People in general are easily predisposed to manipulation; all they need is a sparkle in order to start a war. This is exactly what this tiny piece of article is doing, or better, preaching: that Pakistani nationals are a terror threat for Britain.

In my opinion, no matter how many degrees you own, if you live in a society, which judges the book by its cover, eventually you will start doing the same. Open your eyes; we are living in the 21^st century, in a supposedly democratic society. Why is it that we still regard people coming from other religious backgrounds like non-humans? Why cannot white, black or yellow share the planet peacefully? Color and religion are not at all criteria for differentiating people; instead, nouns like serial killer, or rapist should be criteria for division between right and wrong. I think that there is plenty of room for everybody and for free movement as well. As long as a Pakistani youngster decides, that he wants a degree from Oxford, because he excels in a subject or wants to persue locum doctors jobs in this nation, I believe he has the right to be given the chance to do it.

Governments and other institutions should focus on efforts to eradicate evil from its root, instead of blaming innocent people who definitely go through unimaginable hardships by trying to fit in a world that does not accept them. They must put in place the necessary screening mechanisms so that would be terrorists do not enter into our country.

Universities must be made responsible in informing the authorities when a student stops attending class or goes missing all together. Also the border agents must check up on those students coming into the country to see if they actually enroll in the college or university they were supposed to. Far too many of them enter the country under a student visa and not enroll anywhere. If this is the case they should be made to leave the country and return to their homeland.

The close alliance between Britain and the US was something of a ‘forced’ affair during the Second World War. It was essentially a marriage of convenience between two great world powers, who knew that they could not defeat Nazism unless they worked together. It led to what Winston Churchill coined the ‘special relationship’, which over time became an increasingly one-sided arrangement rather than a mutual bond.

During the 19^th century, Britain ruled the waves. It controlled over a quarter of the world’s land surface, occupied the most powerful and influential navy in the world and dominated the global stock markets. Not to mention the education, government, and doctor jobs that were exported. The American continent was an enormously important source of trade for the British Empire. The trade between the two countries not only facilitated Britain’s imperial interests, but also helped fund America’s industrial revolution during the course of the 19^th century. If there was ever a special relationship between the two countries, it was then. However, as Britain’s decolonisation ensued during the 20^th century, the United States became ever powerful as its economy, military, cultural prowess and political eminence developed during the Great Boom of the 1920s but more especially after 1945.

After 1945, Britain was forced to sell of much of its colonial possessions due to crippling bankruptcy. There was a growing need to rebuild the country’s infrastructure as quickly and as cheaply as possible, which is what resulted in the most radical and rapid decolonisation of any major empire in history. Britain granted independence to India in 1947, which was considered the jewel of the British Empire. What followed was the creation of Pakistan through a deadly partition, in which many hundreds of thousands died in one of the most violent political events of the century.

Later, in 1956, the United States humiliated Britain and France when it forced the two countries to withdraw from the Suez region, which was a valuable colonial reserve. Since then, Britain has remained a steadfast supporter of the Anglo-American alliance, despite the lack of enthusiasm on the other side of the spectrum. It is clear that David Cameron is not ashamed to be a permanent supporter of the US, however he is less than willing to criticise it when there may be an incentive to do so.

Prime Minister David Cameron has discussed new proposals which would help bring to fruition his plans to create a ’big society’ that would give more power to local communities.

At a speech in Liverpool on July 19^th, Cameron will announce his aims to put forth policies which would reduce the role of the government in public services and invest greater power to local groups and communities. Efforts would include promoting volunteers to run museums and allowing local residents to have a greater say over their council’s budget spending. Community projects run by volunteers would be given extra help by the government but power would rest solely with local groups, in a bid to redistribute power from the state to the individual.

James Landale, the deputy political editor for the BBC explained that the idea of more ’local'power in areas such as public services gives individuals better control over their lives and helps people to run services which would otherwise be poorly managed by the state, for example people would have more of a role in decideding what goes on in the NHS, and where teaching assistant jobs are allocated to. The Prime Minister is expected to confirm the coalition’s fans to use money from dormant bank accounts to fund volunteer groups, social enterprises and charities who would be in charge of running the country’s public services. In an effort to boost motivation, the Prime Minister hopes that several hundred million pounds will become available to help ’kickstart'the plans. Back in May the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg agreed with Mr Cameron on the need for ’people power'to play a central role in government.

Community projects will be assigned an expert organiser and a civil servant who will see that each initiative gets off to ’a flying start’. Among other plans are the proposals to give people a right to veto any rises in council tax and to create a new National Citizenship Service, aimed at 16 year olds. The ’big society'slogan was a popular campaign theme during the Tory election campaign. It is reminiscent of Thatcher’s well-known slogan ’think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'during the 1980s and is one of the defining ideologies of the Conservative Party. Meanwhile, the Labour Party have warned that the new plans are a ‘dumbing down’ on state public services and could soon lead to a ’do-it-yourself society

Lord Mandelson has staunchly defended Labour’s record over its 13 years of government, stating that the party had achieved 80 percent of its targets, despite the opposition’s claims that Labour had failed in most of its promises and caused overriding debt problems in the country.

In his memoirs, entitled The Third Man, Lord Mandelson describes the tensions between the Labour MPs, particularly between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. He has blasted Labour leadership hopefuls who have criticised his memoirs, accusing them of not having read the book at all. A total of three Labour candidates have called on Lord Mandelson to step down from the party and Diana Abbott, one of the leadership hopefuls, described Lord Mandelson’s influence in politics as ’malign’.

Andy Burnham, also contesting for the leadership challenge, advised Lord Mandelson to ’leave the stage'after The Third Man earned him a place in the spotlight. David Milliband also criticised numerous excerpts from the book as ’self-destructive’; his brother, Ed Milliband asserted that the book was damaging to both Peter and to his party as a whole.

During an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Lord Mandelson also spoke of the relations between Britain and the United States and accused the US government of ’sweeping aside'its plans for Iraq after the conflict is over. He also expressed his regrets over the way in which the Labour government responded to the 2004 Hutton Report, in regards to the death of Dr David Kelly, a weapons expert.

Lord Mandelson admitted that he thought the chances of Labour forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats was less than 50 percent. He also proclaimed that if there hadn’t been a sufficient level of tension within the Labour Party during its years of government, there would not have been an incentive to help rebuild the Party and win three general elections. However, he also said that he would have liked to have ’gone further'than Brown in public service reform but he decided that it was best to look at things ‘positively’ with regards to Labour’s legacy in future years. Meanwhile, some Labour leadership candidates admitted that they hadn’t read his memoirs after all.

The big news for the last month has been the oil spill in America. The oil rig explosion which killed eleven workers has sent a minimum of 12,000 barrels into the Gulf of Mexico every day. That is correct, every single day. The question that remains is how much longer is this going to happen and why can the oil suppliers British Petroleum officials simply not “plug the hole”? The answer to that is because the oil is flowing out as such a rapid rate it would be akin to trying to shaking a Coca-Cola, opening the top and then trying to close the top as the contents spray outwards. This is a simplified version of course. Imagine this at a million times the effort underneath 1.5 kilometers of water.

Mr. Tony Hayward, the BP executive and spokesman says that things are progressing but that the “top kill method” they are using to stop the leak was not previously attempted at the depths of the 1.5km (5000 feet). This has made things considerably more difficult. It has also cost British Petroleum a total of 640 million pounds ($930million). The methods used to pump mud into the hole are not proving successful; however it appears that the follow up method may do just that.

How exactly are they planning to fix the giant flow that now covers 110km of coastline in Louisiana? As of now BP has placed a machine called a blowout preventer over the set of safety valves that failed to work. This machine is blowing in mud from a ship just above water’s surface. This mud is pumped in under extremely high pressure. The purpose of the mud is to clog the well so that a permanent cement cover can be place over the well. If the mud does not work, a system called a “junk shot” will be injected into the same machine and space. This consists of items such as tyres, rope and golf balls. Apparently BP does know something about recycling. Once the oil is finally stopped from flowing, the cement will be pumped in through the blowout preventer.

After just under a week of talks between the three main parties, it has been decided that the new man in number 10 will be David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party. This hardly comes as a surprise considering the majority the Conservatives held after the May 6th elections. However, despite a Tory occupying the Prime Minister role, it won’t be an entirely Conservative government that leads Britain for the next five years.

Helping David Cameron secure the Prime Minister job was Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats. His party has joined forces with the Conservatives to create a legitimate government and he now has the role of deputy Prime Minister. For all those Liberal supporters, this is good news, as the Liberal Democrats will now have a very large say in what goes on in government.

Coming third never seemed so good to all except the Liberal Democrats who now find themselves in a position of power they have not enjoyed for generations. The only true losers of the general election were the Labour party. Again, this is not surprising considering how poorly they have performed as Britain’s government in recent years. The promotion of Gordon Brown to Prime Minister after Tony Blair’s resignation was a doomed move that has led Labour to lose for the first time in 13 years.

The British public saw their votes result in a hung parliament on May the sixth, the first time that has happened since the 1970s. The Tories held the majority of seats but did not gain enough to form a government. What followed were talks between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that led us to the outcome we have today.

It will be very interesting to see how a coalition government will work. Even more interesting will be how Cameron and Clegg will work together considering their party’s very different views on how Britain should be run. I personally am quite excited to see the financial advice that is given by the new chancellor of the exchequer, the politically young George Osborne. The full details of the deal made between Cameron and Clegg have not been released yet either, so it will also be interesting to see just how good of a deal the Liberal Democrats got for playing “kingmaker”. Watch this space.

Ever since the Labour (or should I say “New Labour”yawn) government came to power in 1997 they have been banging on about “Lords reform”. To be fair it is one of the few manifesto promises that they have actually kept. So today we do not see the upper chamber packed to the rafters with the priviledged classes who have acheived nothing but instead inherited their position. I believe that only 97 “hereditaries”remain in the house. Instead we have a chamber of the great and the good - achievers - people who have got there because they have excelled in their field.

Obviously there are exceptions - ref Lord Martin - the disgraced former speaker of the house, who inexplicably was elevated to the peerage as some sort of reward for overseeing and then defending the disgusting expenses fiasco or Lord Mandleson - put there soley because our Prime Minister was unable to do his job without the aid of a spin doctor in the cabinet (clearly no right thinking voter would have elected him!).

Now the proposal is to make the upper house democratic by having an elected house (bye bye Mandy!). What astounds the writer is why on earth do the politicians think that we need more of them?!!! For that is what the red seats will be full of - more career politicians who are trying to improve their own lot rather than that of the country.

I put it to you that the system which should be adopted is one of appointment. A body of people should be responsible for chosing those that will keep the Commons in order - for that is the prime responsibility of the Lords. Let me stress this body of people should not be party political! Those that are appointed should have demonstrated that they have made a major contribution to their field - so there is no objection to some politicians being in there but it should not be as a reward purely for long service in the lower house (bye bye Martin!).

Leading Doctors, Nurses, independent financial advisers, businessmen (and women) - managers and entrepreneurs - dare I say lawyers (just a few mind!), sportsmen, engineers and academics etc.

If it doesn’t go this way we will end up with the sort of people that sit in the lower house - just there to tow the party line - NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

All those in favour say “Aye”……

After all the speculation it has finally arrived. Gordon Brown, a man questioned about his leadership skills not only by the public and his adversaries, but also by his own party, has finally called for a general election. It will be truly interesting to see which way the public vote. The Conservatives are supposedly the favourites to overturn the Labour majority and take their place as the leading party for the first time in 13 years.

However, I am not so sure that figures really represent anything before an election. You can twist and turn any figures to mean anything you want them to and cannot be trusted, much like the politicians who release them, how ironic.

I think that, despite their awful performance in the last few years, the Labour party will still run out winners on election day. Yes, they have failed in their job, but do the British public really want the Tories in charge again? I am not convinced that they do, especially not with the slimey “car salesman-esque”David Cameron in charge. Labour still champion the NHS and still try to push extra taxes on those with extra money and that is what many want to see.

Of course, an actual positive change in the education system would also be welcome considering the amount of money that has been poured into it (check out dream education for a bit of teacher related insight). Also, even though Labour were part of the reason we got into the recession, they are also the best equipped to deal with it. They know the full extent of the issue and are not speculating like the Tories. Putting a new party in charge in the midst of a crisis could be devastating, especially a right wing party.

Even though the boundaries of British politics have blurred in recent years, (Labour have become more Conservative and vice versa), I would still prefer the slightly more left party in charge. Of course, there is the option of the Liberal Democrats, and they would actually be a very welcome change if everyone wasn’t petrified over the concern that if they change their Labour vote to Lib Dem, not everyone would change over and the Tories would gain the advantage.

The Lib Dems are destined to always be the third party unless something amazing happens. Finally, the UKIP (UK Independence Party) having been making some noise of late and could gain an extra few seats, I can’t see them being top three players, but they could surprise many.

Roll on May the sixth!

The fact remains that whichever party wins the next British election scheduled on May 2010 is bound to inherit a massive amount of public debt. The debt is so high that nothing of this sort has ever been faced by any government in the British political history.

Part of the problem labour will face has to do with the remnants of the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan. Many Brits believe that the reasons for going to war were not based on solid information and that the government was just following the Americans.

Also the handling of the country’s economy which has been stagnated over the last couple of years and if Labour wins and continues with its current policy it is not likely to improve. Form budget deficits to above average inflation the economy is in a serious way and needs urgent attention. Many are not sure or do not believe that the Labour party can fix it.

Currently the conservatives are presenting themselves as a viable alternative. They want to be seen as a party that will make the hard decisions necessary to get the country running well again and bring down inflation. The problem for Labour here is that many Brits are buying into the conservatives plans. Polls these days put the conservatives at up to ten ahead.

One of the major problems Labour has is that many people feel disconnected from the party. This has left a lot of disgruntled Labour supporters who may not vote Labour if at all when the time comes.

Labour leader Gordon Brown has assured his party of an imminent win. He further added that since the task was tougher the triumph would be sweeter and more rewarding. It seems that the odds are unfavorable for the labor party and as the election clouds loom above the head of both the parties, it remains to be seen who will next come into Downing Street.

Jayne’s surprise pre-wedding weekend: I think I know what we should put together. We should book that val thorens accommodation that is on a deal right now as a surprise. I know that it seems a little bit steep, but I think it will be worth it for a final weekend as a single woman!

British politics is in mourning today with the sad news of the passing of the legendary parliamentarian Michel Foot, aged 96.

The death of Mr Foot was announced to a hushed House of Commons by the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw MP. Mr Straw paid a full and effusive tribute to the man who had been his former party leader.

“He was held in very great affection in all sections of the house and the country”, he said, and also said that one speech given by Michael Foot in 1980 was like listening to a Mozart concerto.

As tradition dictates, the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow MP, also added his tribute stating that Mr Foot had been “a quite extraordinary parliamentarian.

Michael Foot’s longevity is unparalleled in British politics. He was active within the Labour Party well into his nineties and had first stood for parliament as early as 1935.

Mr Foot came from a political family, his father Isaac, a successful solicitor was twice elected Liberal MP for Bodmin in the days before the formation of the Labour Party. Two of Michael’s brothers eventually became peers in the House of Lords, an honour that Mr Foot turned down as being against his strong socialist principles.

Michael Foot was a brilliant scholar, rising to become President of the Oxford Union but it was his first job as a shipping clerk in Liverpool that opened his eyes to the terrible squalor and conditions that the working class faced in pre-war Britain. From this moment on, Michael Foot became a committed left wing activist and unwavering supporter of socialism.

His principles brought him political enemies as well as plaudits. Foot was bitterly opposed to nuclear weapons and to Britain’s entry into the Common Market. His opposition to defence spending led to him being expelled from the Labour Party in 1961. Although he was re-admitted two years later he refused to serve in the cabinets of Harold Wilson, angry at his neutral stance on Vietnam.

He eventually became known as the elder statesman of the Labour Party and was a surprise choice to become party leader in 1980. His uniquely shambolic dress sense and refusal to compromise his dress sense made him unpopular with the public at large who also accused him, unfairly, of being unpatriotic and behind the times. He led Labour to a record defeat in the 1983 General Election and although remaining as an MP until 1992 he never tasted senior office again.

Michael Foot saw his reputation soar after his retirement, both as a politician and a brilliant writer and essayist. We will not see his like again.