The board game of Realism

I'm currently studying international relations and presently looking into Realism. Realism is an approach that accounts for international relations particularly in terms of military actions. While there are many theories and divisions within the discipline, they are often grouped together as they share the same main assumptions. Basically put (Randall L. Schweller) they believe the world is a perpetual struggle between groups for security, prestige, power and influence. Most realism, although to a lesser extent in neo-realism, assume that states are the primary actors. A theory within realism that caught my eye was the balance of power theory. It basically says that states will counter balance each others power to prevent the other becoming relatively stronger, perhaps the best example of this is the cold war ware the capitalist block (particularly the USA) and the communist block (particularly USSR) were in an arms race to ensure neither side become more powerful. The interesting thing about this for realists is that it creates a long period of peace. Realists assume that war is inevitable so the cold war is considered by some as 'the long peace' because while there are only two sides in balance the chance of war falls considerably. Now you might be wondering what this has to do with a board game, if I was to tell you the board game I'm thinking of is Risk, if you've played it you might be able to guess.
If you aren't a venerated risk player here is a brief run down of the game. In Risk you play as a nation bent on domination, it's your goal to conquer all the world. There is no room for cooperation and other 'liberalist drivel', suggesting your probably ruling as a oppressive regime, but I digress. As ruler of your nation you raise armies based on how much land you have, the number of provinces owned divided by 3 is the number of units you get per turn but if you control entire contents you get bonus units as follows:
Austria 2, S. America 2, Africa 3, Europe 5, N. America 5, Asia 7
These units are used to fight opponents in battles based on dice but the more dice you have the more chance of winning, so the game is about tactical skill with an element of luck, you could see it as you order your army's around but you trust your generals to do the work on the battle field.
Players of risk don't ally (unless playing house rules) but just like in the real world sometimes temporary deals are stuck unofficially, like if a smaller nation of no threat is fighting your rival it might make sense to let that player weaken your opponent while you sit back and build up. This is why when played well Risk it is by far my favorite game, you have to watch your back, think ahead, read body language, understand tactics and think in terms of production of units. In fact Risk is very similar to the realist assumption of the real world; states all out to better each other, only making short term deals, being relatively better is better than actual gains etc. If we assume Risk is a good model for realism, which I am just to see what happens then I can ask the question: does it prove the balance of power theory that bi-polar systems (like the cold war) are stable?
Well having played risk many times, the answer is no. In fact the game would be rubbish if it was. The problem is if you do get a situation of one vs one then one player will always have slightly more than 50% so players thinking long term know that if your opponent can produce just one more unit than you in the long run you have to act to stop that. In risk that only way to stop that is to invade. Now in reality perhaps this isn't the case, maybe in a bio-polar world getting the edge could be a policy to improve your own economy or maybe attack the infrastructure via espionage. Also as I hinted at earlier in risk you want to conquer what ever the cost and you don't have to persuade your little plastic piece that is a just war or loose the election!
While this is hopefully relatively interesting the point I particularly want to raise is that I did play a game of Risk which resulted in 'peace', a near total power balance! Now if you buy into the idea that Risk is a possible model or at least similar to realism then this power balance is interesting to analyze. It was as follows:
The coloured squares with the numbers note how many troops each side can get per turn, I suppose you could relate this to a countries economy if you wanted. The super powers are the Blacks and the Reds, the Reds at the time of the picture had 6 reinforcements but they took Madagascar (in white) to bump them up to 7 like the blacks. So you had two super powers of equal size and power but if you look at the picture the blacks had slightly more units (the black pieces) so you could theorize that they would engage the reds in a long drawn out war which would be won via luck and perhaps favouring the blacks that had slightly more units, this is what you would expect from risk. In fact what happened was 5 hours of stale mate!
Why? Well we can turn to back to realism to explain this, some realists (K.W. Deutsch and J.D.Singer 1964) differ in opinion from the uni-polar realists and think that multi-polar structures are better for stability. This was the case in this risk game. Both the Reds and the Blacks wanted to destroy each other but the Yellows had both of their backs, if the Blacks invade the Reds they would be at a slight disadvantage and the Yellows would take the opportunity to seize North America which would instantly leave the Blacks with only South America and if the war went well maybe Africa, not enough and they would be wiped out. If the Reds attacked the Blacks the Yellows would attack the Reds from behind against weakening them so they would likely loose the war. In other words Reds can't focus on Blacks as then Yellows will focus on them and the triad keeps peace.
The Greens add another poll to consider, logically both the Reds and the Blacks want Europe but if the Reds attack the Greens they would have a slight disadvantage and the Blacks would take Africa, and visa versa. The Yellows might also be temped to invade the Greens but this would be a disaster for them; as they under produce the Blacks they would loose a war with the Blacks if they moved troops into Europe out of North America. The Reds would then see this happening and intervene most likely by attacking Africa with its full force knowing the Yellows don't have the man power to attack them in Asia or maybe even simply capitalizing on the Yellows weakness to take Asia from them.
What is the situation for the Greens though, is there any hope? Well I was unfortunately the Greens, at one point I held Europe and North Africa but I over stretched and was pushed back. The trick for survival of the Greens is to play off the other players. As the Greens I continually changed sides between the Reds and Blacks to ensure neither were stronger and even pandered to the Yellows at times. So all the powers balanced and it seems 'The Risk' model suggests that a multi-polar system is the best. Its also important to note the situation didn't change for 5 hours
because players never gained relatively to each other, 5 hours later seen bellow is no different to at the start! No relative gain!

I did say earlier on that this power balance was a 5 hour stalemate, I didn't say it ended like this! Another point often highlighted by Realists amoung others is that empires never last forever, peace was not the end story. Despite this stalemate we played on, not because we had any fascination for realism and honestly believed we were proving anything but because we were enjoying the joys of the game; a chance to sit round and chat. There's nothing better than catching up with some friends, talking about university and if all else fails chatting about the horrifying prospects of having to attack Afghanistan.
What you'll see from the above picture is that the Greens had lost one province to the Blacks and one to the Yellows. This happened as the Yellows stuck at Scandinavia then stopped preventing the Blacks wiping them out. Instead the Blacks took 'Ukraine' but instantly moved men out tempting Reds into an attack, they didn't take the bate but the Greens did. Striking out the Green armies took Ukraine then tackled the Red army head on. The Blacks saw their moment to strike and all hell broke loose. The Yellows poured down from the North taking Europe, the Greens migrated east until they were corned in Australia and finally picked off by the Reds. Then the Blacks took North America from the Yellows who didn't have the strength to maintain its frontiers and emerged as the sole super power. Game Over.
So it would seem Risk that taught us that a multi-polar structure is the most stable, so long as actors are willing to switch sides to ensure a balance. I'm not saying I expect a lecture on Risk anytime soon but as a simplistic model its an interesting study of Realism in action without having to actually put it in action... little plastic pieces are preferable test subjects than nations and people!

The Blacks looking pleased while the Yellows flex their muscles, the Reds watching on from a distance!

Its worth considering in the changing world we live in that perhaps Chinese growth is not a bad thing. China could be moving to counter America that could stay strong or decline. Many people talk of the Brics; Brazil, Russia and India are growing so Chinese dominance is not granted, a multi-polar world could occur. Also I've just been light messing around with a bit of Realism in lighthearted manner, their are many other ideas like that Liberalism I called drivel earlier which says war isn't for ever and in fact Liberal Democracies don't go to war with each other. Maybe they have a point, USA vs UK don't seem likely or even EU vs USA (marginally fairer) is a long way off. We can never be sure, which is one of the joys of IR theory and Risk!

Follow up to what to do with Preston

The Tithebarn project has fallen through and now Preston Council is considering what to do with Preston City Center. While their are many ideas, Ben Casey is proposing what I think to be a genius idea.
He wants to convert half the bus station into shops while retaining the other half a bus station.
This will allow for development of this historic building and mean the bus station is kept in a location that is valued by the community but also mean new shops can be build and the surround area invested in. The project will cost less than the Tithebarn project and seems to have all sides happy.
Considering the weight of public opinion towards this issue it seems the obvious solution to all sides problems.



Written from LEP article and Preston bus station.co.uk

What to do with the City of Preston, Concerning the Bus Station

Internationally Preston is not well know, even the people of Preston sometimes are known to joke about how on earth it became a city. If you live in the UK you may have heard of Preston for one of these reasons; you've heard of the University of Central Lancaster that's based in Preston, if you heard about 12 year old cage fighters or maybe Preston's bus station that was recently in the news for being an endangered historic building.

Preston at it's best, the Harris building.

The City council has a plan to put Preston on the map. It's a new shopping complex and refurbishment of the market end of town. Unfortunately they have it completely wrong! The idea that Preston can be put on the map by building a new shopping center like say Manchester, Blackpool, Birmingham, Hull, London... and pretty much every city in the UK, is doomed to fail by its nature! We are in an economic slow down, shops are closing down throughout the country, their are boarded up shops in Preston and the project will cost billions of pounds the council don't have and they have recently lost financial backers because its a bad idea!
As if this idea didn't seem bad enough as you look deeper it gets worse, they will build this site were the bus station currently is by tearing down the bus station then building a smaller bus station further way from the train station (occurring to some reports although the plans keep flip flopping)  and if you didn't know the bus station is the largest car park in Preston. We don't have a surplus of parking so why do they want to removed a large multistory car park to make room for something that will bring people into the city then leaving them with no were to go. What will bring people to Preston is something different basic common sense, never mind economics will tell you that there is a limit to the amount of revenue that can be made from shopping, any gain in one place is a loss to another. Preston needs to make itself different but the tragedy  is it already is.

Recently Preston made headlines for the right reasons because one of its buildings was listed as an important monument. Preston Bus Station has just been added to the World Monument Fund's treasured places at risk list, this list only contains 67 buildings global! Preston Bus Station is not just loved by architects, it recently came top of the Lancashire Evening Posts most loved building in Preston. In fact, as i pointed out to the council, the Save Preston Bus Station had far more facebook likes than Preston Council's page.
The tragedy of all of this is while Preston Council fights with supports of the bus station nothing is being done in Preston, now Preston Council blame supporters of the bus station for slowing things down but actually supports of the bus station want the same thing. No body wants to keep the bus station as it is but it needs to be developed. This is the dream for the bus station:

Preston bus station concept, More at: Link

Preston Bus Station could be incorporated into a new shopping center! A shopping centers that will catch the eye unlike the same old shinny monstrosity proposed by the council. Perhaps people will say look at this amazing building that has been brought back to life. It's better there are so many options open to the bus station to give it life! The large flat level on top would be perfect for an elevated park. The other day I saw skaters enjoying the curves of the bus stations, perhaps one of the upper levels could be a skate park? Putting to use what we have, that developing the community and putting things to good use. 

We simply cannot keep the bus station because it is unique, it is a drain on finances, to bring it up to standard would cost £4 million alone! People often the quote the £700 million investment here but that isnt our money, its the developers money and they wouldn’t pay £4 million to clean up the bus station i'm afraid.
- Preston Council -Link

No they wouldn't pay for £4 million to clean it up but it's easier to get £4 million than £700 Million. Realistically of course the dream of refurbishing the bus station would cost more than £4 but it would probably cost less than £700 Million. One of the main investors was John Lewis, which is now scaling back its new operations and I think has pulled out of this project. Forget building a huge shopping center on the site of the bus station, convert it into smaller plots in which small shops can set up. Smaller shops are better for the economy than larger ones that simply put all competition out of business and it makes the project more adaptable. If one pulls out its not a loss making the project all together more adaptable.

UCLAN

 
The great thing about refurbishment is that it could attract the graduate jobs Preston wants. As mentioned earlier UCLAN is on the rise attracting international attention. The problem is graduates can't find that many local jobs. An interesting building like the bus station could be what brings businesses into Preston to stay. Perhaps some of the bus station could be offices? If you left some of the many floors are parking and kept some buses running out of it, it would be an amazing place to base a business! In a city with graduates, in a building with a park on top, parking, buses on site and by using the walk ways you could get straight into the Guild Hall which would benefit from more business along with nearby markets that would of course add the attraction. An alternative option to the current project wouldn't even be too ridgid seen as there are still near buy buildings that can be demolished if needs be.
It blows the mind to think that Preston Council is pushing forward a project that costs a huge amount of money, is not popular (we need development in the city is not equal to we support the project! That is fact skewing), not as beneficial as the alternatives and results in tearing down an unique piece of architecture in return for paying an new architecture to design something which will fade away into the hundreds of 21st center shopping centers being erected globally. Dare I say the whole thing whiffs of a personal vendetta by certain members of the council. I hope the council wake and think differently! Now is not the time to simply open the first page of the city development hand book and pick out the obvious shopping centre option, we can't take Liverpool One drop it in Preston and expect all our problems to go away.
Were living in changing times, we can't live in a society built on excessive consumption and borrowing which is exactly what this project is. It's time to put the Tithebarn project to rest and for the council to practice what its preaches: Recycle!


Sign the partition

Looking back at Libya

The Libyan war looks like it will cost over £1.7 billion! It's a costly amount but worth while in my opinion. I've always been on the side of the war in Libya, this is why.
Opposed to the other wars in the Middle East the Libya conflict was against a clear foe and with the support of the majority. In the war in Afghanistan the US an its allies took sides with the Northern Alliance that had been in civil war with the Taliban, then quickly ended the current government and replaced it with this new government of militants and war lords. There was little control, it was poorly managed and the Taliban were turned from being in power to being nothing then re-emerging as a hard core terrorist organization with the new Afghanistan government being utterly corrupt and huge division in the country. In the Libyan war it was not power hungry war lords that were seeking to over throw Gaddafi but normal citizens. Equally the support for Gaddafi was relatively small if the country was united then it would not have huge sections of the population that would instantly be cast out.
Another key factor was that we didn't land troops or 'wage war' on Gaddafi, instead our approach was to give the rebels the military backing they couldn't possibly must them selves. 'lending' air support to the rebels helped them counter Gaddafi in ways that they couldn't have done other wise.
Yes we did intervene and while there is no denying that we went further than simply protecting civilians and actually removed the Government, yet there is also no denying if we hadn't intervened then there would have been far worse atrocities. The hidden mass graves slowly being uncovered are tell us that.

If we don't intervene then we become isolationist, if we had just kept our selves to our selves and let it sort out then what kind of country would we be. The people of Libya were asking for our help. I find it hard to tolerate the opinion that we have budget problems so we shouldn't save tens of thousands of lives. Isolationism militarily, politically and economically only leads to war, oppression and economic depression.
I accept that greed played a part in driving this war, oil! I guess to be an economist is to accept that greed can sometimes bring about good, capitalism is built on greed and while there is no doubt ( to most sane people) that unbridled capitalism has huge costs and the beast of greed must be controlled through intervention, along the way it creates great things.
I'm not being naive there are a lot of problems in Libya, a revolution causes lasting damage to a country. First of course being that Gaddafi isn't dead, there is still a risk of Gaddafi extremists but as we've seen actually so far this appears to minimal if existent at all? The biggest problem is of course that their is now an entire country flooded with arms! As a matter of fact the fact that Gaddafi is still fighting has some advantages, it channels the violence at an enemy, it's giving the transitional council time to prepare for when its all over and they need to deal with controlling the country. Essentially the fact that fighting is still going on means the council has yet to deal with it, all though of course I'm sure everyone is hoping that Gaddafi's supporters give up soon. Another risk is the council may also struggle to keep a fair open democracy going. The problem that new countries often end up falling back into the old traps of dictators is a very real risk for Libya although they have an key advantage, the support of powerful nations. Libya is now a close ally to Europe and is located near to Europe. It's quiet developed and willing to be democratic. There's reason to be hopeful.

Looking back at Libya it shows that while war is generally wrong, sometimes correctly managed and well executed with a bit of luck thrown in, it can be a really help to people. Still this doesn't mean we should be bombing the middle east until we've made it more westernized! Every siduation is different, were fortunate that in this case we actually got it relatively right  and made a difference.

Cameron looking smug

Who is rioting?

Who would have thought in a time of heavy cut backs in police, military, benefits and community services, in a time of economic crisis, political discontent and global unrest that the UK would see rioting... it sounds so simple when you put it that way but these riots seem to be more a looting and arson spree than a statement of discontent. Its very difficult to take a line, are these people simply mindless and violent thieves or the victims of a society which has failed to deal with certain areas of long term depravity and deteriorating social responsibility.
There is a lot of talking around about what turns a person into a looter or a rioter? A lot of the arrested are criminals that have been perilously arrested, it seems a lot of the looting is simply a result of criminals uniting to over run the police. While there may be some individuals rioting for ideological reason the vast majority are rioting for the pleasure of destruction and reward of theft. These riots may have been started in response to a young man being shot dead by police when he may not have had a gun but now in the 3rd day there is no political reason driving it. 

Pictures like this of a boy being mugged while he bled some up the mentality of the looters; theft.

While these rioters are criminals and clearly need to be dealt with there is an issue, what turned these people to this. In the long term why have these youth's decided the path of criminality is best?
That is a deep social issue and it is linked to unemployment, upbringing, social mobility and education. The areas many of these individuals come from are areas of high relative poverty. These young people have made the decision that they gain more benefit from looting than obeying the law. This is a decision that can be influenced, perhaps if the punishment was worse they would not riot. Perhaps if they had more options. Perhaps if the draw back from rioting came from within, if they believed it was wrong! Dealing with these problem can help reduce crime but the problem is it requires money, something the government is short of. These events are everyone's problem and we are all a little bit responsible.

There are huge negative externalities for all of society to bare if we don't deal with this

At the end of the day, though, these people are not reflective of the UK or the youth of the UK. What ever reason is driving their actions it is uncalled for. What is necessary is control to be restored so mass theft and burning of homes is stopped, what we need to make sure is that we don't give up on these areas of depravity. The worse thing we can do is to label people and write of areas as thug foundries, some say we need a much bigger stick (or water cannon?) but we also need a carrot too. Think short term and long term, cutting back the stick and removing the carrot will only lead to an enviroment for this behavior to re-occur. 

E.coli Economics (what is good economics)

The E.coli outbreak is just another thing to at to the list of things making this world a bit of dreary place at the moment, so many negative externalities to current events. The E.coli outbreak is an example of another external factor its very difficult to put into models, economics is very dynamic and far reaching and so is the world on it.

The future of salad sales or even tourism to europe is uncertain, its likely the cucumber market will take years to recover after wild accusations. Equally will this see a shift in investment? This area of medicine could see a boost, its difficult to know. The decision to invest in a E.coli treatment opposed to another treatment could save or cost lives and that kind of decision can fall into the rhelm of economics. Economics is not just fiddling with graphs in a dusty room, the future of humanity relies of economics.  its always been that way, we just didn't call it economics. Economics is philosophy, politics, psychology, maths, history, geography.. it touches all other subjects and in my opinion a good economist knows that. 

I've found there is a rivalry between academic areas, stereotypically physicists look down their noses at psychologists who call themselves scientists, geographers don't like economists 'butting in on their subject' but after all all subjects cross over. If you want to a build a space shuttle you need everyone, you need the mathematician to calculate, you need plenty of physicists, it won't work with out your computer scientists and chemists. If you want to know if its worth while or how to get the resources to do it you need an economists or at least an economic climate that lets you built it; weather thats a firm after a profit of a communists government showing off! You need to know what space will do to people so thats your psychologists and sociologists, the list goes on and on. 

Ideas should be put together, people should work together, thats all people and after all thats pretty much the reason the interest is so critical. Stagnation of ideas or worse, refusal to listen to others is what will be the down fall of everything! 

Free communication and cooperation is key and the most important thing in economics should be ideas! You can't do anything to the factors of production with out enterprise, in what ever form it takes. A closed minded economists won't get far because as annoying as it may be, economics models break over and over again and every recession throws up a new wave of problems. 

The E.coli outbreak might at first seem to fall into the rhelm of medicine but its clear its effects are far reaching. 

Vote No to AV campaign Parody.

When you go to vote on the 5th of may, make sure you vote NO to AV

Why you ask?

Well here is why:

There are only a few countries that use AV, Indonesia and Austral the only ones worth mentioning and those countries are rubbish. People in these countries don't even like AV (source: ....) we should listen to them.

AV could lead to smaller parties having more political power as it leads to a voting system that better reflects what people actually want! We can't have that! Can imagine those small parties like the Greens getting into a position of power or the BNP! Do you want the Nazi’s to win? NO then vote NO.

Nick Clegg thinks AV is a good idea; he is a big liar and knows nothing. We all hate deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg so AV must be evil too! That logic is undeniable.

Vote No to AV is a cross party organization of all British politicians:  Mainly Tory’s but they are all that count oh and look a Labour Peer and these guys...

If your looking for some of the many credible reasons not to vote AV try looking on the internet..

An accurate and fair advert for AV

The vote No to AV campaign: because personal jibes on your allies and childish reasoning is how to get your message across. 

Vote No to AV campaign is cross political movement.. funded by the Tory donor alliance

Public Sector Pension's reform likely to trigger unrest

The Hutton Report has announced that public sector pensions will be reformed, which means that most workers in the public sector will get less and will have to work longer. The new system will involve scrapping the final salary scheme in which pension is determined by final grade and insted pensions will be determined by average pay throughout career. As for the retirement age, it will be brought into line with the national retirement age of 65 from its previous age of 60 for public sector workers. This is yet another blow for the public sector to add to the pay freeze, which with inflation predicted to be 4% will see a significant fall in real income (in fact employees in the public sector will be 4% worse off).
Taking away pension rights, freezing pay, sacking workers and putting remaining staff under pressure is a sure way to stir up wide spread union action. Civil service unions have becoming increasingly more daring in recent years, increasing strikes and its rumoured they are mobilising for mass protest. Add to the civil service unions to the battle cries of the aggrieved teaching unions, the already striking lecturers, furious students and the police federation has made its stance as very much against the Government. You have to wonder who isn't against the Government.
Walking around Preston Town Centre I was surprised to see members of the Socialist Worker Party asking for signature against cuts, I was even more surprised to see the number of signatures they had as people showed a keen interest in their march on London. The graph from Youpoll shown bellow shows the decline in popularity of the Lib Dem and Conservative party since forming Government.

The popularity of the Government is falling and Unions are mobilizing, times are going to be very tough for the Government. As long as they maintain their plan of contractive fiscal policy through cut backs whist leaving the super rich and culprit banks untouched, people are going to questions what Government they elected.

Libya

Since the protests in Tunisia sparked up the events middle east I have watched very closely. Tunisia and Egypt saw their undesirable leaders fall but it is Libya where the greatest struggle is. Not in my life time have I seen anything I would consider to show as many examples of bravery, courage, determination and passion as in Libya. Its very all too easy to place the label of good and bad onto each side in Libya, Col Gaddafi seems to be epitome of villainy.
Gaddafi's regime was the classic dictator model of Police State, State TV and keep your subjects in horror and awe. The fact is that those on the streets of Tripoli supporting Gaddafi actually appear to believe that he is saving them from Western Colonists that are funding an al qaeda rebellion to take their oil! While that is not evil its just staggering ignorance, it does mean that Gaddafi's supporters don't really have a grasp on the situation and thus surely it is the rebels liberating them not Gaddafi. We should consider though that from their perspective Gaddafi did drive out their King and considering the controversy surrounding Iraq and general behaviour of oil companies it becomes more plausible that with state media that these people could believe Gaddafi's nutty account of events. Gaddafi feeds his supporters tales of mighty victories against the rebels which so far have mostly lies!
Gaddafi told 'his people' that he had taken the oil town of Ras Lanuf when in fact it was still under rebel control and declared Zawiya liberated when it had been levelled to the ground it reports suggest rebels still remain. In fact when the BBC attempted to visit Zawiya 3 reporters were beaten up to the point of death and thrown on a flight home...

Gaddafi's forces are killing civilians, beating up news crews, they have superior fire power and most of them are violent gangs or mercenaries. The rebels have some basic weapons, a few stolen tanks, toyota pick up trucks but more importantly resolve! Holding Ras Lanuf and Zuara against the odds day after day is a miracle yet I fear it may not last. Zuara and Ras Lanuf are under huge pressure now from land and air, there is only one clear solution... intervention.
To intervene or not to intervene, is a question that up until Gaddafi started bombing his own people was hard to answer, it is now a question with a more obvious answer; no fly zone. We have frozen Gaddafi's assets and demanded his resignation to response, so we should now impose a no fly zone. Of course there are problems with this, such as having to bomb Gaddafi's air felids and it is claimed that it could alienate some rebels and Eastern leaders, these seem to be fading. The rebel government in Benghazi appears to be asking for it, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic council approve, France and the UK are pushing for it and the USA is hinting so why have we not imposed it! A no fly zone would simply rob Gaddafi of his unfair advantage, its not sending in troops.
It seems to me to be out-ragious that we sitting just off the Libyan coast with the power to stop Gaddafi yet we do nothing, Gaddafi is murdering his own people with arms we sold him and hired troops with money we helped him accumulate. If we don't move quickly the rebels could loose and I would never forgive the British Government for that, we're willing to take money from the expoliations of the Libyan people but then not give a damn when they are fighting for the very principles we are supposed to be promoting. On another not, its interesting how quick we run to America when they propose military intervention but when we bring an idea to the table that doesn't involve sending in troops to conquer a country they won't commit.

Arise Comrades! Communism has returned?

If you check Wikipedia you will find it will tell you that the Communist Party of Great Britain disbanded in 1991. Textbooks may imply that Communism is long gone and with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and China now widely regarded as a capitalist nation you would be forgiven for thinking that Communism is dead never mind the concept  it exists in the UK.

However your wrong, despite officially disbanding in 1991 the Communist Party of Great Britain merely changed its name and after several mergers it appears to have re-emerged. Here is the website of CP (communist party): http://www.communist-party.org.uk/  

Formed of trade unionists put off by New Labour and other Socialist supporters that have been neglected by mainstream politics, as well as long-standing communist supporters. Its not really a surprise to see a return to strength for the Communist movement, considering the growing uneven distribution of income, rising unemployment and political disillusion (voting figures can tell you this). The movement also states in its party slogan 'for peace' tapping into the growing 'anti-imperialism movement' (that being imperialism of the USA, that evil capitalist over lord). There’s also no better catalyst than Conservative Government with a regressive austerity plan at a time of stagnating growth and rising inflation. 

Youth Employment is still rising and its clear to see the consequences of this, all you have to do is look at a few boarders south to find millions of revolting Arabs bringing down corrupt 'capitalist' kings. The students protests showed British students are willing flare up their own small-scale revolt and when attending an open day at Manchester University I saw plenty of Marx propaganda. 

I would say main stream politicians are really not taking seriously the threats these movements pose and the media is quick to pick on plenty of far right examples (BNP EDL etc), in times of economic desperation and political disillusion people turn extreme.  

Communist-Party Manifesto - Click Here

Communism, a mad theory created by a bunch of destabilizing radicals or the answer?