alone. It’s what you wanted”) as you literally sprint towards the red curtain that marks the exit of the tunnel and the end of the nightmare.

He now spends his time looking at the ways to change the Labour Party and to re-engage people in politics. “I want to offer a slightly better perspective than MPs’ allowances and about the 30th row about Iraq in the last six years…the interest in politics outside of Parliament has never been more vigorous, and we have to build on that.”

Blunkett, who says that he will stand for at least another term in Parliament, ponders the result of the next election, which he says will almost certainly be next year. “It has been so bad lately that a hung Parliament feels like Mecca. For the Conservatives to have a shoe in they need to be 20% ahead now. That is the position they were in in 1968 when they just scrapped in in 1970. It was the position in 1978 when they won by 33 seats when we had just had the meltdown of the winter of discontent.”

What is even more surprising is what he thinks Labour should do following the election, if a hung Parliament results. “We would effectively have to concede that we had lost the overall majority and we would have to concede that the two opposition parties should be given the chance to form a coalition government.”

For a man who describes himself as uncompromising, it is unsurprising that Blunkett’s career has been fraught with colourful episodes, including two resignations from Cabinet. Despite being described as the leader of the ‘loony left’ while a councillor in Sheffield in the 1970s, his stringent social conservatism made him an instant hit with Blair and a simultaneous headache to the liberal side of the Labour party.

“[A] great advantage I had in Cabinet was that I could never see the fury on John Prescott’s face when I said things that he disagreed with.” Despite the occasional joke from Blunkett himself, little attention tends to be drawn either to his blindness or to his dog, Sadie. One comical moment did occur when he recalls being mauled by a cow two weeks ago, an incident that left him with two broken ribs. “I was trying to save the dog from the rampaging beast”, he jokes.

Blunkett talks scathingly about his opponents, such as fellow Sheffield MP Nick Clegg. “I know Nick very well, and I like him very much, but he hasn’t the first idea what a policy is. He changed his mind so many times over the policies that he espoused when he got the leadership that it is impossible to know what he stands for anymore.”

“Every time they announce something they have renounced it a month later. They were going to cut income tax by 4p in the pound a year ago. Now they’re back to saying that it will be necessary to increase taxes. They were strongly in favour of Trident, and he denounced Chris Hume as being unpatriotic, but last weekend he changed his mind; I can’t keep up.”

One area that Blunkett despises, probably because of current expenses fiasco, is the media. “We seem to have a Freudian pact with them; they abuse us and we hate them. We then play the game, we answer questions in a roundabout way in order to avoid a headline, we don’t answer straight, we have set answers. People used to be paged with the answer to give. I couldn’t read the blasted thing anyway.”

One thing that Blunkett’s time in office will be remembered for was his support for the introduction of ID cards, an idea that he has now rejected in favour of biometric passports. “I changed my mind because the whole objective had become confused. When the scheme was started six years ago the idea was to have a system where people couldn’t steal your identity, when you could know who was in the country. On that basis you could provide the free health service, permission to work, and an embarkation procedure. You can’t do any of those unless you have an identifying scheme, and without that we’re stuffed.”

His proposals encompass making the current passports compulsory and using biometric information stored on them, which he says is a far more secure database. “The British passport ownership is at 80%. The equivalent figure is 14% in the US, which I think volumes as to why they elected George W Bush. I was in Washington in March and was talking to a young man who didn’t realise that the recession was happening outside of America!”

The main concern, however, still lies with regenerating an interest in politics. “There was a study here at York some years ago that concluded that we are the least politically literate nation in the developed world, and I regret to say that I think we still are.”

Whatever the reasons are for the advancement of this less-than-savoury party, one thing is clear; the seats they gained were as a direct result of the disenchantment of Labour voters. These voters would never consider voting for the Conservatives or UKIP, and abandonment by the Labour party, combined with the convincing and misleading campaign run by the BNP, led to them appearing a very attractive alternative.

Fingers will be pointed by many in an attempt to find someone on whom they can pin the blame. The truth is that there is only one direction in which they can be pointed. By persisting doggedly with his electorally untested leadership, by presiding over an erosion in the trust of Parliamentary honesty, and attempting to survive a week of high-profile resignations, Brown has succeeded in alienating those voters whom he most needed to attract in order to keep out the BNP.Much anger has already been expressed in the short time following the elections, and rightly so. It is now time that this anger was directed at the right person, and the demands for departure will now be backed up by the stark evidence before the eyes of the Labour Party – that their weakness as a party played a crucial role in bringing about the election of the first fascists from Britain to walk into the European Union Parliament with a mandate and a platform.

This leads directly to the question of what is wrong with the Labour party. Essentially nothing, except its leadership. With Johnson, or Miliband, or Purnell, or even (dare I say it) Balls in leadership, this would not have happened. Had a general election been held and the current government had a mandate, then the public opinion polls might tell quite a different story. The very fact that Labour ’succeeded’ in coming third rather than fourth nationally in this election, when they still retain a large majority as the governing party, speaks volumes about the vast gap between the public opinion and the current constitution of the House of Commons. The sooner that Brutus Miliband or Johnson plucks up their courage, the better the chances will be of a Labour recovery before next May.

If Brown is gone by the time that you read this, then all that has been said has come true and this article has proved prophetic. If he remains, having already played the cabinet reshuffle card, his only remaining ploy, then it is only a matter of time until the inevitable.

In a damning poll in today’s Times, Labour are placed third behind the Conservatives and UKIP, sitting on a meagre 16% for European elections.

While it is obvious that part of this is due to the continuing run of MPs expenses’ disclosures (Labour have dropped nine points in the last three weeks), it is also clear that the problem is one that will not be solved by merely ejecting those who have gone above and beyond the level of reasonable expense claims. The problem lies in Brown, and the pounding that is coming their way on Thursday may be the catalyst for action amongst senior Labour MPs.

But the question still remains of who will benefit from these massive losses. One of the main reasons that I think that the expenses scandal has little to do with the displeasure at Labour is the lack of mention of Libertas in today’s poll. The centre-ground party would be ideally placed to pick up disenchanted New Labour voters who are sceptical of Cameron, particularly since they have had a massive publicity drive over the scandal, including highly posted web videos exposing current MEP expenses corruption and even advertising by topless models outside Parliament earlier this week: no joke – see here

It does seem, certainly if today’s findings are to be believed, that the winners from this situation will not be the widely feared yet highly proactive BNP, still trailing on a pitiful 5%. The winners will be UKIP, who have risen 13 points in the last three weeks. Will these results be reflected in the votes of Yorkshire and the Humber? I have a suspicion that they will.