UK’s third party: kingmakers or poison tasters?

Britain’s third largest party has suddenly found itself in the full glare of the political spotlight. It’s an uncomfortable, and potentially dangerous, place.

An inconclusive election result last week — the first such outcome in more than 30 years — has handed the centre-left Liberal Democrats the balance of power.

It should be a moment of triumph for Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg. The Liberal Democrats — formed from the old Liberal Party, one of the two great political parties of the mid-19th century — have not had a shot at government for decades.

Now they have a very real chance of ministerial posts and of achieving long-sought reform of Britain’s voting system.

Yet the dilemma of choosing to ally with either centre-left Labour or centre-right Conservatives could thrust the Lib Dems back to the political wilderness for decades if they get it wrong.

“There is a danger that if something doesn’t come out of this that is positive or permanent … then the Liberal Democrats will be skewered,” said Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History at the University of Nottingham.

LEADERSHIP TUSSLE

Clegg is in a bind. His party sits on the left of the political spectrum, championing social liberalism, electoral reform and fairer distribution of taxes and services.

That should make an alliance with the ruling Labour party a much more natural fit.

But Labour’s popularity has plunged after 13 years in power and it now faces a four-month leadership battle that could distract it from what all parties agree is the most important challenge for government — tackling the nation’s debts — after Prime Minister Gordon Brown agreed on Monday to step aside.

“How can anyone with any gumption call for stable government and then propose allying with a party which is going to spend the next four months in a bitter leadership contest?” wrote a blogger on activist web site Liberal Democrat Voice.

Nor would the Lib Dems and Labour together have enough seats to form a majority so they would need the support of a clutch of smaller parties, such as the Scottish National Party and Wales’ Plaid Cymru, to push through legislation.

Such a potentially unstable government would test the vision of a strong government Clegg has said the country needs.

“I don’t like what is taking place at all,” said former Labour Home Secretary (interior minister) David Blunkett.

“I believe it will lead to a lack of legitimacy and I think that the British people will feel that we have not heard what they have said to us,” he told the BBC on Tuesday.

VOTING REFORM

One of the potential trump cards held by Labour was the offer it made before the election of holding a referendum on voting reform, but that was matched late on Monday by a similar offer from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives won the largest number of parliamentary seats in Thursday’s election but fell 20 seats short of a majority. They swiftly offered talks with the Liberal Democrats, including the possibility of working in a formal coalition.

Voting reform is essential for the Lib Dems, particularly if people are turned off by the experience of the country’s first inconclusive election since 1974. Under the current system, which produces a first past the post winner in each parliamentary constituency, they could be squeezed hardest if people try to force a clear-cut outcome at the next election.

“Whoever they go in with, they really have to get electoral reform,” said Nottingham University’s Fielding, pointing to the negative experience of the Liberal Party in the 1920s.

Forerunners of the modern Lib Dems, the Liberal Party put a minority government into power twice in the 1920s.

In 1923, the Liberals supported the second-largest Labour party rather than the bigger Conservatives but the resulting Labour minorituy government lasted just 10 months and the Conservatives were then elected with a majority.

The Liberals also supported Labour — this time the largest party, although again short of a majority — in 1929 after Labour promised a commission on electoral reform.

“Unfortunately for the Liberals by the time Labour left office in 1931, amidst a grave financial crisis, it had failed to pass any legislation,” Fielding said.

The Liberal party then split over joining a national government to deal with the financial crisis and the party was an almost spent force for the next 30 years.

Having sex injures 18 million Brits in a year!

London, May 8 (ANI): Having sex can end up causing more pain than expected – researchers have found about 18 million Britons have injured themselves during or after a romp.

Pulled muscles followed by back injuries, carpet burns and bruised elbows and knees are some of the most common complaints, reports The Daily Express.

Boffins found the bedroom to be only the fifth most dangerous place to have sex.

The stairs came second in the danger list, followed by the car and the shower.

One in ten people or their partner fell off the bed. One in 50 toppled off the washing machine, according to the poll of 1,000 adults by phonepiggybank.com.

Some got hurt making love in the loo, or in a cupboard at work.

Two per cent of the total polled were left with broken bones after sex. (ANI)

Safety fears take a toll on kids’ freedom

London, Apr 28 (ANI): With parents fearing more about their kids’ security, the children are deprived of freedom their parents had when they were young, a survey revealed.

The survey by children”s safety charity LV=Streetwise, of more than 6,000 adults and 1,000 children, showed huge restrictions on the lives of youngsters because of parents” growing fears and anxieties.

The study found that one in four under-15s were not allowed to stay the night at a friend”s house and almost two-thirds were told not to use public transport.

Most parents said they thought the world was a more dangerous place than when they were growing up, with some of them banning from using public transport or sleeping over when they were young.

Children now have to wait two years longer to enjoy the kind of freedom their parents had when they were young, the report said.

Parents” main worries include “stranger danger”, bullying, mugging and road hazards, the study revealed.

On average, children now walk to school on their own by the age of 11, use public transport by themselves at 12 and babysit a brother or sister at 14, all two years later than their parents.

“It”s difficult for parents to know when is the right time to step back and allow children to experience things on their own, and this report shows just how much things have changed over the last generation,” the Mirror quoted Mike Rogers, group chief executive of insurance firm LV=, as saying.

“Parents have a key role in helping their children to become more risk-aware and better at spotting everyday dangers in the world around them,” he added. (ANI)

SNAP ANALYSIS: Obama also rescued from piracy drama

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The successful U.S. rescue of a cargo ship captain held by Somali pirates on Sunday has also saved President Barack Obama from a foreign policy problem he neither needed nor wanted:

* The Obama administration was careful not to give the crisis too much prominence while delicate negotiations were under way to secure the captain’s release. Until the very end Obama himself made no comment to try to play down the standoff in the face of other foreign policy challenges from North Korea to Iran to Afghanistan and beyond.

* Obama escaped the political embarrassment that President Bill Clinton suffered in 1993 when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed in Somalia trying to track down warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed in a disastrous battle that led to the book and movie “Blackhawk Down.”

* Had the standoff turned out otherwise it might have dented Obama’s national security credentials and given critics, especially opposition Republicans, ammunition to portray him as weak on security and tackling terrorism. The outcome allows him to project himself as tough on security.

* It was not immediately clear how involved Obama was in the rescue operation but his statement afterward suggested he believed Washington must play a more robust role in dealing with pirates.

* Given that the present strategy of flooding the area with warships has enjoyed only limited success, it remains to be seen what Obama plans to do.

* Ground operations against pirates’ hideouts remain a possibility, although that could put at risk the 270 hostages from around the world being held by pirates preying on the busy sea-lanes of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

* A more activist policy also has risks, possibly sucking the United States back into Somalia, which Foreign Policy magazine has called “The Most Dangerous Place in the World.”

(Editing by Howard Goller)

Classroom-based intervention cuts kids’ viewing of violent TV

Washington, Apr 8 (ANI): Researchers from Oregon State University suggest a classroom-based intervention program that has been found to significantly reduce the amount of violent TV that children watch.

The study showed that special classroom curriculum could reduce violent TV viewing among first- through fourth-grade children by nearly 18 pct.

It could also reduce students’ identification with superheroes compared to children in a control group.

“We have a significant body of research now that shows that children who watch violent TV tend to be more violent, to overestimate the threat of crime, and to think that the world is a more dangerous place than it is,” said Sharon Rosenkoetter, faculty member in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at OSU.

“So if there is a connection between violent TV and violent behaviour – and research shows that there is – then it is in society’s interest to reduce the viewing of violence,” she added.

The curriculum used in the intervention is called The REViEW Project Curriculum (Reducing Early Violence: Education Works).

The intervention focuses on supporting children to make better viewing choices, rather than telling them to turn off the TV entirely.

It includes 28 lessons of 20-30 minutes each and is administered over a period of seven months. During the intervention, the project’s teachers led highly interactive lessons that included clips from TV shows.

They also brought in guest speakers to talk with the children.

“We did a follow-up eight months after the intervention, and our results held,” said Lawrence Rosenkoetter, lead author of the study.

“These findings mean that we have been able to show that it is possible to guide kids to choose to watch less TV violence. That had not been demonstrated before,” he added.

The study appears in Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. (ANI)

Becoming Talibanistan

AfPak is the most dangerous place in the world. Here’s why: The Taliban created by Pakistan to colonise Afghanistan has become, to quote the head of Barack Obama’s Afghan policy review Bruce Riedel, “a jihadist Frankenstein monster and #8230; trying to take over the laboratory”.

The monster has two heads. First is the Afghan Taliban, centred around Gulbuddin Hikmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, which wishes to reconquer Kabul.

By some accounts, this Taliban operates in as much as two-thirds of Afghanistan. Second is the Pakistan Taliban, whose most daring commander is Baitullah Mehsud.

Their target, as shown by the recent attack on a Lahore police academy, is western Punjab. Weak resistance The other reason why it’s Danger Land is the feebleness of Pakistani resistance.

Washington and Kabul both say the two Talibans share the same primary recruitment and sanctuary area: northwest Pakistan. Islamabad seems unwilling to deny the Afghan Taliban sanctuary.

And against the Pakistan Taliban, the military prefers to sign ceasefires rather than fight. There is much debate as to why.

One view is that the military sees the Afghan Taliban as a way to put a pro-Pakistan government in Kabul. US intercepts of General Ashfaq Kiyani’s conversations have recorded him describe Haqqani as a “strategic asset”.

“There are internal divisions within the army about fighting ‘America’s war’,” says Shaun Gregory of the University of Bradford’s Pakistan Research Unit. Giving the Afghan Taliban a free hand, however, gives a similar freedom to the Pakistan Taliban.

As Brajesh Mishra has said, “Islamabad doesn’t want to control the Taliban in Afghanistan and can’t control the Taliban in Pakistan – this is the contradiction in their policy.” Another view, expressed succinctly by India’s former envoy to Pakistan, G. Parthasarathy, is that “the Pakistani Punjabi has lost the will and ability to fight the Pashtuns”.

Pakistan’s historical failure has been its failure to create a middle class. A stunted nationalism makes it difficult to find an ideology to mobilize resistance – if anything, Islamicist parties claim to represent “true Pakistan”.

Islamabad finds it difficult to respond to the Taliban threat, says Walter Andersen, South Asia expert at Johns Hopkins University, “because the notion of Pakistan as Muslim is so strongly ingrained”. A stunted political system – largely because of Western and military interference – means there is no one to take up the banner anyway.

“The tragedy of Pakistan is that not one of its political leaders gives a damn for its people,” said a former senior US official who has visited the country over many years. “It is not unlikely that the Taliban will take Afghanistan, that the Pashtun areas of Pakistan will be lost to Islamabad, and that the fight for Pakistan will really be a fight to save the Punjab and Sindh,” says Gregory.

Taliban east of the Indus, says Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal of the Combat Land Army Warfare School, “would raise the imminent danger of jihadis capturing nuclear warheads.” For the better Things could change.

Crisis and democracy, combined, can have a rejuvenating effect. The surrender of Swat to the Taliban and the Lahore attacks have shaken many heartland Pakistanis.

“Pakistani nationalism is stronger than people believe,” says a European diplomat.

Obama to propose 2.8 billion dollars military aid for Pakistan

Lahore, Mar. 31 (ANI): President Barack Obama has planned to propose 2.8 billion dollars in aid for the Pakistani military to intensify the US-led war on terror along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

The military aid would be in addition to the civilian aid–1.5 billion dollars a year for five years.

According to Fox News, the military aid will be dedicated exclusively to “equipping, training, and building infrastructure directly related to counterinsurgency operations.”

The channel quoted General David Petraeus, as telling that the plan will be called the “Pakistani Counterinsurgency Capability Fund”.

Official sources revealed that the US has charted out the plan in such a way that none of the aid would be spent in a way that would give Pakistan a greater capacity to attack another country, such as India.

US Commanders would have total control over how the money is spent, they said.

The aid would be distributed over the span of five years, with the first 400 million dollars added to the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request for war fighting.

Another 700 million dollars would be in the fiscal 2010 base budget. Then 575 million dollars would be spent each year from fiscal 2011 through 2013.

On Friday, Obama had described Pakistan’s FATA region as “the most dangerous place in the world.” (ANI)

US sees Pak as a ‘hurdle’ in its anti-terror strategy

Lahore, Mar. 30 (ANI): The United States is struggling hard to identify the loopholes in its South Asian policy over the past seven years, as it has limited ability to control what happens in Pakistan, the Los Angeles Times reports.

“Of all the dilemmas, problems and challenges we face, that’s going to be the most daunting. You could have a great government in Kabul. But if the current situation in western Pakistan continues, the instability of Afghanistan would continue,” the Daily Times quoted Obama’s special envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, as saying.

However, the new policy puts the consequences of those constraints in sharp relief, the paper points out.

In Afghanistan, the US is going to send an additional 21,000 troops and to train thousands of Afghan soldiers.

In Pakistan, its approach hinges on providing an extra five billion dollars in aid and leaning on Islamabad to act against the militants.

Obama, who described FATA as the most dangerous place in the world, had warned Pakistan that the US’ could not continue to give blank cheques to Islamabad if it doesn’t take any substantial steps to weed out terrorism.
“After years of mixed results, we will not and cannot provide a blank cheque. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out Al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets,” the report quoted Obama, as saying.

The remark appeared to be one of the most pointed threats of unilateral US military action in Pakistan.

However, US intelligence officials say Islamabad continues to foster relationships with militant groups. An officer described the problem as “too big” which has hurt US efforts to strike militant targets.

“After 9/11 they did a turnabout, but not a 100 percent turnabout, and remain engaged,” he said. (ANI)

Pakistan’s Afghan border regions world’s most dangerous place: Obama

Washington, March 27 (ANI): The U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday said that Pakistan’s Afghan border regions had turned into “the most dangerous place in the world.

Obama pledged a major effort, including through a spike in economic assistance, to bring stability to Pakistan, warning that its Afghan border regions had turned into “the most dangerous place in the world.”

The President made such observations while unveiling his new Pak-Afghan strategy on Friday.

Obama ordered 4,000 extra troops and a major boost in the civilian presence in Afghanistan, vowing to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” the Al-Qaeda extremist network.

Obama said that Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to root out Al-Qaida.

“We cannot and we will not give a blank cheque to Pakistan,” said Obama, adding: “extremists are a cancer that is killing Pakistan from within”

“We will pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan,” Obama added.

The US President has proposed 1.5 billion dollars in aid to Pakistan. (ANI)

Pakistan, Afghanistan welcome Obama’s new policy

Washington, March 27 (ANI): Pakistan and Afghanistan have hailed the US President Barack Obama’s new plans to root out extremists. Both the countries have pledged to extend cooperation to the U.S in this endeavour.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, on Friday said it was an “extraordinarily positive” sign that Obama was re-examining US policy in the region.

Haqqani said Pakistan was “especially pleased” about Obama’s personal commitment to “reinvigorating our common efforts to contain terrorism and extremism.”

“It bodes well not only for a stronger regional approach to a clearly regional problem, but to a more mature bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan,” Haqqani said.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan Ambassador to Washington, Said Jawad, said Kabul was “very grateful” to the Obama administration for “this new strategy for victory.”

“The Afghan government is committed to working with the US and our allies to implement this strategy,” Jawad said in a statement while adding: “We ask our NATO allies, major donors and the friends of Afghanistan to collaborate with the strategy’s implementation by providing the resources it will need.”

Jawad praised Obama for drafting a “comprehensive” strategy with “input and insights of diverse voices.”

Earlier, Obama ordered 4,000 extra troops and a major boost in the civilian presence in Afghanistan, vowing to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat” the Al-Qaeda extremist network.

Obama also pledged a major effort, including through a spike in economic assistance, to bring stability to Pakistan, warning that its Afghan border regions had turned into “the most dangerous place in the world.” (ANI)